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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting. You mean we have been paying all those EAA dues who is spending
tons to promote the new sport category? How does it benefit homebuilders - who are the major portion of EAA membership? Ron Wanttaja wrote in message . .. .... .......no such things as home designed, home built Light Sport Aircraft category aircraft. It's a new certification category to cover *production* aircraft, it has nothing to do with homebuilt aircraft. ....... Ron Wanttaja |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:32:39 -0700, "Rich S."
wrote: This medium does have its limitations, doesn't it? And its advantages...neither of us have whacked the other upside the head, yet. :-) What I am saying is, as I read the proposed LSA rules, I don't see any provision to allow an individual to design and build an aircraft which fits within the parameters of LSA. If you are saying that is correct and that LSA only allows production aircraft from a commercial manufacturer, then I have been under the wrong belief since I first heard of the proposal. The problem, like I said in an earlier posting, is that there are two *related* programs that will be starting: Light Sport Aircraft category and the Sport Pilot certificate. Hopefully, I'll make the difference clear by the end of this posting. Are you indeed saying that a Fly Baby, for example, will not qualify as a LSA? "A" Fly Baby cannot be certified as an LSA. The Fly Baby *design* can. No one will be able to present a Fly Baby to the FAA and receive a Light Sport Airplane certificate for it. What they *could* do is present the design to the FAA, prove the airplane meets the performance requirements (the airspeed, stall, gross weight limitations), prove it meets whatever structural standards the FAA (or an industry consensus) set, mounts an engine approved under the LSA regs, etc. For that trouble, they would receive a Type Certificate under the Light Sport Aircraft category that would permit them to manufacture and sell Fly Babies ready-to-fly. These production Fly Babies would be type-certificated aircraft. They wouldn't be treated like homebuilts. They could be rented, fly over congested areas, etc. (though I expect LSA won't be able to carry passengers or cargo for hire). Homebuilts can be maintained by anybody, but that is NOT the case with LSA category aircraft. It'll take an A&P. However, part of the LSA proposal allows a LSA manufacturer to offer courses that would give owners training sufficient to maintain and inspect their LSA-category aircraft. It would be like the current Repairman Certificate for homebuilts...but graduates of the factory training course would be allowed to maintain *any* of that type of aircraft (but not for hire). If someone took the Fly Baby maintenance course, they'd be able to inspect and repair ANY LSA-certified Fly Baby (but not the homebuilt ones, since they weren't made by the same "factory" that built the LSA-certified ones). And a holder of a PPL with a lapsed medical will not be able to fly that Fly Baby under day VFR as a LSA pilot? There's no such thing as a "LSA pilot." LSA is an aircraft certification standard. Again, LSA has absolutely nothing to say about pilot qualifications. But this is where understanding the proposed Sport Pilot license comes into play. Ignore, for a moment, the existence (or anticipated existence) of Light Sport Aircraft. The Sport Pilot license is intended to allow individuals to fly small, simple aircraft with relaxed medical and experience requirements. The Sport Pilot license will allow holders to operate planes with =N seats, weighing less than X lbs, and with certain stall speed and maximum speed limitations. If ANY aircraft (certified or homebuilt) meets those requirements, a holder of a Sport Pilot license can fly it (subject to checkout requirements that I understand are part of the proposal). A person would be able to operate a 1940 J-3 Cub, a 1946 Aeronca Champ, a 1947 Taylorcraft, a 1995 Kitfox, 1967 Fly Baby etc. with only a Sport Pilot license. Here's where it gets fun: The performance limitations of the Sport Pilot license were used as *requirements* for the Light Sport Aircraft category. In addition to the structural, engine, testing, etc, requirements, designs applying for certification in the LSA category will also have to prove they meet the Sport Pilot license limitations. There are issues regarding some of the classic airplanes that it's hoped Sport Pilots will be able to fly. I understand there are some cases where early models of a given design qualify for being flown by Sport Pilots, and later models do not (typically because of a gross weight increase). But that question NEVER arises if the plane in question is certified in the LSA category. An plane certified as an LSA can *always* be flown by a properly-trained Sport Pilot. So: Back to our Fly Baby example again. Let's say I jump through all the hoops and get the "Wanttaja Fly Baby" design certified as a Light Sport Aircraft. I can sell them ready-to-fly, I can lease them out, I can put them on the flight line of the local FBO for rental. I have to use an A&P to maintain those rental birds, but the ordinary owner will be able to take the factory course and do all the maintenance and inspection themselves. But...the homebuilt Fly Babies, such as the "Bowers Fly Baby", "Russell Fly Baby," "Langford-Bowers Fly Baby," even the brand-new, ultra-delux, "Shankland Fly Baby", etc. can ALSO be flown by someone with just a Sport Pilot license. But they can't be leased or rented out. The guy who built the "Russell Fly Baby" can get a Repairman Certificate, but he can't do the inspections on the "Langford-Bowers Fly Baby." To summarize: 1. Owners of a Sport Pilot license can fly ANY aircraft that meets the number of seats, gross weight, and the cruise and stall speed limitations. The aircraft themselves can be certified in ANY category...normal, utility, aerobatic, experimental, limited, LSA, etc. 2. Builders of homebuilt aircraft will be able to fly their creations with just a Sport Pilot license, IF the airplane meets the # of seats, gross weight, and cruise and stall speed limitations specified by the Sport Pilot license. 3. The new Light Sport Aircraft category is a simplified certification system for the manufacture and production of airplanes of moderate performance. Part of the certification requirements include the need to meet all the limitations necessary to be able to be flown by someone with a Sport Pilot license. If a plane is certified under LSA, there's no question whether a person holding a Sport Pilot license can fly it. Anyway, that's my understanding of the upcoming rules. Ed, Cy, anybody, please correct me if I went astray. (Whew....) Ron Wanttaja |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I susect the major porpotion of EAA members are wannabes who wandered
into Oshkosh and were forced into buying a 3 month membership Yup, I saw the stooges at Oshkosh, grabbing people and pummeling them about the head and shoulders until they forked up the dough. An awful sight, really... Ed Wischmeyer |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
... The problem, like I said in an earlier posting, is that there are two *related* programs that will be starting: Light Sport Aircraft category and the Sport Pilot certificate. Hopefully, I'll make the difference clear by the end of this posting. I think. . . Yes! those *are* the approach lights . . . Okay! I've got the runway in sight, now to get this thing slowed down. Thanks Ron & Del. Between the two of youse guys, I think I'm finally starting to get the picture and, while it ain't Angelina Jolié headed for the shower, it's not Ma Kettle, either. Now all I have to do is placard the Emeraude's gross weight and Vne for operation by a Sport Pilot? Rich S. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 07:49:42 -0700, "Rich S."
wrote: Thanks Ron & Del. Between the two of youse guys, I think I'm finally starting to get the picture and, while it ain't Angelina Jolié headed for the shower, it's not Ma Kettle, either. You shouldn't talk about Ampmeter's relatives like that... :-) Now all I have to do is placard the Emeraude's gross weight and Vne for operation by a Sport Pilot? By George, he's got it! I think he's got it! That's *exactly* where the uncertainty lies, for the homebuilder. How will the FAA determine if a given homebuilt (which, by definition, is a one-of-a-kind aircraft) complies with the limitations required to be flown under the Sport Pilot regs? Like the example I gave a few postings back...The box the kit came in said, "Harmon Rocket," but if the name on the application for airworthiness says "Fly Baby", what now? The EAA has a list of Sport Pilot-compatible homebuilts, but all they did was take the published numbers from the Aerocrafter book and compare them to the SP limitations. There's no verification of the numbers, and some of them are incorrect. For instance, the Fly Baby monoplane is listed on the SP-compatible list, but not the biplane...which has only 25 lbs more weight, lots more drag, and has 25% more wing area. Somehow, the Aerocrafter book has the wrong stall speed for the biplane. Will the FAA be allowed to use a list generated by a non-government organization? If they question Rich's Emeraude numbers, they can at least demand a ride and watch a GPS to verify the various speeds (find a headwind, Rich!). But what about single-seat airplanes? At best, this will end up similar to the "fat ultralight" problem...lots of aircraft violating the regs, but the FAA not really caring unless a particular case is too blatant. We may end up with a formula-based system to determine if a given homebuilt meets the requirements (wing loading limit, power loading limit, etc.). At worst, we may find the SP regs leave homebuilts off entirely (which would make a lot of EAA staffers' faces really red). Keep in mind, folks, that these standards STILL are not in place, and that there's no real indication as to how they've changed since they were released for public comment a year or so ago. We still don't know what the final answer is going to be...it may be issues like the above that has delayed them so long. Ron Wanttaja |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
... Will the FAA be allowed to use a list generated by a non-government organization? If they question Rich's Emeraude numbers, they can at least demand a ride and watch a GPS to verify the various speeds (find a headwind, Rich!). But what about single-seat airplanes? Catch 22 applies. With a passenger, I'd be violating the "Solo Only" placard. The Emeraude would be a single-seater unless I ripped out a bunch of radios, instruments, the wheel pants and my Teddy bear. Rich "No, you can't take it for a demo ride!" S. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
To summarize: 1. Owners of a Sport Pilot license can fly ANY aircraft that meets the number of seats, gross weight, and the cruise and stall speed limitations. The aircraft themselves can be certified in ANY category...normal, utility, aerobatic, experimental, limited, LSA, etc. 2. Builders of homebuilt aircraft will be able to fly their creations with just a Sport Pilot license, IF the airplane meets the # of seats, gross weight, and cruise and stall speed limitations specified by the Sport Pilot license. 3. The new Light Sport Aircraft category is a simplified certification system for the manufacture and production of airplanes of moderate performance. Part of the certification requirements include the need to meet all the limitations necessary to be able to be flown by someone with a Sport Pilot license. If a plane is certified under LSA, there's no question whether a person holding a Sport Pilot license can fly it. Anyway, that's my understanding of the upcoming rules. Ed, Cy, anybody, please correct me if I went astray. (Whew....) Ron Wanttaja Ron, If I may add to your analysis of the Light Sport Aircraft/Sport Pilot proposal... As I understand it, the FAA is actually proposing TWO different LSA airworthyness certificates. One is the "special" LSA certificate for factory built aircraft, and the other is the "experimental" LSA certificate. From an the aircraft owners standpoint, the difference would be that that an Exp. LSA could not be used for rental purposes, while the special (factory built) LSA could. The exp. LSA would require a flight test period and have specified operating limitations analogous to exp. homebuilts. As I see it, one would pursue the exp. LSA cert. only if: 1. You have an existing "fat" or two-seat ultralight, and the Exp. LSA would be the only legal way to fly it. 2. You want to hire someone to build most or all of your qualifying kit plane (and consequently not meet the 51% rule) and didn't want to (or couldn't) buy the completed plane from the factory. You'd need a Statement of Compliance from the kit manufacturer, which they could give only if they had built at least on plane and demonstrated that it met the consensus standards. If you can met the 51% rule, you'd rather have the exp. home built cert. 3. You want to modify an existing LSA so that its original cert. is invalid, but you maintain performance within the definition of LSA. I'm a newbe, so pardon me if I've missed something previously posted.:-) Wayne |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:43:11 GMT, Wayne R wrote:
If I may add to your analysis of the Light Sport Aircraft/Sport Pilot proposal... [Good stuff snipped] Thanks, Wayne! I haven't really been paying attention to a lot of the finer detail. Sounds like this is similar to the current rules that allow home construction of some airplanes. Piper had such a deal on the Super Cub about fifteen years ago, but I heard that they had few takers. But the LSA rules may be relaxed enough to get more interest. Ron Wanttaja |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|