Lycoming 320 and EAA Light Sport Aircraft ?

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
Looks to me, that there needs to be a way for the factory builts to be
flown
for testing. That would be meeting consensus standards. If I want to
build
one, and meet consensus standards, I say I am going into production, and
this is my prototype. Work for you?

Jim........

It sounds to me that the foxes are in charge of the henhouse. If the
"Industry" sets the standards, you ain't a'gonna meet them unless you are a
bona fide paid-up member of the Industry. They will specify which models
meet their standards.

I say again - there is NO provision in the proposed rule which allows home
built aircraft.

To Quote BOb, "If I'm wrong, never mind".

Rich "Follow the money trail" S.

Looks to me, that there needs to be a way for the factory builts to be
flown
for testing. That would be meeting consensus standards. If I want to
build
one, and meet consensus standards, I say I am going into production, and
this is my prototype. Work for you?

Jim........

It sounds to me that the foxes are in charge of the henhouse. If the
"Industry" sets the standards, you ain't a'gonna meet them unless you are a
bona fide paid-up member of the Industry. They will specify which models
meet their standards.

I say again - there is NO provision in the proposed rule which allows home
built aircraft.

To Quote BOb, "If I'm wrong, never mind".

Rich "Follow the money trail" S.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hey...
I'm softening/broadening my perspective.

Hence...

I'm almost with you on this one.

If I'm almost wrong,
almost never mind.


Barnyard BOb -- Following the money almost every time.

"Barnyard BOb --" wrote in message
...

Hey...
I'm softening/broadening my perspective.

Hence...

I'm almost with you on this one.

If I'm almost wrong,
almost never mind.


Barnyard BOb -- Following the money almost every time.

Kits. Okay, I can see kits. Sonex has gotta be there. But no scratch-built.
No profit in it.

Rich "Please prove me wrong!" S.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:29:45 -0700, "Rich S."
wrote:

It sounds to me that the foxes are in charge of the henhouse. If the
"Industry" sets the standards, you ain't a'gonna meet them unless you are a
bona fide paid-up member of the Industry. They will specify which models
meet their standards.

I say again - there is NO provision in the proposed rule which allows home
built aircraft.

There doesn't need to be. If you build an airplane that CAN qualify as a
Light Sport Aircraft, you can fly it on a Sport Pilot certificate.

Your homebuilt requires an airworthiness certificate, receives an N-Number,
and must be flown by a certified pilot. A Light Sport Aircraft requires an
airworthiness certificate, receives an N-Number, and must be flown by a
certified pilot. If you have a Private Pilot certificate, you can fly the
homebuilt or the Light Sport Aircraft. If you have only a Sport Pilot
certificate, you can fly the homebuilt AND the Light Sport
Aircraft...assuming the homebuilt can meet the basic requirements for a
Light Sport Aircraft.

Where things are loose is how the determination is made whether a given
homebuilt DOES qualify as an aircraft a person with a Sport Pilot license
can fly. I've never heard any explanation as to how this will be
determined. EAA publishes a list of homebuilt aircraft which SHOULD meet
the requirements, but we do not know what proof the FAA will require. As
I've mentioned in the past, a Harmon Rocket builder can legitimately call
his airplane a "Kitfox." Once DOES wonder what the FAA will do, in these
kinds of cases.

Light Sport Aircraft is nothing more than a new certification category,
like "Normal," "Utility," "Aerobatic," etc. There is no point of
intersection with the Experimental/Amateur-Built category. The only issues
are with the new pilot license, not the aircraft category...i.e., whether a
person with a Sport Pilot license can fly a particular homebuilt.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
(Snip)
The only issues are with the new pilot license, not the aircraft
category...i.e., whether a
person with a Sport Pilot license can fly a particular homebuilt.

This may indeed be an issue, Ron - but it is a separate issue. The question
I have is the application of the following statement to the certification of
a unique aircraft:

"b.. New special, light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificates for
light-sport aircraft that meet an airworthiness standard developed by
industry."

If (and here's the rub) the Industry says that in order for a light-sport
aircraft to meet their rules, it must be constructed by the Industry or from
a kit manufactured by the Industry. There goes home designed, home built
aircraft.

So, who is the Industry? Is it a coalition of manufacturers? Is it a council
of manufacturers and the EAA? I honestly don't feel the EAA is interested in
representing amateur designers and scratch builders.

There are many questions and dilemmas ahead in the birthing of this new
sport aircraft genre. I hope no one forgets the little guy in their quest
for a dollar.

Rich S.

If (and here's the rub) the Industry says that in order for a light-sport
aircraft to meet their rules, it must be constructed by the Industry or from
a kit manufactured by the Industry. There goes home designed, home built
aircraft.

Sorry, how do you get that? LSA does not touch experimental / amateur
built in any way, it's unchanged.

Part of the deal for LSA not having to meet the 51% rule is that LSA
have to conform to a specification. You want to get rid of the 51% rule,
then you have to conform to a tested LSA design, including maintenance.
You comply with the 51% rule, you can do whatever you want with a
design. Take your pick!

If your aircraft complies with the performance and weight limitations of
LSA, regardless of what category your aircraft is certificated in, you
can fly it as a Sport Pilot.

Sorry, I really don't see that anybody is getting shorted in the least.
All of the present options are still there, and SP and LSA open up more.

Ed Wischmeyer

PS. I'll be in Oshkosh next week and will get the latest. If there's
anything new, I'll post it. Don't forget
http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/sportpilot/index.cfm for the Notice of
Proposed Rule Making.

"Ed Wischmeyer" wrote in message
...
If (and here's the rub) the Industry says that in order for a
light-sport
aircraft to meet their rules, it must be constructed by the Industry or
from
a kit manufactured by the Industry. There goes home designed, home built
aircraft.

Sorry, how do you get that? LSA does not touch experimental / amateur
built in any way, it's unchanged.

Ed.........

I'm sorry if I was not clear to you. I was referring ONLY to home designed,
home built Sport Aircraft. I said nothing referring to experimental/amateur
built category aircraft. I don't know how you derived that from my
statement.

Part of the deal for LSA not having to meet the 51% rule is that LSA
have to conform to a specification. You want to get rid of the 51% rule,
then you have to conform to a tested LSA design, including maintenance.
You comply with the 51% rule, you can do whatever you want with a
design. Take your pick!

What 51% rule are you talking about? The rule that Kit Manufacturers have to
follow? There is no rule that requires one person to perform 51% of the
operations necessary to construct an aircraft. You can have a whole troop of
Boy Scouts build it if you want to. In any case, I am talking about scratch
building - not KITS. I am not talking about repairman certificates.

If your aircraft complies with the performance and weight limitations of
LSA, regardless of what category your aircraft is certificated in, you
can fly it as a Sport Pilot.

The proposed rule does not say that. Read it again. The "Industry" can come
up with whatever rules it wants. It can require that only completed planes
from XYZ corporation meet its standards.

Sorry, I really don't see that anybody is getting shorted in the least.
All of the present options are still there, and SP and LSA open up more.

They may - and then again they may not. I hope they do, but I see enormous
potential for abuse of the concept.

PS. I'll be in Oshkosh next week and will get the latest. If there's
anything new, I'll post it.

Please do.

Rich S.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:10:09 -0700, "Rich S."
wrote:

"b.. New special, light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificates for
light-sport aircraft that meet an airworthiness standard developed by
industry."

If (and here's the rub) the Industry says that in order for a light-sport
aircraft to meet their rules, it must be constructed by the Industry or
from a kit manufactured by the Industry. There goes home designed, home
built aircraft.

Rich, we somehow have a major disconnect here. Either I'm not
understanding your point, are you aren't understanding mine.

Just like there are no such things as home designed, home built Normal
Category aircraft, there are 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.

The Light Sport Aircraft manufacturers can come up with as many devious,
new-product-limiting, "consensus standard" rules as they like. It has
absolutely *no* effect on the licensing of Experimental Amateur-Built
aircraft.

As an analogy, think of FARs Part 91 (General Operating and Flight Rules)
and Part 135 (Operating Requirements for Commuter and On-Demand
Operations). If the FAA changes Part 135, it doesn't effect the way we
have to fly our aircraft. Similarly, when the FAA develops new
certification standards for production aircraft (e.g., the Light Sport
Aircraft category) that has no effect on the certification of Experimental
aircraft.

If I'm still not clear, can you give me an example of how you think the new
rules would effect someone, say, an RV-10?

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...

If I'm still not clear, can you give me an example of how you think the
new
rules would effect someone, say, an RV-10?

Ron..........

This medium does have its limitations, doesn't it?

I didn't mean to say that I thought LSA would affect
Experimental/Amateur-Built in any way. I don't think that.

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.

Are you indeed saying that a Fly Baby, for example, will not qualify as a
LSA? 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?

Rich S.

On 18 Oct 2003 07:32 PM, Rich S. posted the following:
"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...

If I'm still not clear, can you give me an example of how you think
the
new
rules would effect someone, say, an RV-10?

Ron..........

This medium does have its limitations, doesn't it?

I didn't mean to say that I thought LSA would affect
Experimental/Amateur-Built in any way. I don't think that.

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.

Are you indeed saying that a Fly Baby, for example, will not qualify
as a LSA? 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?

Rich, it seems as if the point you are missing is that there are two
different sorts of light sport aircraft under the proposal. There is
the blanket definition where anything that meets the requirements such
as number of seats, stall speed, etc. are considered light sport
aircraft for the purpose of defining who can FLY them, and then there is
the additional set of rules that allow manufacturers to sell completed
aircraft without certifying them under FAR 23. The plans built fly baby
would still be registered as experimental amateur built, unless you
decided to put it into production, in which case you would have to meet
the consensus standards. And even as an experimental amateur built,
since it meets the LSA performance requirements, it can be flown by a
sport (or higher rated) pilot. At least that is my understanding of the
proposal.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/