My first W&B, 1320 is crazy.

I am a new sport-student pilot, who calculated his first W&B tonight for my next lesson. I can now appreciate the absurdity of the 1320 lbs limit. Both my CFI and I weigh in at 180'something pounds each, average size males by any measure. With nothing more than just our headsets and kneeboards, we're lucky to legally go up with barely half a tank of fuel. By my calculations you'd have to weigh in at maybe 100 lbs for two people to fly with a full tank in a skycatcher.

My question is does anyone know whether efforts are being made to have this ridiculous (my opinion) rule changed? I read the putative justifications for the number, but it all still seems very arbitrary to me. Just a couple of more hundred pounds seem more reasonable. Enough to allow a couple of average size guys to fly with full fuel.

Don't misunderstand me, I am grateful for the sport pilot opportunity, and appreciate the efforts that went into designing this entryway. In fact, I wouldn't be taking lessons if this option were not available, I am not interested in the additional privileges (night, long distance, etc) that come from a PPL. And yet I feel there's ample room for improvement regarding some of the SPL restrictions.

Happy flying all!

While I can sympathize with you, I dont see it as an issue. I weigh 145 and my instructor is around 180, we normally fly with 3/4 tanks and have never been short on fuel. Light Sport is a trade off. If you don't like the limitations I would recommend private pilot. If you can't fly as a private pilot, be grateful (like you said) that sport pilot exists. You can also look for other LSA'S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jndz1010

By my calculations you'd have to weigh in at maybe 100 lbs for two people to fly with a full tank in a skycatcher. !

---

I think your calculations are a bit off. I normally use the PFD to complete my W/B but I do have some of the numbers. The 162 I fly has an 865 lbs which gives me a useful load of 455 lbs. Full fuel is 25.6 gallons which is 153.6 lbs (@6lbs/gal). 455-153.6= 301.6 lbs for passengers which is two 150 adults. This actually allows my wife and I to fly with full tanks and a small bag. I am 150, she is 140.

BUT as I said above, I normally fly with 3/4 tanks which is 19 gallons which is 114 lbs of fuel, (455-114=341 lbs) which allows for two 170lb crew.

Again, not idea, but the 162 is a HEAVY LSA. I am considering switching over to a Vans RV-12 SLSA which is at a neighboring airport. The empty weight on that airplane is 740lbs (savings of 125 lbs).

Happy flying all![/QUOTE]

First off, congratulations for taking the steps to join the pilot ranks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jndz1010

My question is does anyone know whether efforts are being made to have this ridiculous (my opinion) rule changed?

---

Actually, a lot of effort was made to get the weight increased to 1320 in the formation of the LSA rules! It is indeed completely arbitrary, a function of negotiation around a table with no particular aircraft in mind. However, getting the LSA definitions changed at this point is like trying urinate towards the effect of differential air density caused by heat in the atmosphere.

Quote:

---

Don't misunderstand me, I am grateful for the sport pilot opportunity, and appreciate the efforts that went into designing this entryway. In fact, I wouldn't be taking lessons if this option were not available, I am not interested in the additional privileges (night, long distance, etc) that come from a PPL. And yet I feel there's ample room for improvement regarding some of the SPL restrictions.

---

This is precisely why I became a Sport Pilot - I have no desire to fly at night, in adverse conditions, etc., and saw no reason to pay for skills I will never use and will atrophy to uselessness!

And now a little history lesson the purpose of the whole Light Sport rules and why they are what they are, and it has everything to do with ultralights.

There were (are) an awful lot of "fat ultralights" out there, planes that claimed to meet the weight limits but didn't. The only way to prove an ultralight is fat is to pull out the scales, and with improvements to materials they became faster and more "airplane like" than the FAA liked.

The FAA wants ultralights to be single person as well, which means instruction is difficult - but they also don't like the idea of pilots being taught to fly with the instructor on the ground.

What they wanted as a solution was a new class of aircraft and pilots to legalize and regulate that made high performance ultralights legitimate (in their eyes). Ultralight pilots, which aren't required to have any sort of pilot's certificate at all, would be forced to obtain one for the heavier, but still dead simple, aircraft. No medical would be required to help capture them. The flight restrictions would pretty much match what ultralight pilots fly under anyway, so that's not a burden, either.

They also wanted to increase the pilot ranks over all and encourage new design and manufacture to fill the niche they created - hoping for industry to come up with new, affordable aircraft for the average Joe (ha!).

With a 1320 weight limit a lot of trade-offs happen in a new design like the C162; while it meets LSA standards, it also exceeds them - it can be flown in all the ways a Private Pilot would want to use it as well (excepting IFR). It tries to live in both worlds, and as you well know has a very small useful load. That it was unsatisfactory to the market because of this and other reasons is self evident; only around 200 of them ever made it into pilot's hangars before Cessna pulled the plug on the aircraft.

It's not all bad news, though. There are a lot of LSA's out there that are pretty darned good. While not my cup of tea, the FlightDesign CTLS is a hot little modern LSA with a higher useful load and all the glass panel blah blah one could ever want (if one wants glass panel blah blah). For legacy aircraft there are Cubs and Champs (the latter being one of the best aircraft ever to roll out of a factory, IMHO, and with a price tag that makes it reasonable) - and, of course, one can always build their own LSA compliant aircraft.

Oh, and please don't forget to factor in altitude (both actual and density) when doing W&B and thinking about what is a useful load!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jndz1010

I can now appreciate the absurdity of the 1320 lbs limit.

---

Increasing the weight limit would not help your current situation. The Skycatcher is structurally limited by the manufacturer at 1320 lbs so a weight increase for the LSA category would not automatically allow the Skycatcher to fly at a weight greater than 1320.

The easiest solution to your dilemma is to find a ligher airplane, as others have suggested. If a manufacturer built an LSA that weighs ~1000 lbs, and when you gas it up it can haul 125 lbs, who do we blame? The regs or the manufacturer?

Quote:

---

My question is does anyone know whether efforts are being made to have this ridiculous (my opinion) rule changed?

---

No, there is no effort underway and it's highly unlikely the wt. limit will ever be changed.

That said, the C162 is a fine trainer, where flight is limited to pretty short duration.

And on your long solo cross country you can bring extra fuel, as the lump of simulated emergencies won't be sitting next to you.

It has been well known the C162 maximum useful load should be referred to as useless maximum load, with the optional parachute installed and full fuel the airplane is a single seater.
It is not a failure of rules, it is a failure of design , engineering and business trying to fit an airplane into an unsuitable category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Giger

That said, the C162 is a fine trainer, where flight is limited to pretty short duration.

And on your long solo cross country you can bring extra fuel, as the lump of simulated emergencies won't be sitting next to you.

---

in all my years of instructing I have been called a lot of things. 'Lump of simulated emergencies' is not one of them. That term of endearment will now stick with me FOREVER. Frank did you copy write that? I see producing shirts in your future.
'I'm with......' T shirts. That's not a pilot that's a..... T shirts...... The best ever.
Rick

Thank you all for your helpful insight, special thanks to Frank for the informative perspective. Bottom line is that I am giddy about flying and at the end of the day the weight thing becomes irrelevant so long as I get to go up. That said, there's still an aura of mystery in the arbitrary nature of 1320. It seems to me that as pilots we place great emphasis on precision that's supported by careful analysis of numbers and calculations (flying is just applied physics right?). And yet, as Frank indicated, there's a sense that 1320 is a number arbitrarily chosen in a meeting room somewhere, with little scientific reasoning behind it. But if sticking to the 1320 means that I get to fly as a Sport Pilot without all the other unwanted stuff required for the PPL then I'll take it. Thank you all for your insight and happy flying! :cool:

You are certainly free to use the phrase "lump of simulated emergencies."*

My instructor certainly both earned and heard that assessment I had of him when I was a student.

He just loved to see me turn a downwind into a power-off landing. With a crosswind. Or slowly reduce the throttle, simulating carb ice after saying something clever like "I want you to just concentrate on stick and rudder while I work the throttle, okay?"

I did find the antidote to a rather tricksy engine out, though, magic words that shocked him to where it actually worked once - "You have the controls," delivered in a deadpan.

:)

[edit]

Jndz, there's nothing like it. Going up in good weather and putting around looking at cows and fields and rivers and little puffy clouds in the distance is something that is just good for the soul.

One of my favorite flying times was over the Coosa River, where the water was so clear one could see schools of fish along the bank and in the sloughs. I saw one about 1500 yards upstream from some fishermen in a boat and put my wing down over the fish, circling them. The guys in the boat were kind of staring at me like I was an idiot - until the light bulbs went off over their heads so brightly I could distinctly see them, pulled in their lines and trolled on up to where the fish were. Naturally I backed off of them, did a wing waggle, and went on my way.

The really cool thing was about a month later I was in Waffle House and a guy saw my AOPA hat, asked if I was a pilot, and told me all about it - from their perspective. We both laughed and he picked up my lunch tab.

* The coffee cup would say "180 pounds of pure simulated emergencies." The t-shirt would have one of those little tags that say "HELLO MY NAME IS Simulated Emergency."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jndz1010

And yet, as Frank indicated, there's a sense that 1320 is a number arbitrarily chosen in a meeting room somewhere, with little scientific reasoning behind it.

---

Maybe not science but there was a system of reasoning used to arrive at 1320# meaning it wasn't entirely arbitrary. Briefly, they wanted some legacy airplanes to slip in under the wire without allowing the new category to be flooded with existing airplanes. It was a compromise intended to promote innovation with new products while existing legacy planes provided an initial boost in activity to get the ball rolling.

Whether or not it was a good call will be debated forever. Regardless of what weight was chosen for LS aircraft, somebody would have found fault with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Giger

Happy flying all!

---

First off, congratulations for taking the steps to join the pilot ranks!



Actually, a lot of effort was made to get the weight increased to 1320 in the formation of the LSA rules! It is indeed completely arbitrary, a function of negotiation around a table with no particular aircraft in mind. However, getting the LSA definitions changed at this point is like trying urinate towards the effect of differential air density caused by heat in the atmosphere.


It's not completely arbitrary; 1320 lbs = 600 kg which is the EU standard, a round number and since there are visions of globalization .....

Even if the 1320# LSA limit was increased it would very likely NOT help the purpose designed LSA aircraft like the 162 already designed to the 1320# weight. Indeed that is why the limit will likely not be increased because it would leave the present 1320# aircraft orphans. You do not/can not just simply increase the gross weight of an aircraft carefully designed to a lower weight. Some aircraft may be able to handle a small increase, others will be problematic.

Of coarse the other option is the present goal of 3rd class medical reform which would give pilots the option of being able to continue flying aircraft up to 6000# w/o medical . My understanding is that LSA rules will remain as they are at present.

Once you get your light sport license you will find several interesting options in E-AB aircraft.

For instance I recently completed a Acroduster 2 that is light sport compliant flown as a single place @ 1320 #. As a new build I licensed it @ 1320# gross. It came in at 912# EW and even with my big 200# butt I can haul full main fuel. Several people have tried to make a Pitts Special LSA compliant but they have not been able to meet the stall speed with only 100 square ft. wing area. I figured with 130 sq./ft. the Arcoduster would comply @ 1320# and it did, stall speed carefully confirmed by GPS is 51 mph. OTOH to achieve a low EW I used a smaller IO320 w/FP prop. so my airplane would only be able to compete in lower classes but it would enable a acrobatic pilot to continue to "play".

IMO that's what EAA is all about.

My wife does hope for medical reform which is the only way she will get a ride in the new Biplane.(unless she flies it herself) Of coarse if we fly it at a higher weight it can not go back to being LSA compliant....

That to me is the stupid(or most stupid) part of the LSA rules. Why not be able to make any airplane that offers a usable useful load @ 1320# reduce it's gross to that amount. Why not let an airplane like mine be LSA compliant as a single place and at the same time allow a PP to fly it two place at higher gross....?

I know why,

Logic and the FAA in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

BTW, as far as how the 1320 came about, yes the above 600kg number is part of it. Also remember, as I recall, the original goal of LSA was to bring the two place "fat ultralights" into some kind of FAA rule. The LSA gross weight could have easily been even lower......

Jack

Quote:

---

I know why,

Logic and the FAA in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

---

Ready, fire, aim! Are we sure the FAA is to blame? After all, they only adopted rules that originated elsewhere.

What is being described is completely normal in most all airplanes.

The number of pax may be limited by the MZFW.

If loaded with passengers then the fuel load may be limited by the MGTOW.

If loaded with fuel then the pax load may be limited by the MGTOW.

You cannot fill all pax seats in a Boeing 787 and also fill up all of the fuel tanks.

In some airplanes you cannot fill all of the first and business class seats and fly the airplane with no economy class pax on board. Some air lines have been known to sell economy class seats at almost nothing in order to get economy class riders.

Manufacturers tout ABC range and XYZ payload carrying ability. What is not said is that in many instances both cannot happen at the same time.

Everything in aviation is a trade off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jethro99

What is being described is completely normal in most all airplanes.

The number of pax may be limited by the MZFW.

If loaded with passengers then the fuel load may be limited by the MGTOW.

If loaded with fuel then the pax load may be limited by the MGTOW.

You cannot fill all pax seats in a Boeing 787 and also fill up all of the fuel tanks.

In some airplanes you cannot fill all of the first and business class seats and fly the airplane with no economy class pax on board. Some air lines have been known to sell economy class seats at almost nothing in order to get economy class riders.

Manufacturers tout ABC range and XYZ payload carrying ability. What is not said is that in many instances both cannot happen at the same time.

Everything in aviation is a trade off.

---

This is absolutely true with most GA airplanes in addition to airliners, so Sport Pilot isn't being victimized. My 4 seat Cessna P172D can indeed carry 4 people--with about half tanks. In its case, half a tank is 156 lbs. Otherwise, it's a 3 person airplane. When I took aerobatic lessons some 35 years ago, the Decathlon had to be at half tanks just to carry both me and my instructor, and neither of us were particularly weighty (not true of me now!). About the only airplane I can think of right now which can fill the seats and the tanks and add a little baggage is a Cessna 182, perhaps also a Piper PA 28-235. But as long as you realize the limitations, and honor them, even a 2 seat SP trainer can be a pretty good airplane.

I also like the term, "Lump of simulated emergencies." My first instructor fit that description, and when I instructed, I emulated him. In the long run, it paid off for me, when I had a real emergency about 12 1/2 years ago, threw a rod through the top of the engine case, and had to land in a field. We simulate them, because once in a while, they're real, and the only way to be able to handle the real ones is to go through a bunch of simulations.

Cary