“LPA - Light Personal Aircraft” proposed by FAA

So if an LPA needs a private pilot cert to fly it an an A&P to maintain it, then what's the advantage? Easier certification?
 
The FAA sounds like Gomer Pyle ... "Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!" :p

 
Womp womp. As predicted. Good news is you wont have to wait until 2023 to be disappointed.
 
asicer said:
So if an LPA needs a private pilot cert to fly it an an A&P to maintain it, then what's the advantage? Easier certification?
Click to expand...
Sounds like it won’t require an IA for the annual.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Exactly what we needed, another type of certification to argue about, and very little expansion of the one that doesn’t require anal probes to exercise.
 
Looks like another big let down coming from the initial proposals for light sport.
 
LPA will likely not be available to someone flying with a Sport Pilot certificate or exercising those privileges using the higher certificate they already have. A Private Pilot certificate will probably be required for LPA operation and that implies at least BasicMed or a regular Medical.
Click to expand...
Maintaining a LPA will require a conventional Airframe & Powerplant (A&P) certificate. Light Sport Repairman Maintenance (LSRM) will probably not be allowed to work on LPA.
Click to expand...
That description makes no sense. So what, then would be the point??
It gives the Sport Pilot nothing, if they can't fly LPA.
It gives the Private Pilot with a medical certificate nothing, as they can already fly anything that would be LPA.
It gives the Private Pilot with BasicMed nothing, as they can already fly anything that would be LPA.
It gives the Private Pilot without a medical or BasicMed nothing, if they can't fly LPA.

Maybe it would be a different set of certification requirements, like SLSA but with different parameters. It wouldn't do dick for pilots, though. What a shock.
 
This could also be another attempt at a primary non-commercial/owner-maintained category of aircraft. Its my understanding this issue is not dead as it was the timing and foundation of the last attempt that was at fault.
 
DaleB said:
Maybe it would be a different set of certification requirements, like SLSA but with different parameters.
Click to expand...

That's the way I read it. Assuming that is the case I could see a few new airplanes being developed/produced and a few airplanes that are currently being built as SLSAs being upgraded to something that is legally usable.
 
There are some cool things in here from a certification standpoint
  • Increased LSA max stall speed to 52kts
  • Electric motors allowed for LSAs
  • Production LSA gyroplanes now covered
  • Single lever control for in-flight adjustable props
One interesting thing in the proposal is a limitation of LPA to 200hp Max. Since LSA is a subset of LPA, I wonder if this would impact any of the less efficient aircraft categories (gyroplanes, weight shift, powered parachutes). Maybe not.
 
Last edited:
DaleB said:
That description makes no sense. So what, then would be the point??
Click to expand...

You left out, it doesn't really even help the manufacturers because they already have a Part 23 rewrite underway.
 
bflynn said:
they already have a Part 23 rewrite underway.
Click to expand...
FYI: the Part 23 rewrite was completed and published back in 2016/17 which didn't seem to spur any OEMs into producing any new aircraft either.
 
I'm not sure why folks are so negative on this the two standouts to me are:

skier said:
  1. Increased LSA max stall speed to 52kts
  2. Electric motors allowed for LSAs
Click to expand...

If (1) goes through that's around a 15% change in stall speed. There's also not yet clarification from what I can tell on whether that's clean or dirty. This would make a huge impact on future LSA designs and would likely make them fly better in more turbulent conditions. It also opens the door to planes like the Davis DA2, Viking Dragonfly, Smith Miniplane, the original Pitts (http://www.airbum.com/Pitts/PirepPittsReplica.html), Starduster Too, possibly the Vari Ez, and I'm sure others.

(2) seems like an oversight in the original LSA regs, but with increased concern on emissions, better batteries, increased focus on electric flight, etc. it will be a nice option for manufacturers and E-AB builders.
 
What is so strange is that for 2 years he was reporting all these changes to gross etc as being seriously proposed and considered for LSA planes just to suddenly announce that none of that will happen and in reality they are planning to do something completely different ... I am wondering , was he talking out of his ass and they never even considered these changes in the first place or perhaps they did and FAA is just basically bunch of schizofrenics ...
 
I hate like hell to be a complete pessimist and be proven right, but with the FAA it's so easy to do. I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, just once, but I don't know that I'll live that long.
 
Warmi said:
What is so strange is that for 2 years he was reporting all these changes to gross etc as being seriously proposed and considered for LSA planes just to suddenly announce that none of that will happen and in reality they are planning to do something completely different ... I am wondering , was he talking out of his ass and they never even considered these changes in the first place or perhaps they did and FAA is just basically bunch of schizofrenics ...
Click to expand...

FAA: Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.
 
Will this rule allow certain experimental aircraft (Vans 7, 8, or 14 for example) be purchased factory built instead of the buyer being forced to build or buy used?
 
The easiest idea would be to have fewer restrictions (maybe even no medical) as long as the plane has a BRS.

But I guess that's too obvious (edit -- to the FAA, not to the folks here!).
 
Last edited:
Both Dan Johnson and EAA put out new statements regarding this yesterday. Now, they are making it seem like a weight increase for LSA is a sure thing. To what weight, no idea. Supposedly it will still be based using a "power index " formula.

Johnson also says that the Sport Pilot rules will change to allow sport pilots to fly aircraft meeting the new LSA standards. This might include legacy aircraft such as a C152, or even a c172. I'm very skeptical of 4 seat aircraft being allowed, but flying as a sport pilot with a wife and 9 year old, additional seating is my dream.

Light Personal Aircraft will still be a new category, but will require a ppl to fly and an a&p for repair.

Hopefully I presented this appropriately, but it's worth reviewing both statements. I'll be skeptical until the changes are final, but it gives me a little hope again.
 
I'd love to hang on to my Mooney, but I don't think there is a chance in heck that it will fit LSA. Flying under sport pilot rules, I can live with another pa28. Maybe even a Grumman Tiger!
 
A slightly older article at DJ's site has the proposed formula for the Power Index. (Finally.) Subject to final Fellowship of Aviation Antagonizers approval, of curse ...

https://bydanjohnson.com/faas-proposed-regulation-mosaic-lamas-spring-2020-update-report/

Scroll to the bottom of the article. There's a typo in the CTSW example, but still valuable info.

There will probably be a hard cap at 3,000 lbs and 200HP. But it appears that there ARE legacy planes that will be available to Sport Pilots. (The 172 fits, but not the 182.)

Not gonna happen before 2023, though. Guess my plans to start SP continue to be on hold. No LSAs for rent around here.
 
Stephen Poole said:
A slightly older article at DJ's site has the proposed formula for the Power Index. (Finally.) Subject to final Fellowship of Aviation Antagonizers approval, of curse ...

https://bydanjohnson.com/faas-proposed-regulation-mosaic-lamas-spring-2020-update-report/

Scroll to the bottom of the article. There's a typo in the CTSW example, but still valuable info.

There will probably be a hard cap at 3,000 lbs and 200HP. But it appears that there ARE legacy planes that will be available to Sport Pilots. (The 172 fits, but not the 182.)

Not gonna happen before 2023, though. Guess my plans to start SP continue to be on hold. No LSAs for rent around here.
Click to expand...


Why not go ahead and start? Go ahead and fly a 150, chances are it's probably going to meet the rules/requirements. That's what I've been doing with the young lady I've been flying with for a couple of years. She flies the airplane really well. Even though, when we started flying together I wasn't a CFI yet, she got a GREAT deal of left seat experience, and I got a lot of right seat experience (about 65 hours worth).
 
Marshall Alexander said:
Why not go ahead and start? Go ahead and fly a 150 ....
Click to expand...

Everyone whom I've called or checked with here in my area has 172s, some Pipers. Kind of surprised me, to be honest -- 150s are supposedly the "standard," as you imply. A couple of places made it clear that they wanted me to have a medical up front. They were totally uninterested in Sport Pilot training.

I'll keep looking, though. I have a disabled wife with considerable health issues (another reason why I've been delayed, long story), so I can't leave her for an extended period -- such as one of the "one-week" LSA/SP schools. Now that this COVID madness is ending, it'll be easier, too. One of the light sport schools around here shut down for COVID and their Website hasn't been updated in quite a while. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top