E-AB versus E-LSA

[Frank Giger]

From VBob in another thread, talking about an RV-12:


Remember you can build the 12 as an E-AB instead of E-LSA and save money, although I don't really recommend it.

Now, then, I'm a bit confused by this and rather than derail yet another thread figured I'd start a new one on this topic, especially since I'd think the opposite advice would be what I would give.

One could build to the E-LSA standard (using only their specified parts, layout, etc.) and register it as an E-AB, which would free one up to modify and upgrade at will, particularly the panel. It seems like going E-LSA is more restrictive than the advantages of E-AB, unless I'm missing something.

Y'all's insight is welcome, as I'm going to admit to ignorance on the fine details of the subject.

[Dana]

To qualify the 51% E-AB requirement you'd have to forego using some of the prefabbed parts included in the E-LSA kit. That should save money but add flexibility.

[rwanttaja]

One could build to the E-LSA standard (using only their specified parts, layout, etc.) and register it as an E-AB, which would free one up to modify and upgrade at will, particularly the panel. It seems like going E-LSA is more restrictive than the advantages of E-AB, unless I'm missing something.

Y'all's insight is welcome, as I'm going to admit to ignorance on the fine details of the subject.

As long as a kit meets the 51% rule, you can indeed build it either way. If you build E-LSA, it must be identical to the conforming example at the time the plane is licensed. So if the original used an O-200A with a Delco generator and Eiseman magnetos, and an Escort 110 radio, you must include the same engine, magnetos, and radio.

It could be that an ELSA kit doesn't meet the 51% rule... or the manufacturer may specify different parts for Ex-AB aircraft, if the builder wants to go that route.

In any case, once the ELSA is licensed, the owner has full freedom to modify. He or she can take off that O-200 and install a Rotec Radial, replace the radio, etc.

At this point, the only difference between an ELSA and an EX-AB is that the Ex-AB builder can receive a Repairman Certificate that permits them to perform the annual inspection of his aircraft. It's my understanding that the original builder of an ELSA does not receive a Repairman certificate.

However, annual inspection of an ELSA doesn't have to be done by an A&P...it just takes a Light Sport Repairman or Light Sport Inspector license. And the Light Sport Inspector license requires only completion of a 16-hour course...

Ron Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

So it could be a resell or insurance advantage to go E-LSA, as they'd be more of a "known quantity," and anyone with the LSA repair class can do the Condition Inspection, I'd reckon.

I hadn't really thought of the 51% rule, as it doesn't seem very hard to meet it when one looks at the checklist. But I'm always thinking fabric covered aircraft, and can imagine a "kit" that is really a Big Box of Airplane that one mounts wing and tail to, adds gas and oil, and fires up.

I thought that E-LSA couldn't be modified, or, rather, to keep its E-LSA status had to be as the manufacturer approves, though. If one can, why bother with the hoops of E-LSA to start with?

[rwanttaja]

So it could be a resell or insurance advantage to go E-LSA, as they'd be more of a "known quantity," and anyone with the LSA repair class can do the Condition Inspection, I'd reckon.
Don't know about "known quantity"; once it's experimental, absolutely anybody can mess it up. But yes, if looking at identical airplanes, one Ex-AB and the other ELSA, the ELSA should be worth more because anybody can take the LS-I course and do the inspections.

Back during the transition phase, the FAA was permitting any new Sport Pilot eligible Ex-AB to be certified as ELSA (existing, licensed ones could not be switched). I wanted to find a Fly Baby project and finish it as an ELSA.

I hadn't really thought of the 51% rule, as it doesn't seem very hard to meet it when one looks at the checklist. But I'm always thinking fabric covered aircraft, and can imagine a "kit" that is really a Big Box of Airplane that one mounts wing and tail to, adds gas and oil, and fires up.
The difficulty is that ELSA kits do not have to meet the 51% rule, hence the DAR has to make his or her own assessment whether a project qualifies as Ex-AB. Certainly a kit manufacturer can get both ELSA approval and formal assessment re: the 51% rule for the same kit. Of 323 RV-12s registered in January this year, 36 were Experimental Amateur-Built, 197 were ELSA, and 19 were Special Light Sport (ready-to-fly).

I thought that E-LSA couldn't be modified, or, rather, to keep its E-LSA status had to be as the manufacturer approves, though. If one can, why bother with the hoops of E-LSA to start with?
ELSAs cannot be modified during construction. Once they have received their certification, though, they are like any other Experimental aircraft and Part 43 does not apply. Special Light Sport aircraft are NOT Experimental, though, and must be maintained in an approved configuration.

Ron Wanttaja

[wallda]

So.... can a sport pilot fly a e-lsa aircraft that is registered as eab if it still conforms to the light sport requirements? I want to build an RV-12 but I want a basic panel.

[Frank Giger]

Now this is something I know about, since I'm a Sport Pilot!

So long as an aircraft meets the criteria of an LSA, a Sport Pilot can pilot it, regardless of certification type.

Avionics don't matter in the equation - for example, if someone tricked out an RV so that it qualified for instrument flight a Sport Pilot could get behind the controls - but he'd be limited to daytime VFR.

Back on topic, I think I see the reason for the quote that started the thread, and it comes from Van's site. They stress that going E-AB isn't preferable since it includes deviation from the kit and design - I guess that's a function of having everything precision cut and pre-drilled. I also think they stress E-LSA as a kind of quality control on the builder end; when an RV wrecks there is no difference given between E-LSA or E-AB in the press - it's just an RV.

I'm still thinking that bucking all those rivets would count as fabrication (unless one gets the Quickbuild kit where the main components are pre-constructed) - so the 51% rule is easy to achieve. Heck, if the documentation was done correctly, a mix of QuickBuild and the standard kit could qualify. Note the word "correctly," not "embellished." My builder's log has the words "put together" removed and the words "fabricated" and "assembled" replacing them.

[rwanttaja]

Now this is something I know about, since I'm a Sport Pilot!

So long as an aircraft meets the criteria of an LSA, a Sport Pilot can pilot it, regardless of certification type.
Frank's right, of course. The FAA erred by defining a type of airplane ("Light Sport Aircraft") then adding new certification categories using the same term ("Special Light Sport Aircraft" and "Experimental Light Sport Aircraft").

The Light Sport Definition describes a class of aircraft which can be flown by persons operating as Sport Pilots. Hence, if it meets the definition for Light Sport, it doesn't matter what the actual certification category is. My Fly Baby is Experimental Amateur-Built; I've got a Private but am operating under the provisions of Sport Pilot (e.g., using a Driver's License to establish medical qualifications).

Ron Wanttaja

[wallda]

Frank, thank you for the clarification.

[Frank Giger]

No problem!

There's been a lot of confusion about Light Sport piloting, even though it's been around for awhile now. Heck, I had a fellow tell me that Sport Pilots can't do aerobatics, which is false. Sport Pilots can't compete in aerobatic competitions under IAC rules, but nothing in the regs prohibits an SP from performing them (so long as the aircraft meets LSA standards and is built for them).

Heck, I've done intentional spins in a Champ (and if you haven't done spin training sign up for it NOW, as I think every pilot should learn how to cope with a spin for the first time with an experienced CFI in the back seat rather than without one) and learned aileron rolls as part of my Flight Review.

I've no desire to put on a big show in the air, but aerobatics is about precision and fully understanding flight theory in a very practical manner. Personally, I need a lot more basic stick and rudder time before I'm ready for the full aerobatic course but it's definitely in my personal flight syllabus.

[Jeff Boatright]

... Sport Pilots can't compete in aerobatic competitions under IAC rules,...

I did not know that. Do you know why not?

[Frank Giger]

Whoops; they updated the rules, one can compete with an as an SP!

So, one just can't compete outside the USA.

[Jeff Boatright]

Whoops; they updated the rules, one can compete with an as an SP!

So, one just can't compete outside the USA.


Thanks for the update and good to hear that IAC made the change.