If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
In article ,
jan olieslagers wrote: Steve Hix schreef: In article , Jay Maynard wrote: On 2008-03-18, Highflyer wrote: The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It greatly simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard for aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight rules. Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped. As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above. This was about plane certification, not about pilot rating. Nevertheless, whether or not you can legally fly one at night or in IFR conditions is dependent on pilot rating as well as installed equipment. Things may be different on your side of the pond, but SLSA applies over here, and pilot certification affects legal use. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
Peter Dohm wrote:
I am not sure of the phrasing on that last part, regarding the engines; but engine and propeller combinations not certified under parts 34 and 35 (IIRC) are not supposed to be approved for night IFR. Several contributors here are much more knowledgeable of the specifics. Peter The SLSA version of the 601XL built by AMD can be flown both IFR and VFR day or night. It all depends on your ticket. |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On 2008-03-18, Steve Hix wrote:
In article , Jay Maynard wrote: Not true. [LSAs] can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped. As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above. True, and, for that matter, as long as you're not operating under the sport pilot rules with just your driver's license as medical. I was referring strictly to the aircraft. As always, there are a lot more rules that apply to any given operation than just those. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!) Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390 |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message
... Peter Dohm wrote: I am not sure of the phrasing on that last part, regarding the engines; but engine and propeller combinations not certified under parts 34 and 35 (IIRC) are not supposed to be approved for night IFR. Several contributors here are much more knowledgeable of the specifics. Peter The SLSA version of the 601XL built by AMD can be flown both IFR and VFR day or night. It all depends on your ticket. I took a look on their web site, and saw that they are using the Continental O-200, which appears to be consistant with what I supposed. Peter |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
Peter Dohm wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message ... Peter Dohm wrote: I am not sure of the phrasing on that last part, regarding the engines; but engine and propeller combinations not certified under parts 34 and 35 (IIRC) are not supposed to be approved for night IFR. Several contributors here are much more knowledgeable of the specifics. Peter The SLSA version of the 601XL built by AMD can be flown both IFR and VFR day or night. It all depends on your ticket. I took a look on their web site, and saw that they are using the Continental O-200, which appears to be consistant with what I supposed. Peter But I don't think that particular Sensenich propeller is certified. |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On 2008-03-18, Peter Dohm wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message ... The SLSA version of the 601XL built by AMD can be flown both IFR and VFR day or night. It all depends on your ticket. I took a look on their web site, and saw that they are using the Continental O-200, which appears to be consistant with what I supposed. The certificated version of the O-200, and a certificated Sensenich composite prop, and TSO'd instruments and avionics. There are only two LSAs (well, the other one's actually a family of closely related aircraft) that meet those requirements, the other one being the Tecnam Bravo/Sierra. There's at least one LSA manufacturer that claims LSAs can't be legally flown IFR, but I strongly suspect that's because they don't offer one. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!) Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390 |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
Jay Maynard wrote:
There's at least one LSA manufacturer that claims LSAs can't be legally flown IFR, but I strongly suspect that's because they don't offer one. Sport Aircraft Works Inc. may or may not be who you mean, but I've seen them make that claim in the past. Here's their web page (which looks like it has been changed since I've last checked, so it doesn't read as absolute as it used to): http://www.sportaircraftworks.com/ot...%20CRUISER.htm |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On 2008-03-18, Jim Logajan wrote:
Jay Maynard wrote: There's at least one LSA manufacturer that claims LSAs can't be legally flown IFR, but I strongly suspect that's because they don't offer one. Sport Aircraft Works Inc. may or may not be who you mean, but I've seen them make that claim in the past. Here's their web page (which looks like it has been changed since I've last checked, so it doesn't read as absolute as it used to): http://www.sportaircraftworks.com/ot...%20CRUISER.htm Yes, that's the page I was referring to. Even though they've toned it down, it's still corporate sour grapes because they don't offer an IFR-legal aircraft. Meanwhile, the sales manager for AMD commutes an hour or so each way in various of their aircraft in both VMC and IMC, and has run up about 500 hours of actual in the Zodiac. Those who say a thing can't be done shouldn't get in the way of those who are doing it. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!) Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390 |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 21:05:16 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:
Yeah, of course. They do it all the time. There are a few BD5s flying ( that was a typo) and they are most definitely quite dangerous. There are a few other contraptions flying around that have some serious issues structuarally, aerodynamically, etc. There's one particular type which is quite popular in my local group that fortunately never seems to get finished. The accident reports are littered with these things and I'm terrified that one of the members is going to ask me to test fly theirs for them. (think 180 mph VW) Bertie Then who'se to say the Skywalker, for instance, certified to the hilt, is safe? Aren't we back to Square One? FAA certification means exactly what?A higher possibility of a safe aircraft? -- I would also add that certification also implies a degree of mainatainability (if that is a real word) as well as fitness for a fairly wide range of applications. Basically, Part 23 is a set of generally accepted engineering standards; and I agree with Bertie that the RV series appear to be quite capable of being certified. The maintainability makes sense. The fact that a certification is long, expensive and extremely political makes sense why many don't. -- Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either! I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor, just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that might kill someone. |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven
WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 21:05:16 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote: Yeah, of course. They do it all the time. There are a few BD5s flying ( that was a typo) and they are most definitely quite dangerous. There are a few other contraptions flying around that have some serious issues structuarally, aerodynamically, etc. There's one particular type which is quite popular in my local group that fortunately never seems to get finished. The accident reports are littered with these things and I'm terrified that one of the members is going to ask me to test fly theirs for them. (think 180 mph VW) Bertie Then who'se to say the Skywalker, for instance, certified to the hilt, is safe? Aren't we back to Square One? FAA certification means exactly what?A higher possibility of a safe aircraft? -- I would also add that certification also implies a degree of mainatainability (if that is a real word) as well as fitness for a fairly wide range of applications. Basically, Part 23 is a set of generally accepted engineering standards; and I agree with Bertie that the RV series appear to be quite capable of being certified. The maintainability makes sense. The fact that a certification is long, expensive and extremely political makes sense why many don't. Educate us. What part of the certification process is "political"? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 181 | May 1st 08 03:14 AM |
Flew home and boy are my arms tired! | Steve Schneider | Owning | 11 | September 5th 07 12:16 AM |
ASW-19 Moment Arms | jcarlyle | Soaring | 9 | January 30th 06 10:52 PM |
[!] Russian Arms software sale | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 18th 04 05:51 PM | |
Dick VanGrunsven commutes to aviation | Fitzair4 | Home Built | 2 | August 12th 04 11:19 PM |