Aircraft Losing LSA eligibility

QuiQuog

QuiQuog

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
145
Display Name
Display name:
Hobo Djoe
14 CFR 1.1 LSA definition states "Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following" then goes on to state the LSA specs.

The AOPA has interpreted this to mean that if a light sport plane ever exceeds the limitations of the LSA category, such as exceeding 1320lbs, even once, the airplane is forever not eligible to fly under the sport pilot rule. Is that the correct interpretation? What would be the logic of that?

My thought would be that if a plane was LSA, then was modified to exceed the limitations of the LSA category, it wouldn't be eligible to fly under the sport pilot rule. But because somebody overloaded it once doesn't seem to warrant changing its category.

So let's say I'm a sport pilot and own an LSA. I take my buddy up for a ride once around the pattern and land. I fall victim to a ramp check and in the course of conversation it's determined that my buddy and I and a full tank exceed the gross weight by 100 lbs. Is it conceivable that my plane is now and forever unflyable as an LSA? What would the purpose of that be?

What are your opinions on this?
 
I'm under the impression that the limitation is max gross weight, which doesn't change just because you exceeded it.
 
QuiQuog said:
14 CFR 1.1 LSA definition states "Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following" then goes on to state the LSA specs.

The AOPA has interpreted this to mean that if a light sport plane ever exceeds the limitations of the LSA category, such as exceeding 1320lbs, even once, the airplane is forever not eligible to fly under the sport pilot rule. Is that the correct interpretation? What would be the logic of that?

My thought would be that if a plane was LSA, then was modified to exceed the limitations of the LSA category, it wouldn't be eligible to fly under the sport pilot rule. But because somebody overloaded it once doesn't seem to warrant changing its category.

So let's say I'm a sport pilot and own an LSA. I take my buddy up for a ride once around the pattern and land. I fall victim to a ramp check and in the course of conversation it's determined that my buddy and I and a full tank exceed the gross weight by 100 lbs. Is it conceivable that my plane is now and forever unflyable as an LSA? What would the purpose of that be?

What are your opinions on this?
Click to expand...
"Has continued to meet" refers to the LEGAL limit, not whether anyone in the past has violated the aircraft's limits.

There's an STC mod for some models of Ercoupe, for instance, that result in the gross weight legally being allowed to increase. This increase was above what would eventually be the LSA limit.

So if you have that model of Ercoupe that has NEVER had the STC performed, you're golden. However, if the STC was executed, the plane cannot be changed back so it meets the limit.

Ron Wanttaja
 
It's not hard to imagine that there might be/have been an STC to increase the GW on certain "now LSA" planes. I'm reading it as the owner may still reverse the STC process but the plane can never be flowin IAW SPL regulations.

More likely the rule is so that people can't issue a paperwork STC to drop the gross weight on a Cessna 150.
 
wanttaja said:
"Has continued to meet" refers to the LEGAL limit, not whether anyone in the past has violated the aircraft's limits.
Click to expand...
That's the way I read it also. By the way it was on the EAA site not AOPA where I found the opinion. http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=415
They say:
"The very first line of the definition is the key. It states:

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

This verbiage clearly says that an aircraft must meet all the criteria called out in the definition of an LSA at the time of its original certification AND CONTINUOUSLY thereafter. One of the items it must meet is a maximum takeoff weight of 1320 lbs (1430 lbs for seaplanes). Since it must meet this requirement continuously since it's original certification, it can NEVER have been operated at a maximum takeoff weight of anything greater than the weight called out in the LSA definition. If it operates at a maximum takeoff weight greater than that called out in the definition EVEN ONE TIME, it no longer meets the definition and is not eligible for operation by sport pilots forever thereafter.

So the scenario you suggest, where a Kitfox has a maximum gross of 1400 lbs but can be operated at 1320 lbs by a sport pilot, won't work. If the aircraft has EVER been operated at a maximum takeoff weight of greater than 1320 lbs, even if it was only one time, it no longer meets the definition of a light sport aircraft and is not eligible for operation by sport pilots."

Is this their current stance on it I wonder?
 
bartmc said:
It's not hard to imagine that there might be/have been an STC to increase the GW on certain "now LSA" planes. I'm reading it as the owner may still reverse the STC process but the plane can never be flowin IAW SPL regulations.

More likely the rule is so that people can't issue a paperwork STC to drop the gross weight on a Cessna 150.
Click to expand...

If you reverse the STC it will still not meet the letter of the LSA law. Pretty crummy.

I do however think you have the intent of the law down, otherwise it could be construed as a minor alteration to placard the plane "max gross 1320lbs" and call it LSA
 
There is a rumor that a Sonex was built and registered as an LSA, then showed exceeding 120 kias by a significant margin on youtube and based on that the FAA revoked the registration.

However, I can't find it referred to online and can't testify to it on my own.
 
Yes, it can never have an STC to increase the max to above the LSA limit. The STC does have to be executed. I know of one Ercoupe in which the STC was rejected because of a missed box that needed checked. So it was not executed, so the plane remained an LSA.

Planes can't read. So if a plane is capable of getting a paperwork STC Max Gross increase -- one that doesn't actually chance anything in the plane, then the plane will not know it is being flown at the higher max gross, and it remains LSA.
 
Last edited:
I know someone who has a Taylorcraft that at one time had a controllable pitch prop (strictly mechanical--you turned a knob to change the pitch) that was long ago replaced by a fixed pitch prop. It meets all the criteria of an LSA but because it once had a controllable pitch prop installed (and in the log books), even though it was not an STC but a factory option and listed on the TCDS, it cannot be legally operated as a Light Sport. His first clue was a manifold pressure gauge in an airplane with 65 horses.
 
wanttaja said:
"Has continued to meet" refers to the LEGAL limit, not whether anyone in the past has violated the aircraft's limits.

There's an STC mod for some models of Ercoupe, for instance, that result in the gross weight legally being allowed to increase. This increase was above what would eventually be the LSA limit.

So if you have that model of Ercoupe that has NEVER had the STC performed, you're golden. However, if the STC was executed, the plane cannot be changed back so it meets the limit.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

I get the point of avoiding non LSA planes being placarded into LSA compliance. Unfortunately there is collateral damage to that policy as you mention. For cases like the Ercoupe, it'd be nice if the plane could be granted a waiver if it was originally LSA qualifying and whatever offending STC was removed making it once again LSA compliant. Of course the waiver would be contingent on remaining compliant with the LSA limits.

I suspose FAA inspectors probably have better things to do with their time.
 
QuiQuog said:
That's the way I read it also. By the way it was on the EAA site not AOPA where I found the opinion. http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=415
They say:
"The very first line of the definition is the key. It states:

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

This verbiage clearly says that an aircraft must meet all the criteria called out in the definition of an LSA at the time of its original certification AND CONTINUOUSLY thereafter. One of the items it must meet is a maximum takeoff weight of 1320 lbs (1430 lbs for seaplanes). Since it must meet this requirement continuously since it's original certification, it can NEVER have been operated at a maximum takeoff weight of anything greater than the weight called out in the LSA definition. If it operates at a maximum takeoff weight greater than that called out in the definition EVEN ONE TIME, it no longer meets the definition and is not eligible for operation by sport pilots forever thereafter.

So the scenario you suggest, where a Kitfox has a maximum gross of 1400 lbs but can be operated at 1320 lbs by a sport pilot, won't work. If the aircraft has EVER been operated at a maximum takeoff weight of greater than 1320 lbs, even if it was only one time, it no longer meets the definition of a light sport aircraft and is not eligible for operation by sport pilots."

Is this their current stance on it I wonder?
Click to expand...

There would have to have been paperwork generated that legally increased the allowable GW to above LSA limits.

Just because a pilot operated "illegally" above a GW limit without documentation, Does not make it so.

Cub crafters offers a kit build. It can be certified at LSA weights or higher. Depends on what the builder wants to put down on paper for certification. But once certified to the higher weight, it cannot be brought back down to LSA.
 
When I bought my Ercoupe 415C it had a gross takeoff weight of 1260 pounds. Through the years the engine was modified to 85 HP, elevator trim changed to the 1 3/8” tab and the up elevator stop changed from 14 degrees to 9 degrees up, making it now eligible for 1400 pounds GW. I wanted to increase the GW but still wanted to stay sport legal so I purchased a 1320 pound GW STC at a cost of $200. Took the STC to my AI and once the paper work was completed and recorded the airplane is now 1320 GW. No modifications had to be made to accomplish this. Had I elected to increase to GW to 1400 it would no longer be eligible for sport and as other have said, could never be reversed.
 
Rex Bueller said:
When I bought my Ercoupe 415C it had a gross takeoff weight of 1260 pounds. Through the years the engine was modified to 85 HP, elevator trim changed to the 1 3/8” tab and the up elevator stop changed from 14 degrees to 9 degrees up, making it now eligible for 1400 pounds GW. I wanted to increase the GW but still wanted to stay sport legal so I purchased a 1320 pound GW STC at a cost of $200. Took the STC to my AI and once the paper work was completed and recorded the airplane is now 1320 GW. No modifications had to be made to accomplish this. Had I elected to increase to GW to 1400 it would no longer be eligible for sport and as other have said, could never be reversed.
Click to expand...

Perfect solution!
 
Since I am interested in owning an Ercoupe 415C as an LSA, here is an informative piece by Ed Burkhead, the owner of a popular Ercoupe web site (As background to his article, the 1946 415C qualifies, as does the 1947 C/D, both with a 1260 pound gross weight (STC'd to the LSA max 1320 lbs gross.) However the 1947 415D and all subsequent models do not qualfy as LSA due to the 1400 lb gross weight.):

When is an Ercoupe eligible as an LSA?

OK, I just talked with Joe Norris at the EAA.

Please remember that neither he nor I are lawyers nor FAA officials. This is simply my recording of our discussion and our best attempt to clarify this issue based on our knowledge.

Here are the possible cases and my summary of the discussion:

The airworthiness certificate is now and has always been for a 415-C or 415-CD model and the are no maintenance documents showing conversion to a higher model – no logbook entries, no form 337 on file with the FAA, no modification of the data plate. Good to fly as LSA

The airworthiness certificate is now and has always been for a 415-C or 415-CD model however there are log book entries that show conversion. Assume it is not valid to fly as LSA

The airworthiness certificate is now and has always been for a 415-C or 415-CD model however there is a form 337 on file with the FAA that shows conversion. Assume it is not valid to fly as LSA Joe didn’t think that a form 337 is required as part of the model up-conversion, that only a log book entry and data plate change were needed. However, if a form 337 is filled out and submitted as part of an up-conversion, then it constitutes documentary evidence of a model change.

The airworthiness certificate is now and has always been for a 415-C or 415-CD model and the log books were lost and there is no form 337 on file with the FAA, no modification of the data plate. Good to fly as LSA (Should not be a problem if the logbooks were lost prior to release of the SP/LSA rule and you have recent replacement log books, but, beware of possible challenge if the log books were lost more recently. The FAA might well be suspicious and talk to prior owners. Ed)

The airworthiness certificate is now and has always been for a 415-C or 415-CD model and the are no maintenance documents showing conversion to a higher model – no logbook entries, no form 337 on file with the FAA, no modification of the data plate. However, the registration shows or, in the past, showed an incorrect model number. Joe says this is a frequent paperwork glitch and has no bearing. If it’s wrong now, correct it. Good to fly as LSA

The airworthiness certificate is now and has always been for a 415-C or 415-CD model and the are no maintenance documents showing conversion to a higher model – no logbook entries, no form 337 on file with the FAA, no modification of the data plate. However, someone incorrectly told an insurance company the model was a D or later. Joe says this is a paperwork glitch that has no bearing on LSA status with the FAA. Good to fly as LSA
I think that covers all the relevant cases.

Joe mentioned that pretty much everyone agrees that it’d be proper for there to be an exception or divergence issued for the special case of these Ercoupes. That’s something that’d have to be done through the type club at least and may require other assistance. I have heard that Skip is working on this and has such cooperation. Whether there will be success or not, we’ll have to wait (perhaps years) and see.

Ed
 
Last edited:
Well, that does cover it. Good to know.
 
jnmeade said:
There is a rumor that a Sonex was built and registered as an LSA, then showed exceeding 120 kias by a significant margin on youtube and based on that the FAA revoked the registration.

However, I can't find it referred to online and can't testify to it on my own.
Click to expand...

IIRC, this was one of the few Sonex that was powered by a 3L Corvair engine of 120HP or so, and a rather aggressive prop. It would easily exceed the sea level max speed of 120Kts, and while I don't think the registration was revoked, it was removed from the light sport category and forced into the E-AB.

All plans built(including engine) Sonex products meet the LSA/SP requirements.

Some aircraft from overseas have speeds that exceeded the LSA requirements. Various 'fixes' were performed on these planes to slow them down so that it would meet the LSA requirements on first issuance. Reflex flap restriction is one that I'm familiar with, but another used a shorter, and lower pitched prop to limit top level speed at sea level. If one were so inclined, I suppose they could modify the plane with the reflex setting, or go back to the bigger prop and operate, but it would of course be illegal, or it would be moved into the E-AB category, never to return to the LSA program.
 
docmirror said:
IIRC, this was one of the few Sonex that was powered by a 3L Corvair engine of 120HP or so, and a rather aggressive prop. It would easily exceed the sea level max speed of 120Kts, and while I don't think the registration was revoked, it was removed from the light sport category and forced into the E-AB.

All plans built(including engine) Sonex products meet the LSA/SP requirements.

Some aircraft from overseas have speeds that exceeded the LSA requirements. Various 'fixes' were performed on these planes to slow them down so that it would meet the LSA requirements on first issuance. Reflex flap restriction is one that I'm familiar with, but another used a shorter, and lower pitched prop to limit top level speed at sea level. If one were so inclined, I suppose they could modify the plane with the reflex setting, or go back to the bigger prop and operate, but it would of course be illegal, or it would be moved into the E-AB category, never to return to the LSA program.
Click to expand...



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
 
QuiQuog said:
....
So let's say I'm a sport pilot and own an LSA. I take my buddy up for a ride once around the pattern and land. I fall victim to a ramp check and in the course of conversation it's determined that my buddy and I and a full tank exceed the gross weight by 100 lbs. Is it conceivable that my plane is now and forever unflyable as an LSA? What would the purpose of that be?

What are your opinions on this?
Click to expand...

I have NEVER seen the FAA hanging out at airports with scales...:no:
 
The use of E-AB to imply it is not eligible as a LSA can be confusing. An E-AB can be flown by a Sport Pilot provided the E-AB meets the LSA criteria.

When a homebuilder completes the plane he has the choice of registering it as an E-AB or E-LSA. The advantage of the E-LSA is that when he sells it, the new owner can, with a short repairman course, do the condition inspection. An E-AB must have the condition inspection done by the original builder or an A/P. The disadvantage of E-LSA is that any changes must be approved by the kit manufacturer. So, most homebuilders around here are going with E-AB.

The above is my understanding, stated as briefly as I can.

The discussion of max gross and exceeding the 1320 pound max gross, and what needs to be in the weight and balance and whether it needs to be recalculated for each flight would make a good separate thread.
 
tinerj said:
The use of E-AB to imply it is not eligible as a LSA can be confusing. An E-AB can be flown by a Sport Pilot provided the E-AB meets the LSA criteria.
Click to expand...
Yes, ANY airplane can be flown by an SP if it meets LSA criteria.
When a homebuilder completes the plane he has the choice of registering it as an E-AB or E-LSA.
Click to expand...
This is true for planes like the RV-12, some Rans, etc. where there is already an SLSA in existence as a basis. A Pitts or Kitfox that has never been built as an SLSA can not be copied as an ELSA.
The advantage of the E-LSA is that when he sells it, the new owner can, with a short repairman course, do the condition inspection. An E-AB must have the condition inspection done by the original builder or an A/P. The disadvantage of E-LSA is that any changes must be approved by the kit manufacturer.So, most homebuilders around here are going with E-AB.
Click to expand...

An ELSA must be built exactly to the SLSA specs UNLESS the builder gets an LOA from the manufacturer. An example would be wanting to put on different tires, a different battery, a different radio. Can't do as ELSA without LOA. Once the ELSA certificate has been awarded, the builder can modify the airplane in many ways. He can't rebuild it in such a way that it no longer meets the category and class requirements without getting a new Operating Limitations letter, but he can change out the radio, change the tires, change the battery, change the propeller and so forth. It can stay ELSA as long as it meets LSA criteria.


A good source for the above is Carol Carpenter of Rainbow Aviation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top