LSA Requirements

[Boeing B-17G 42-231465]

I was wondering, do any of you think that the weight requirements for the light sport aircraft ever be changed to incorporate other aircraft? Small, slow planes like the Cessna 120/140, Luscombe 8E, and Cessna 150/152 and others are heavier than the light sport limitations, but are all small, two seat aircraft, slow and perform like light sports. Does anybody foresee this happening?

[kscessnadriver]

I was wondering, do any of you think that the weight requirements for the light sport aircraft ever be changed to incorporate other aircraft? Small, slow planes like the Cessna 120/140, Luscombe 8E, and Cessna 150/152 and others are heavier than the light sport limitations, but are all small, two seat aircraft, slow and perform like light sports. Does anybody foresee this happening?

No, it will never happen. Be glad they got the gross weight up to 1320 as it is.

[Bill]

Be glad the LSA limitation is 1320 lbs instead of the original limit. The FAA was fully aware of the characteristics of the Cessna 120/140, Luscombe 8E, and Cessna 150 and 152 when they set the limit and chose to exclude those aircraft. Why would they change the limit now?

[WWhunter]

Do a search on your very question and you may find that it has been asked a BUNCH of times. Seems like everyone without an LSA complient plane is trying everything they can do to get 'their' plane included. Lot of people hoping and praying for a miracle from our friendly FAA. LOL

[Floatsflyer]

I'm pleased to start the "yes it will" side of the debate. Why? Because precedent has already been set. Terrafugia(the flying car) has successfully applied for and been granted a weight increase waiver to accomodate the automobile safety standard requirements. And I have it on good authority that Icon has also applied for a waiver in order to provide their many A5 buyers/depositers with the much desired combination of electric wing folding and retractable gear. It takes organizations like the FAA great amounts of time to consider and make changes to anything but creating precedents have a way of eroding(through the courts and otherwise), over time, heretofor seemingly set in stone requirements.

[WWhunter]

Floatsflyer,
Boy oh boy I sure hope you are on to something there!!!
I own An LSA complient RANS S-7, a highly modified Champ that luckily is also LSA complient, and a 172 that of course is not LSA complient. Unfortunately due to a medical issue I will eventually have to fly SP if I want to continue to fly. I have owned the 172 for 25 years and probably could fly it in my sleep. I personally think the weight limit, where it was placed, was nothing but a political point. I feel it was complete BS that they wanted the weight kept low for safety reasons.
The new excemption that the EAA and AOPA are proposing is definitely a step in the right direction and I hope and pray that it is approved if we are going to save any semblence of General Aviation as we know it. EVERY pilot I have spoken to (asked) about their flying and the continual downward spiral of the amout of time they fly, usually ends up with a discussion on the ever increasing amount of rules and regulations that makes it more of a burden then an enjoyable experience. Of course fuel costs are also brought up.
Our worthless government is so power hungry all they can seem to do is regulate and try to control every aspect of our lives. Rant out.

[Boeing B-17G 42-231465]

Be glad the LSA limitation is 1320 lbs instead of the original limit. The FAA was fully aware of the characteristics of the Cessna 120/140, Luscombe 8E, and Cessna 150 and 152 when they set the limit and chose to exclude those aircraft. Why would they change the limit now?

Why would they choose to exclude those aircraft? Why excude a Luscombe 8E or the Cessna 120/140? Its not like those aircraft are hard to fly, or are high performance things. Each of my listed are slow, limited use airplanes. What was the original light sport limit? I'd say that anything with a lighter maximum weight wouldn't be all-too safe...

[Joe LaMantia]

I don't expect the current LSA weight to change, but I am hopeful that the Third-Class waiver being proposed by AOPA/EAA will allow a lot of us to fly our Skyhawks and Cherokees under Sport Pilot like rules in the near future.

Joe

:cool:

[S3flyer]

Terrafugia(the flying car) has successfully applied for and been granted a weight increase waiver to accomodate the automobile safety standard requirements
Terrafugia made a successful and logical argument that there were additional requirements for a roadable aircraft that were analogous to an LSA float plane. They received the same weight limit as the LSA float plane. I would expect any roadable aircraft to get the same treatment. I wouldn't hold my breath for that to apply non-float/non-roadable LSAs.

[Bill]

What was the original light sport limit?

1232 lbs.

The reasons for the increase to 1320 lbs were, according to the FAA preamble, "Some commenters wanted the weight increased to permit stronger aircraft structures, use of four-stroke or type-certificated engines, electrical systems for avionics, starters for engines, or ballistic recovery systems. The FAA is increasing the weight limitation of the light-sport aircraft from the proposed 1,232 pounds (560 kilograms) to 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms). The originally proposed weight limitation was based on the 1,200-pound weight limitation proposed by the ARAC’s light-sport aircraft working group. The FAA agrees that there may be a safety benefit to light-sport aircraft designs to include provisions for currently produced type-certificated four-stroke engines and ballistic parachute recovery systems. Commenters submitted data that indicated that an additional 60 to 70 pounds would accommodate four-stroke aviation powerplants, and that an additional 30 to 40 pounds would accommodate the ballistic parachute recovery systems. For these reasons, the FAA has revised its proposed maximum takeoff weight limitation to 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft designed for operation on land."

[steveinindy]

Unless they waiver the need for a medical to fly IFR, I see no difference if someone wants to do day only VFR in something that is <1300 lbs or over. Honestly, if you're just doing that for fun, why do you really need something heavier?

[martymayes]

I was wondering, do any of you think that the weight requirements for the light sport aircraft ever be changed to incorporate other aircraft?
Does anybody foresee this happening?

Would you rather see the LSA weight limit increased or elimination of the 3rd class medical for private pilots? Choose your battles carefully.

[Floatsflyer]

Terrafugia made a successful and logical argument that there were additional requirements for a roadable aircraft that were analogous to an LSA float plane. They received the same weight limit as the LSA float plane. I would expect any roadable aircraft to get the same treatment. I wouldn't hold my breath for that to apply non-float/non-roadable LSAs.<BR><BR><BR>


Yes they did S3, but factors like bumpers, fenders, catalytic converters, airbags, turn signals, brake lights, all day running 70% headlights, etc;etc; etc; are definitely not analogous to LSA seaplanes/floatplanes. As I previously said, they had to comply with a long laundry list of mandatory car safety standards that add weight. The FAA gave them the waiver to the seaplane limit because they had the legal leeway to do so and understood the special circumstances involved that were likely not at all anticipated when the new LSA rule was enacted. The key point is that a waiver was granted and a precedent was made so going forward, I believe it's now reasonable to expect that other LSA manufacturers may also be in positions to make cogent arguments for weight increase waivers. I.E. the hangar door's been openned.

[steveinindy]

As I previously said, they had to comply with a long laundry list of mandatory car safety standards that add weight.

The roadable car idea is the one technological zombie that will not die no matter how many times it is shot in the head or proven to be practically unfeasible.

[Joe LaMantia]

I'm with you on that one Steve!

Aircraft design has always had to make comprises based on mission requirements, short wings for speed, long wings for glide improvement and so forth. Combing a car with a auto gets you a crummy airplane and goofey car! If your into flying cars watch the "Jetsons".

Joe
:cool:

[rosiejerryrosie]

I'm with you on that one Steve!

Aircraft design has always had to make comprises based on mission requirements, short wings for speed, long wings for glide improvement and so forth. Combing a car with a auto gets you a crummy airplane and goofey car! If your into flying cars watch the "Jetsons".

Joe
:cool:

That being said, Joe, it sure would be nice to drive from your garage to the airport, press a button and the end of the runway, and take off without ever leaving the driver's seat, now wouldn't it? :D

[Bill Greenwood]

The Terrafugia plane is probably a technological achievment, but I can't imagine buying one unless you had some special need. To me it's really ugly, and I think the performance is low and it is really expensive. It also is not at all proven, who knows if it will be the next Edsel or something like a Rv-8 to really own and use?
There are probably a few people that may buy one just to have something unique, but really for more than a $quarter million you could buy a great used late model Mooney, which outruns the car/plane by 100 mph, or a good used Bonanza or Cirrus, even a award winning quality T-6, and you have a real airplane. Taste is individual, there are people that will pay millions of $$$ for a modern house that really looks like a cross between a dentist office and a warehouse, so someone might say this looks great.
The Terra really has the same performance as a C-172 available for $75,000. That's a lot to pay just to be able to drive on the road.

The car/plane ideal has been around for more the 50 years and no one has made it that great yet.
I think it is like trying to get a family dog, for all purposes. You want a Golden Retriever that can be trusted to be gentle and kind around small kids and a Pit Bull to protect your met lab from intruders. Can't get one to do both, and the demands are the opposite.
It's sort of like buying a stock, you can get a hot agressive one with technology and leverage that goes up in bull markets, or a defensive conservative one that falls less in bad times. But no genius has yet found one that is best in all seasons.

[Floatsflyer]

Hey Steve, Joe & Bill,

I agree with all your comments on the Terrafugia but you've really gone off on a tangent here where they have nothing to do with this thread. But OK, you've sucked me in. The Terra was conceived & designed by a bunch of really smart, bright MIT grads who have advanced the flying car concept to a level never seen before. I applaud them for their creative and innovative outside the box thinking and ability to go from clean sheet of paper to actually flying 2 proof of concept prototypes. They are determined to see the project through, appear to be well financed and as of last AV, told me they have over 100 deposits. Yes, it's a specialty aircraft, a novelty that will never see mass appeal but I can't help feeling thoroughly impressed by what these guys have accomplished. But the car part surely cannot be for every day road use. There will be a significant difference between getting a door ding on the family Ford at the local mall parking lot and one on the retracted wing of the Terrafugia.

[steveinindy]

Yes, it's a specialty aircraft, a novelty that will never see mass appeal but I can't help feeling thoroughly impressed by what these guys have accomplished

There's nothing to say that it's not a technological achievement. It's just not a concept that will be practical regardless of how smart the designers are. There are too many application issues (the safety one being the one I see most prominently, but then again that's my focus so it's what comes to mind...) for it to ever be practical in any form.

[rosiejerryrosie]

Not practical?? Just think. You walk into your attached garage, open the doors, drive to the airport, puch a button, roll down the runway, take off, fly to the next airport, land, punch another button, drive to the pizza place, eat lunch, drive back to the airport, push a button, take off and fly home. What's not practical??? :D

[martymayes]

Not practical?? Just think. You walk into your attached garage, open the doors, drive to the airport, puch a button, roll down the runway, take off, fly to the next airport, land, punch another button, drive to the pizza place, eat lunch, drive back to the airport, push a button, take off and fly home. What's not practical??? :D

Not all pizza joints are open for lunch.

[rosiejerryrosie]

Not all pizza joints are open for lunch.

Then fly to another airport with an open restaurant and repeat the exercise....:D

[Bill Ladd]

But I don't like pizza. Can we get burgers this time?

[Boeing B-17G 42-231465]

Not practical?? Just think. You walk into your attached garage, open the doors, drive to the airport, puch a button, roll down the runway, take off, fly to the next airport, land, punch another button, drive to the pizza place, eat lunch, drive back to the airport, push a button, take off and fly home. What's not practical??? :D

Oops! Somebody bumped your car-plane with his door, and you've got a nice ding. Uh-oh, you got hit by another car there goes your plane AND car. I'd rather have a plane thats good for flying, and a car thats good for driving, not a vehicle that's bad at both.

[Floatsflyer]

I'd rather have a plane thats good for flying, and a car thats good for driving, not a vehicle that's bad at both.[/QUOTE]


Don't know about the car portion, but everthing I've read on the flight testing to date indicates it's a pretty good flying airplane.

[rosiejerryrosie]

But I don't like pizza. Can we get burgers this time?

Burgers work! you buying?

[rosiejerryrosie]

Oops! Somebody bumped your car-plane with his door, and you've got a nice ding. Uh-oh, you got hit by another car there goes your plane AND car. I'd rather have a plane thats good for flying, and a car thats good for driving, not a vehicle that's bad at both.
But how do you get your car to the destination airport? you must be flying a C119 or larger.....:D

[rosiejerryrosie]

Oops! Somebody bumped your car-plane with his door, and you've got a nice ding. Uh-oh, you got hit by another car there goes your plane AND car. I'd rather have a plane thats good for flying, and a car thats good for driving, not a vehicle that's bad at both.

Not much different than somebody moving my airplane in the community hangar and dinging it. Still has to be repaired. Only difference is that it happened while at home and I don't have to worry how I'm gonna get home until its repaired. But if somebody dings my wingtip while I'm eating my pizza, I still have to worry about getting home. Maybe the answer to both problems, whether my airplane or my carplane is broken away from home, is to rent a car while the airplane is being repaired....

[Bill Ladd]

Burgers work! you buying?

Sure thing. I'm four miles from ILM NC

[Frank Giger]

Then fly to another airport with an open restaurant and repeat the exercise....:D

Airports with restaurants? Wazzat?

Down here we have vending machines. :mad:

[rosiejerryrosie]

Airports with restaurants? Wazzat?

Down here we have vending machines. :mad:

Mark your calendar for Father's Day weekend 15-17 June and plan to fly up to Shreveport North (62PA) for the 23rd Father's Day Fly In. All you can eat prime rib with all the fixen's on Friday, and an all you can eat traditional picnic on Saturday (Bar-B-Q, chicken, pulled pork, salads, drinks and desert. Free aviation related movies with free popcorn on the flight line each night after dark. And since it is also the 25th anniversary of the founding of the sponsors (the Mason-Dixon Sport Flyers), appropriate celebrations of that historic event are being planned. (No - a flight from Alabama would not be too long, and it would be an adventure you could write up as a chapter in your upcoming book :D

[Frank Giger]

If that's not incentive to have the Nieuport done with the 40 worked off nothing is!

[rosiejerryrosie]

If that's not incentive to have the Nieuport done with the 40 worked off nothing is!

Great! I'll reserve a spot for you.

[tdm]

No, it will never happen. Be glad they got the gross weight up to 1320 as it is.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Weight_Increase_For_LSAs_206054-1.html

Durr



(http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Weight_Increase_For_LSAs_206054-1.html)

[steveinindy]

If they are doing it in the name of safety, I'd be surprised if they bump it up more than a couple hundred pounds. To be honest though, if one really chose to do something in the interest of safety, it would not be necessary to increase the weight requirement. One could build an aircraft that would hold up much better than any of the spam cans that might be at the low end of the weight spectrum and likely candidates for inclusion under any reasonable expansion of the LSA or drivers license medical proposals. The technology exists and the techniques are well within the grasp of the average homebuilder. The problem is simply a matter of focus.

What I mean by that is the urge to cut weight out of an aircraft tends to result in some real haphazard practices (flimsy fuel tanks, unshielded fuel lines, seats with zero stroking capability, poorly secured restraints, no headrests on the seats, etc) . The urge to give great visibility tends to also hamper safety in the sent that often the first thing to be scaled back or done away with all together is the aircraft equivalent of a car's A pillar. In an aircraft (which ever seldom encounters a crash scenario short of a runway overrun or excursion that does not involve a significant vertical component), this is one of the main structures that helps to keep the engine and its mounting from folding up and back compressing the instrument panel down onto the pilot and front seat passenger's legs and lap. It also provides a great deal of the structural integrity of the roof which can mean the difference between walking away from a crash and having a closed casket funeral as the result of sub-total or total decapitation. It's not that the folks who design and build LSAs aren't thinking about safety (quite the contrary....some of the best constructed restraint systems I have ever seen in small aircraft have been in a couple of LSAs) it's just that other concerns tend to grab people's attention and the resulting design may have some serious drawbacks that are unintentionally counter to the issue of safety.

The other side of the coin is that those of us with safety as an major interest and focus, seem to look more towards the average GA aircraft instead of LSAs and ultralights. I hate to put it this way (especially point #2), but the main reason my focus is there is two-fold: 1. those are the kinds of planes that interest me because the LSA speed and operating restrictions tend to be almost absolutely counter to the very reasons I get into an airplane let alone design and build one. 2. Honestly, that's where the money is since the commercial end of LSAs hasn't developed sufficiently to attract much focus. Now, that's not to say I would not be thrilled to go to work with/for the EAA or the LAMA or anyone else for that matter on the issue of improving LSA or homebuilt crash survivability....just that I don't see it happening at least not until the economy continues to recover like it is currently for another couple of years.

All of that said, I am sitting on a more or less complete LSA design with most of the safety features that current technology will allow while still allowing two real average size adult men (read as 6'2" 200 lb guys) to sit in it comfortably. It was something I worked on in my spare time but shelved due to a lack of interest in actually building it myself deciding rather to focus on an aircraft that actually meets my desires.

[S3flyer]

My guess is that the EAA/FAA will not mess with the ASTM 1320lbs by generically increasing it to some higher number but will consider an allowance of XX pounds for safety equipment such as a chute or airbags. If you don't have the safety equipment, you don't get the higher weight. I'd guess we're talking 30-50lbs extra. I believe one of the UK aircraft classes has a 20kg allowance for such things.

[kscessnadriver]

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Weight_Increase_For_LSAs_206054-1.html

Durr

Wow, that's an intelligent post. I'll put this one in the same group as the no medical for private pilots. Something the FAA is researching but will never happen.

[Frank Giger]

Using safety as a reason to increase weight is a full circle argument for why the LSA rules came about in the first place, and assumes that the intial purpose was to get pilots flying certified aircraft into lighter ones.

That's backwards.

Problem:

Ultralights were a real problem.

Loads of them were overweight ("fat"), but because they're unregulated there was no policing of them. An FAA guy had to have a good reason to compel the pilot (who could be unlicensed) to undergo a weight and balance. Too often the good reason was after a wreck.

With the advances of composites and other materials, the weight put on ultralights became an issue versus capabilities. Ultralights could be far more than wieght shifted kites with engines putting along at ten miles an hour - smart builders were making them fly very fast and very far....and who knows how much gas the tank holds from the outside?

And the pilots of said ultralights are completely unregulated. Forget a medical - these guys and gals don't require any training at all to jump in, fire it up, and go around the pattern. That's a statement from the FAA viewpoint, of course; the ultralight pilots I know take it very seriously and do get training, if it can be informal.

To make things less onerous and to encourage compliance, the FAA struck out the medical requirement (which is one of the reasons cited by ultralight pilots for being there in the first place) for the new category. Smart guys with PPL's realized they could fly under those rules, and use the SPL stats to fight the Class III medical requirement itself.

The FAA can't illegalize ultralights and can't enforce the rules on ultralights (there aren't enough of them to go out and check), so they did the best compromise they could using Canada and Europe as guidelines and tweaking them. They invented the LSA.

Cruise less than 120 kts, stall no greater than 45, two seats maximum, gross weight of 1325 (which is the result of upping it twice in committee - and resulting in non-compliance with ICAO), daytime VFR only with pilots requiring no medical (other than driver's license and self certification) and a revised set of standards for their permit (20 hours minimum, reduced cross country, and some limitations placed on them once they got their ticket).

The fat ultralight became legal, and the pilot was trained. Everyone was happy, as the problem was solved!

:)

Okay, maybe not everyone. The FAA said from the start that the LSA category of aircraft was somewhat arbitrary, with no existing aircraft taken into consideration. I actually believe that - they were thinking in terms of making ultralights fatter, not making production planes lighter, or giving a loophole to aging PPL holders to the biannual medical exam.

When pressed, they came out with the dubious saw that the new category will encourage an innovative wave of production aircraft that will be affordable, spurring economic expansion and the growth of aviation in general.

At the end of the day, though, it was all about getting aircraft that previously had no official airworthiness standards (other than being able to fly) inspected by a government representative, and the pilot likewise certified.

All in the name of safety.

[steveinindy]

resulting in non-compliance with ICAO

Since when has that ever stopped the FAA?

NOTE: This post was made with a BAC somewhere around what keeps Patty Wagstaff from suffering delirium tremens. I make no claims to the veracity nor grammatical or syntactic correctness of this post.

[Frank Giger]

I don't blame them for blowing off the ICAO requirements, to be honest.

The USA is bordered by very few countries (only Canada and Mexico contiguously), and most pilots rarely leave our nation's borders.

It would be a big deal if we were like the European countries where an hour's flight could cross multiple borders.

And raise a glass for me - I'm at a place where I can't drink.

[steveinindy]

I agree (so far as GA is concerned.....Part 135 and 121 is a different ballgame though) about that. The only reason I pay attention to the ICAO rules and know them so well is because my research involves countries outside of North America and also because of my desire to travel to the Caribbean and South America once I get my plane built.

Will do about the raising a glass. Where are you that you can't have a beer or other drink?

[Frank Giger]

Work....but don't tell anyone! (It'll be our Internet secret.)

The Bahamas recognize Sport Pilots, btw. Gotta love the power of the Yanqui Dolla and the allure of Rum and Coka-Cola.

[steveinindy]

The Bahamas recognize Sport Pilots, btw.

Yeah but sport pilot doesn't recognize an aircraft of the weight of the one I want to build. LOL

[Frank Giger]

(Completely throwing the thread off tangent)

Steve, I keep imagining your Safety Plane being made out of cinder blocks and airbags.

With big diesel powered turbofans to force it into the air.