Wondering What Light Sport Can Do For You?

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote

It is worth noting, however, that the FAA has granted at
least one waiver to that exclusion, permitting a true
amphibian with the ability to take off on either land or
water and land on the other.

I thought I remember reading that the FAA had given assurances to someone
(EAA?) that there would be new language to work out the problem of
repositionable gear for amphibians. Am I dreaming this, or does anybody
else remember this, too?

http://www.sportaircraftworks.com/pr%20new.html

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote

It is worth noting, however, that the FAA has granted at
least one waiver to that exclusion, permitting a true
amphibian with the ability to take off on either land or
water and land on the other.

I thought I remember reading that the FAA had given assurances to someone
(EAA?) that there would be new language to work out the problem of
repositionable gear for amphibians. Am I dreaming this, or does anybody
else remember this, too?
--
Jim in NC

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
[...]
You might read the Exemption as saying that the reasoning
behind granting it applies only to the specific design of
the Mermaid:

"The FAA finds the structural integrity of the Mermaid
aircraft is enhanced by its "flying boat" design. This
design offers increased protection for the occupants in
event of landing with improperly positioned landing gear. "

Interesting.

The finding of "structural integrity" would apply to any amphibian,
boat-hull or float-equipped. It's almost as though the FAA was not at all
concerned about gear-down water landings, but rather gear-up land landings,
and that it's really just the prohibition against retractable gear as it
relates to the usual landplane retractable gear issues that they were
focused on.

If so, I take back what I said about the FAA's thinking making sense. As an
owner of an amphib myself, I suppose I might have jumped to conclusions and
given the FAA the benefit of the doubt, thinking that they correctly
identified gear-down water landings as a significant safety risk that LSA
ought to avoid (gear-up on land is usually just expensive, gear-down on
water is often fatal and at a minimum almost always involves injuries). But
based on a reading of the text you've quoted, it seems they might have
foolishly just been worried about gear-up landings on land and don't really
care about the water-flying issues.

It will be interesting to see if they extend this waiver from the "no
retractable gear" rule for all amphibious LSA aircraft. If so, then they
are just being foolishly inconsistent, as usual.

Pete

If you splashdown in a Lake with the wheels down, the water
will enter the nosewheel compartment and cause some very
serious problems with the next take-off. The airplane will
perform an imitation of a submarine.



"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "T o d d P a t t i s t"
wrote in message
| ...
| [...]
| You might read the Exemption as saying that the
reasoning
| behind granting it applies only to the specific design
of
| the Mermaid:
|
| "The FAA finds the structural integrity of the Mermaid
| aircraft is enhanced by its "flying boat" design. This
| design offers increased protection for the occupants in
| event of landing with improperly positioned landing
gear. "
|
| Interesting.
|
| The finding of "structural integrity" would apply to any
amphibian,
| boat-hull or float-equipped. It's almost as though the
FAA was not at all
| concerned about gear-down water landings, but rather
gear-up land landings,
| and that it's really just the prohibition against
retractable gear as it
| relates to the usual landplane retractable gear issues
that they were
| focused on.
|
| If so, I take back what I said about the FAA's thinking
making sense. As an
| owner of an amphib myself, I suppose I might have jumped
to conclusions and
| given the FAA the benefit of the doubt, thinking that they
correctly
| identified gear-down water landings as a significant
safety risk that LSA
| ought to avoid (gear-up on land is usually just expensive,
gear-down on
| water is often fatal and at a minimum almost always
involves injuries). But
| based on a reading of the text you've quoted, it seems
they might have
| foolishly just been worried about gear-up landings on land
and don't really
| care about the water-flying issues.
|
| It will be interesting to see if they extend this waiver
from the "no
| retractable gear" rule for all amphibious LSA aircraft.
If so, then they
| are just being foolishly inconsistent, as usual.
|
| Pete
|
|

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
[...]
You might read the Exemption as saying that the reasoning
behind granting it applies only to the specific design of
the Mermaid:

"The FAA finds the structural integrity of the Mermaid
aircraft is enhanced by its "flying boat" design. This
design offers increased protection for the occupants in
event of landing with improperly positioned landing gear. "

Interesting.

The finding of "structural integrity" would apply to any amphibian,
boat-hull or float-equipped. It's almost as though the FAA was not at all
concerned about gear-down water landings, but rather gear-up land
landings, and that it's really just the prohibition against retractable
gear as it relates to the usual landplane retractable gear issues that
they were focused on.

If so, I take back what I said about the FAA's thinking making sense. As
an owner of an amphib myself, I suppose I might have jumped to conclusions
and given the FAA the benefit of the doubt, thinking that they correctly
identified gear-down water landings as a significant safety risk that LSA
ought to avoid (gear-up on land is usually just expensive, gear-down on
water is often fatal and at a minimum almost always involves injuries).
But based on a reading of the text you've quoted, it seems they might have
foolishly just been worried about gear-up landings on land and don't
really care about the water-flying issues.

It will be interesting to see if they extend this waiver from the "no
retractable gear" rule for all amphibious LSA aircraft. If so, then they
are just being foolishly inconsistent, as usual.

Pete


OK, the scoop I've been told SEVERAL times by the EAA is that the FAA
screwed up, and was "shocked" to see how the final wording read. But, being
a bureacracy, you can't ever admit to being wrong, so they had to come up
with words to solve the immediate problem, and words to solve the permanent
problem, all without admitting a mistake in the first place. When viewed in
that light, the Exemption wording makes a lot of sense.

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:fc8yg.84357$ZW3.70188@dukeread04...
If you splashdown in a Lake with the wheels down, the water
will enter the nosewheel compartment and cause some very
serious problems with the next take-off. The airplane will
perform an imitation of a submarine.

How many times have you landed a Lake in the water with the wheels down?
What data do you have to support your claim that the consequences you
mention are assured? And why in the world do you think that water in the
nosewheel compartment will "cause some very serious problems with the next
take-off"? For someone who presumes to know what will happen in a gear-down
landing in a Lake amphib, it's interesting to note that you clearly have no
idea that the nosewheel compartment of a Lake amphib is not watertight, and
that water inside it is not an issue whatsoever.

I am amazed at your willingness to make claims regarding topics you
obviously know nothing about.

When I learned to fly a seaplane, the instructor, a very
experienced seaplane pilot recounted his personal witnessed
landing of a Lake with the wheels down. He is dead now of
old age, so I guess you can just take my word that it isn't
a good idea or you can buy a Lake and try it for yourself.


"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:fc8yg.84357$ZW3.70188@dukeread04...
| If you splashdown in a Lake with the wheels down, the
water
| will enter the nosewheel compartment and cause some very
| serious problems with the next take-off. The airplane
will
| perform an imitation of a submarine.
|
| How many times have you landed a Lake in the water with
the wheels down?
| What data do you have to support your claim that the
consequences you
| mention are assured? And why in the world do you think
that water in the
| nosewheel compartment will "cause some very serious
problems with the next
| take-off"? For someone who presumes to know what will
happen in a gear-down
| landing in a Lake amphib, it's interesting to note that
you clearly have no
| idea that the nosewheel compartment of a Lake amphib is
not watertight, and
| that water inside it is not an issue whatsoever.
|
| I am amazed at your willingness to make claims regarding
topics you
| obviously know nothing about.
|
|

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
[...] But based on a reading of the text you've quoted, it seems they
might have foolishly just been worried about gear-up landings on land and
don't really care about the water-flying issues.

Well, I've had a chance to read the whole document now, and it appears that
the FAA believes that with smaller airplanes (ie LSA sized airplanes), a
gear-down water landing is "no big deal", at least with boat-hull amphibs.
They claim that the Seaplane Pilots Association has provided data that
somehow proves this. I know that my insurance company certainly does not
feel it's true, at least for the larger boat-hull amphibs such as the one I
own.

So, it seems that perhaps the FAA is considering this issue carefully and
rationally after all. The document refers to the NPRM for the Sport Pilot
stuff, which I haven't had a chance to read, saying that the NPRM itself
outlines the motivation behind the retractable gear language that's
currently in the rules. Obviously, reading the NPRM would offer a lot of
insight into the thinking behind those rules, as opposed to the various
inferences made in this thread.

Pete

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:2u8yg.84360$ZW3.50960@dukeread04...
When I learned to fly a seaplane, the instructor, a very
experienced seaplane pilot recounted his personal witnessed
landing of a Lake with the wheels down. He is dead now of
old age, so I guess you can just take my word that it isn't
a good idea or you can buy a Lake and try it for yourself.

I am unclear as to your point. I wrote in my post that gear-down landings
are hazardous. You replied in a way that implied disagreement. Now you are
claiming that "it isn't a good idea", which is exactly what I've been saying
all along.

Do you, or do you not, agree with me that gear-down landings on the water
are hazardous?

As far as buying a Lake and trying it myself, I own a Lake and would never
intentionally land it gear down, for the very reasons I've stated repeatedly
in this thread. If you'd been paying any attention, you'd realize that.

Pete

I think you completely misread my posts and the intention.

Landing gear down is important on land and gear up on water
is even more important.

The Lake with the wheels down has a large scoop effect on
the nose compartment. On the airplane that was seen, the
water blew out the nose compartment bulkhead. A rapid dive
was the result. Perhaps Lake has strengthened the bulkhead.

On a floatplane with conventional floats, a level or nose
low landing or rough water can [will] dig in and cause the
airplane to flip and sink until the floats are at the
surface and the cabin is under about 6 to 10 feet. With
amphibian floats and a proper nose high landing, being
flipped upside down is still a possibility and no worse than
with conventional floats.

It seems that even a sport pilot with just a few hours could
be taught to raise and lower the gear. I think as much as
safety, the FAA position on LSA is based on retractable
landplanes exceeding the speed limit, something no
floatplane will do.

I hold an ATP but presently no medical. I could fly a LSA,
it does seem that there may be more restrictions than are
necessary. I think a 61.31 endorsement should handle these
types of issues, just as sport pilots can get an endorsement
for different airspace classification, something a student
pilot can handle at 15-20 hours and night flight is allowed
student pilots but not sport pilots.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
message ...
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:2u8yg.84360$ZW3.50960@dukeread04...
| When I learned to fly a seaplane, the instructor, a very
| experienced seaplane pilot recounted his personal
witnessed
| landing of a Lake with the wheels down. He is dead now
of
| old age, so I guess you can just take my word that it
isn't
| a good idea or you can buy a Lake and try it for
yourself.
|
| I am unclear as to your point. I wrote in my post that
gear-down landings
| are hazardous. You replied in a way that implied
disagreement. Now you are
| claiming that "it isn't a good idea", which is exactly
what I've been saying
| all along.
|
| Do you, or do you not, agree with me that gear-down
landings on the water
| are hazardous?
|
| As far as buying a Lake and trying it myself, I own a Lake
and would never
| intentionally land it gear down, for the very reasons I've
stated repeatedly
| in this thread. If you'd been paying any attention, you'd
realize that.
|
| Pete
|
|