Understanding Light Sport Pilot Rules for EA-B Aircraft

[thisadviceisworthles]

I'm trying to understand the Light Sport Pilot rules as they apply to EA-B, specifically lifetime changes.

As I understand, the gross weight must be under 1320lbs and have remained under 1320 for the aircraft's entire life (this disqualifies some Ercoupes). I'm wondering if the lifetime requirements apply to every factor. Namely, if the aircraft has an in-flight adjustable prop installed, does that permanently disqualify it from Light Sport Flying, or can you just swap the prop for a fixed pitch and fly it Light Sport?

[thisadviceisworthles]

Also, does anyone know of a good explainer for how the Light Sport Rules apply to EA-B planes?

[Bill Berson]

The "Light Sport Aircraft" is defined in FAR 1.1. Should answer your question.

[rwanttaja]

As I understand, the gross weight must be under 1320lbs and have remained under 1320 for the aircraft's entire life (this disqualifies some Ercoupes). I'm wondering if the lifetime requirements apply to every factor. Namely, if the aircraft has an in-flight adjustable prop installed, does that permanently disqualify it from Light Sport Flying, or can you just swap the prop for a fixed pitch and fly it Light Sport?
14CFR Part 1, which includes the definition of light sport:

Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:

Emphasis added. So if the airplane had had an adjustable prop at the time it was original certification, it does not qualify as light sport. Note that this also includes "...has continued to meet". So if the airplane received an STC for a constant speed prop, it no longer has continued to meet the light sport definition and thus cannot operate under the Light Sport rules.


Also, does anyone know of a good explainer for how the Light Sport Rules apply to EA-B planes?

It applies wholly. Where it gets sporty is the paperwork.

First off is establishing whether the airplane meets the Light Sport rules to start with. Easy enough for a production airplane, but rather loosey-goosey for a homebuilt. The same model of homebuilt may or may not meet, for instance, the stall speed requirement, depending on how the builder constructed the airplane.

I know someone with an RV-6-class* airplane that's operating it as "Light Sport". He claims that the aircraft has certain features (no spinner, no wheel pants, etc.) that limit its speed and keep it in the Light Sport definition.

* NOT saying it's an RV-6....

As it is, by definition, a one-of-a-kind aircraft (like every homebuilt), the only way the FAA can prove otherwise is to seize the airplane and perform its own tests. Not likely to happen, and, frankly, I doubt anyone at the FAA cares. Should an accident occur, I'm certain there'd be a lot of tsk-tsking, but probably not beyond that. Mind you, I have a picture of the same airplane sporting spinner, wheel pants, fairings, etc, so the "continuously meeting" aspect of the rule might be at issue, if I were thirsty and me and the owner were sitting at the same bar.

The second issue is how a homebuilt might be modified out of the Light Sport category WITHOUT being reflected in the paperwork. FAA part 43 doesn't apply to homebuilts, and aircraft configuration is governed by its Operating Limitations. Perform a major modification, and the airplane drops back into the Phase 1 test period...but my Operating Limitations, at least, don't say anything about required logbook entries. So things could happen...and happen BACK...without being reflected in the official aircraft record.

Ron Wanttaja

[robert l]

I liked the way you phrased that Ron ! Good info for the ones that are building or flying a fine line of weight, speed, etc.
Bob

[thisadviceisworthles]

Thanks Ron. That both answers my question, and possibly justifies my confusion.

[Marc Zeitlin]

FAA part 43 doesn't apply to homebuilts, and aircraft configuration is governed by its Operating Limitations. Perform a major modification, and the airplane drops back into the Phase 1 test period...but my Operating Limitations, at least, don't say anything about required logbook entries. So things could happen...and happen BACK...without being reflected in the official aircraft record.I've been having this "discussion" with various folks over on the HBA forum. While Part 43 doesn't apply to EAB aircraft and the OL's don't say anything about logging maintenance, Part 91 most certainly does apply to EAB aircraft and 14 CFR Part 91.417 requires maintenance entries for ALL work performed on an airplane. Now, it only requires retention until the work is superseded or one year, whichever is longer, so changes to the plane COULD occur and then be lost to posterity due to logbook entries older than one year magically (or not magically - just torn out pages) disappearing.

But maintenance entries in the aircraft log ARE required (by my reading of the FAR's and be verbal indication from the FAA's legal branch, although for the life of me I can't pry a written interpretation of the rules out of them).

[rwanttaja]

I've been having this "discussion" with various folks over on the HBA forum. While Part 43 doesn't apply to EAB aircraft and the OL's don't say anything about logging maintenance, Part 91 most certainly does apply to EAB aircraft and 14 CFR Part 91.417 requires maintenance entries for ALL work performed on an airplane. Now, it only requires retention until the work is superseded or one year, whichever is longer, so changes to the plane COULD occur and then be lost to posterity due to logbook entries older than one year magically (or not magically - just torn out pages) disappearing.

But maintenance entries in the aircraft log ARE required (by my reading of the FAR's and be verbal indication from the FAA's legal branch, although for the life of me I can't pry a written interpretation of the rules out of them).

Yes, I agree with your logic here.

Re-familiarizing myself with 91.417 triggers my loophole-finding senses. The word "log" is never used; one could keep the required records in a loose-leaf notebook. I kind of do that, now, making notes in a rough log (three-ring binder) and updating the formal logs occasionally. It would make it easy for records to be made as required and dumped without trace after the required year.

Also, the reg says..."The records specified... shall be retained until the work is repeated or superseded by other work or for 1 year after the work is performed." If one wanted to try out a modification that causes the plane to no longer meet the Light Sport definition, it appears to be legal to destroy any record of the modification once the plane is restored to its pre-test configuration ("...superseded by other work"). Would just have to word the restoration entry carefully.

Back when the Mode C veil was instituted here in Seattle, a friend of mine (EAA Tech Counselor, in fact) pulled the alternator from his T-18 so he didn't have to install a transponder. His argument was the wording of 14 CFR 91.215 which excepted the following aircraft from the requirement: "...any aircraft which was not originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system or which has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed..."

His claim was that there was NOTHING in the certification paperwork reflecting the presence of an electrical system, hence there was no proof the airplane had been originally certified with an engine-driven electrical system.

With the upcoming ADS-B requirement, I'm noticing more and more that MY airplane's certification doesn't reflect the presence of an electrical system.....

Ron "I'm a little too high-profile to get away with it" Wanttaja

[robert l]

Ron "I'm a little too high-profile to get away with it" Wanttaja


Well, you know what they say, "Ignorance is 9/10's of the law" ! Well, maybe they don't say that, sometimes I get infused, I mean confused. Anyway, I'm just happy to be here.
Bob

[FlyingRon]

Most operating lims require not only the test period but a letter to the FSDO telling them what you did. I don't know what the FSDO does with that notification.

[martymayes]

Back when the Mode C veil was instituted here in Seattle, a friend of mine (EAA Tech Counselor, in fact) pulled the alternator from his T-18 so he didn't have to install a transponder. His argument was the wording of 14 CFR 91.215 which excepted the following aircraft from the requirement: "...any aircraft which was not originally certificated with an engine-driven electrical system or which has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed...

Seems it would depend on the definition of certificated as used within the context of 91.215.

If the FAA meant "type certificated" then a homebuilt is free and clear. If the FAA meant certificated as in received an airworthiness certificate....that would really cloud things over as issuance of an a/w certificate is an administrative process only that does not include technical details such as whether or not an engine driven electrical system is installed.

If the latter is true, your friend can reinstall his electrical system and say his T-18 was originally certificated without an engine drive electrical system. The engine driven electrical system was added later but never certified. (.215(b)(3) says subsequently been "certified" with such a system installed). If we use the logic that issuance of an a/w certificate is the point where the airplane becomes certified that would not take place until a new airworthiness certificate is issued.

[Bill Berson]

The FAA might retain a copy of the original weight and balance. So a change to LSA gross weight might be an issue.
I don't know if the gross weight is required or just empty weight on certification?

[rwanttaja]

The FAA might retain a copy of the original weight and balance. So a change to LSA gross weight might be an issue.
I don't know if the gross weight is required or just empty weight on certification?

Can't speak to modern practices, but I got the FAA records dump for my airplane about twenty years ago. There's no mention of aircraft weight in any of the registration or airworthiness documents. Dunno what happens nowadays. Does the W&B paperwork get copied, or does the DAR just check it over?

The FAA registration database includes a "weight class" for each aircraft, but there are only four classes and the first run runs from 1 to 12,499 pounds.


Seems it would depend on the definition of certificated as used within the context of 91.215.

If the FAA meant "type certificated" then a homebuilt is free and clear. If the FAA meant certificated as in received an airworthiness certificate....that would really cloud things over as issuance of an a/w certificate is an administrative process only that does not include technical details such as whether or not an engine driven electrical system is installed.

If the latter is true, your friend can reinstall his electrical system and say his T-18 was originally certificated without an engine drive electrical system. The engine driven electrical system was added later but never certified. (.215(b)(3) says subsequently been "certified" with such a system installed). If we use the logic that issuance of an a/w certificate is the point where the airplane becomes certified that would not take place until a new airworthiness certificate is issued.
I'd say that the FAA's failure to use the term "Type" when referring to "certification" in Part 91 means that it'd be hard to argue that stuff like 91.215 DIDN'T affect aircraft with Special Airworthiness. But, as you say, the lack of any technical details on record would complicate things.

I think my friend would have been just fine if he'd re-installed the alternator, making a clear log entry when he did. As you point out, the airplane would never have been "subsequently certified" with an electrical system. As I've mentioned in the past, I've considered building a new Fly Baby without an electrical system to avoid the ADS-B requirement. I'd probably duplicate my current airplane's electrical system, and just not include the generator when originally licensing the aircraft.

In any case, I think the level of risk faced by my two friends with "sporty" interpretations of the rules is pretty low. The planes were based at uncontrolled fields, and aren't likely to have FAA folks snooping around.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Berson]

The current FAA Advisory Circular 20-27G may require an extra weight and balance copy submitted to FAA at inspection.

Program letter: "I have weighed the aircraft to determine that the most forward and aftcenter of gravity positions are within established limits. The weight andbalance report is available at the aircraft, and a copy is submitted withthis application. "

[1600vw]

I contacted the FAA to get all the paper work they had on an airplane I owned at the time. What I got back from them was nothing more then the registration they had on file. They said this was all the info they had on this airplane I contacted them about.

[Floatsflyer]

I contacted the FAA to get all the paper work they had on an airplane I owned at the time. What I got back from them was nothing more then the registration they had on file. They said this was all the info they had on this airplane I contacted them about.

As just an interested observer here, do you think this is an anomaly or is the FAA or other regulatory bodies and the individuals connected to them apathetic, unconcerned or laissez-faire about E-AB things within the broader scope of all aircraft categories?

[Joda]

Note that the definition of a "light-sport aircraft" found in 14 CFR 1.1 makes no mention of what category the aircraft is actually certificated in. The basic definition applies equally to any aircraft, regardless of whether it's type-certificated, amateur-built, exhibition, or any of the light-sport certification categories. So even for amateur-built aircraft, if the aircraft has EVER been operated in a configuration that is outside the LSA definition, then it is forever ineligible for operation by sport pilots (including pilots who hold higher-level certificates who are operating at the sport pilot level). If it's ever been operated with a controllable pitch prop, or at a maximum weight of over 1320 lbs (for land planes), at a maximum level flight speed of over 125 kts, or outside any other LSA criteria, it is not and can never be a light-sport aircraft.

How do you know if that's ever happened or not? You look at the aircraft's records. And as others in this thread have mentioned, there isn't a lot that's recorded in the aircraft's permanent file at the FAA that would verify one way or another. So it's down to the records that are kept with the aircraft. If there are records of equipment installed that would disqualify it, or records of too-high stall speeds or too-high maximum level flight speeds, then the aircraft is forever disqualified from operation by sport pilots.

[Dana]

Seems it would depend on the definition of certificated as used within the context of 91.215.

If the FAA meant "type certificated" then a homebuilt is free and clear. If the FAA meant certificated as in received an airworthiness certificate....that would really cloud things over as issuance of an a/w certificate is an administrative process only that does not include technical details such as whether or not an engine driven electrical system is installed.

If the latter is true, your friend can reinstall his electrical system and say his T-18 was originally certificated without an engine drive electrical system. The engine driven electrical system was added later but never certified. (.215(b)(3) says subsequently been "certified" with such a system installed). If we use the logic that issuance of an a/w certificate is the point where the airplane becomes certified that would not take place until a new airworthiness certificate is issued.

91.215 says "originally certificated"... or "subsequently certified. Two different words, "certified" could mean when the condition inspection is recorded, I.e. "I certify this aircraft has been inspected..."

[Marc Zeitlin]

91.215 says "originally certificated"... or "subsequently certified. Two different words, "certified" could mean when the condition inspection is recorded, I.e. "I certify this aircraft has been inspected..."I don't interpret my CI signoffs that way. What I'm "certifying" when I sign off a CI is that I "inspected the aircraft and found it in a condition for safe operation" - in other words, I'm certifying the INSPECTION, not the AIRCRAFT.

So I'd argue that the "Originally Certificated" or "Subsequently certified" apply to issuance of any and all original or subsequent Airworthiness Certificates, NOT Annual or Condition Inspections.

[martymayes]

I agree with what Marc says, a person performing a condition inspection is only certifying that an activity was performed. Part 65 does not authorize a mechanic or repairman to certify an aircraft or any of it's components.

[Frank Giger]

Most operating lims require not only the test period but a letter to the FSDO telling them what you did. I don't know what the FSDO does with that notification.

This must be FSDO by FSDO, as none of the aircraft signed off by the Birmingham FDSO (that I'm aware of) require any sort of notification that the test period was completed.

[FlyingRon]

This must be FSDO by FSDO, as none of the aircraft signed off by the Birmingham FDSO (that I'm aware of) require any sort of notification that the test period was completed.

I didn't say that "when the test period is completed." Most op specs (including the specimen one in the inspector's handbook) say you have to notify them WHEN YOU MAKE A MAJOR MODIFICATION and then do the flight test. Note you don't need their approval or to even wait for an acknowledgment, but you do have to tell them.

[DaleB]

As just an interested observer here, do you think this is an anomaly or is the FAA or other regulatory bodies and the individuals connected to them apathetic, unconcerned or laissez-faire about E-AB things within the broader scope of all aircraft categories?
I am also just an interested observer. But if it's an E-AB or E-LSA, I would not expect the FAA to have anything on file other than ownership changes, registration renewals, and the original airworthiness certificate. For s type certificated plane you'll see 337s and such, even annual inspections if it's old enough, but there is so little required for an Experimental... I would guess that most go their whole lives without the FAA ever seeing a shred of paperwork. I suspect even the majority of the few events that would supposedly require notifications very, very seldom see those notifications actually made. Just guessing.

Now, as to your question... I decline to comment on the makeup of government agencies. Anyone who has dealt with them know it's a mixed bag.

[Frank Giger]

FlyingRon, apologies for misunderstanding.

On the determination of whether or not a newly built plane is LSA compliant, there's a lot of honor system involved. Unless it's entirely uncredible on it's face, the FAA takes the word of the builder on max gross weight, cruising speed, etc.

Heck, on the certified side, the published cruise speed of the FlightDesign CTLS is a bit, ah, creative, and it is entirely coincidental that the max gross weight is a perfect 1320, I'm sure.

[rwanttaja]

Heck, on the certified side, the published cruise speed of the FlightDesign CTLS is a bit, ah, creative, and it is entirely coincidental that the max gross weight is a perfect 1320, I'm sure.

And I seem to recall several kit aircraft showed a drop in advertised cruise speed, after Sport Pilot was implemented......

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

And I seem to recall several kit aircraft showed a drop in advertised cruise speed, after Sport Pilot was implemented......

Ron Wanttaja

Yup, easiest thing to fudge, extremely difficult if not impossible to police.

[jedi]

And I seem to recall several kit aircraft showed a drop in advertised cruise speed, after Sport Pilot was implemented......

Ron Wanttaja


Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:
(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than—
(i) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on water; or
(ii) 1,430 pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
(2) A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.

(3) A maximum never-exceed speed (VNE) of not more than 120 knots CAS for a glider.
(4) A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of not more than 45 knots CAS at the aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity.
(5) A maximum seating capacity of no more than two persons, including the pilot.
(6) A single, reciprocating engine, if powered.
(7) A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than a powered glider.
(8) A fixed or feathering propeller system if a powered glider.
(9) A fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system, if a gyroplane.
(10) A nonpressurized cabin, if equipped with a cabin.
(11) Fixed landing gear, except for an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider.
(12) Fixed or retractable landing gear, or a hull, for an aircraft intended for operation on water.
(13) Fixed or retractable landing gear for a glider.

VH means maximum speed in level flight with maximum continuous power.

"advertised cruise speed" can be greater than 120 knots. Generally the advertised cruise speed is TAS at altitude not CAS at standard conditions. Engine RPM limits may be specified to limit Vh at standard conditions. Check the owners manual on Cessnas. There is a sea level rpm limit and and a higher llimit at 10,000 feet. Presumably there is a interpolated rpm limit between SL and 10,000 feet.

There may be a difference between max power (takeoff, climb or emergency) and max continuous (cruise) power (rpm and manifold pressure).

[Dana]

FlyingRon, apologies for misunderstanding.

On the determination of whether or not a newly built plane is LSA compliant, there's a lot of honor system involved. Unless it's entirely uncredible on it's face, the FAA takes the word of the builder on max gross weight, cruising speed, etc.

Heck, on the certified side, the published cruise speed of the FlightDesign CTLS is a bit, ah, creative, and it is entirely coincidental that the max gross weight is a perfect 1320, I'm sure.

Not coincidental at all; a manufacturer is free to specify the max gross weight at anything they choose (and test). It's not unusual to see the exact same plane sold in Europe with a higher gross weight. Create a new "LS" model with a lower gross weight and you have access to the US market. Totally legal.

Similar with the max speed, the manufacturer can specify whatever max continuous rpm they want to limit the max speed. It doesn't matter whether the engine is physically able to run faster as long as the legal limit keeps it within LSA specs.