I understand that it is still LEGALLY under review, but when both the Federal Air Surgeon & the then-acting (recently confirmed) head of the FAA both said it was a non-starter do you really think there is any chance of the proposal going anywhere?Originally Posted by Hal Bryan
Oooh Im not saying you cant build one cheaper,Im just saying the have fixed cost on parts that are not under their control( engine, avionics,materials,labor) the price for a factory LSA is going to be at least costs,markup is up to them. The hole statement Im making is that before the excemtion possability ,LSA companies where selling and after the orders and sells fell off the cliff and I pesonally know one that will be gone shortly
Well I hate to see aviation continue it's decline no matter what the reason, and of course everyone in business needs to make a profit, but to do that they need to make sales and grow their market. Van's is doing it "apparently" and at what I consider high prices but it's all perspective and this is just mine. I was hoping the Medical exemption would go through just so vintage LSA qualified aircraft would come back down to a price that would make them attractive to own and be worth saving, again just my reason, I feel it will indeed "kill" the LSA/SLSA market. It won't kill the sport pilot program though I'm pretty sure that's here to stay. As for insurance I am sure it's a large burden that once again would be offset by volume....which isn't there.
Older pilots are leaving aviation in droves thanks to the ridiculous and unnecessary requirements of the third class medicals. The LSA class was created with an arbitrary set of numbers to keep pilots involved in sport aviation as well as to use as a stepping stone to get more pilots into aviation. However, new LSA Aircraft are prohibitively expensive. Is it better to continue driving down the number of pilots to save the LSA class, or allow more aircraft to be flow under similar rules to keep more pilots involved in aviation and to introduce more pilots to aviation by making it more affordable?
Additionally, the low gross weight and light wing loading of the LSA class has lead to a very high accident rate in those aircraft. The FAA has recognized this and 2 years ago had their FAST teams out talking to LSA pilots about the problems. Allowing pilots to continue flying the heavier aircraft as proposed in the 3rd class medical exemption will help reduce that accident rate. So, do we want to protect an industry class or do we want to protect pilots and keep them involved in aviation?
-CubBuilder
What you mean is they are still following the rulemaking process. At the completion of the 'review,' no action will be taken and the proposal with wither and die. The problem is proponents have failed to prove their case that safety will not be compromised by lack of medical certification.
LSA was created to bring "fat" ultralights into regulated aviation where they belonged. any other "reason" was invented by EAA, AOPA, and anyone else who was hoping to make a few bucks building LSA compliant airplanes.
Here's a couple more thoughts;
Kyle has put together a pretty helpful cost estimate, I'd add that Van has stated many times that the basic airframe cost for a 2 place aircraft is about the same for his LSA and any of this non-LSA kits. He presented that thumb-nail back when the RV-12 was introduced. As for the LSA market, it will live in the training world with a reduced market beyond that if the 3rd Class waiver passes. Cessna has invested in the Skycatcher as the new C-150/152 replacement, sure the company would like to sell as many of these as possible in the USA, but the big growth market is really China. I'd sure like to hear what Jack Pelton has to say on this subject, maybe Hal can poke the bear on this topic! Every time we get a thread on the LSA we get a bunch of guys grousing about the cost...wake up and smell the coffee. Low volume production with high purchased content is not a formula for low prices. Everybody in the chain has to recover all their costs plus get something extra for their stockholders.
Joe
In a press release last summer, Cessna says they are moving certification of the C-162 Skycatcher from LSA to Primary Catergory. Apparently, this will facilitate sales in Europe. Not sure how it will affect sales in other parts of the world but clearly Cessna is not counting on a large chunk of future Skycatcher sales being here in the U.S.
I'd be curious to know what your source is for that statement because we have heard absolutely nothing to that effect. The simple truth is that there are over 16,000 comments that the FAA is required to pick over. Add to that the significance of the request and you have a timeline that is likely to be longer than most petitions we have filed. Petition requests do not "wither and die" as you may be used to seeing with legislation on the Hill. The FAA is by law required to give us a written response, whether their answer is positive or negative. We believe we have made a strong case and the FAA's response to our joint petition will bear that out.
Tom Charpentier
Government Relations Director
EAA Lifetime #1082006 | Vintage #722921
I (and others) heard that from a senior AME who was on the advisory council & heard the statement made. I'm not going to try to quote him on a public forum since I don't remember the exact words that were used.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote