Light sport maintenance and the C-172/PA-28

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
There is a rumor that the light sport category weight limit will be raised to 3600 pounds, That includes most of the GA fleet.
What will happen to the maintenance requirements of the C-172 and the Piper PA-28? If they are considered Light Sport.
Second question, What will happen to the A&P mechanics if the aircraft under 3600# go light sport?
 
I wouldn't get too concerned yet Tom.
Those aircraft meet the definition of the "Owner Maintenance" category that the Canadians came up with quite a few years ago. The trip to OM is one way (cannot get a standard airworthiness certificate ever again), does not include IFR, and the take-up by owners has been pretty minimal, well below expectations, despite the obvious cost savings. OM still have to maintain the plane to manufacturer's specifications & requirements.
 
Nothing happened to the maintenance requirements of the Champs, Cubs, t-crafts, etc. that are able to be flown under the light sport rules as they are currently written. Why do you think that will magically change once the weight limit is changed to 3600?

They’re still TCd airplanes and need to be maintained appropriately.
 
Don’t you know Tom? An A&P is an anachronism from the yesteryears of aviation. Every pilot can do it all now. And if not, someone who attends a two to three week class can. Old mechanics like us just need to fade away and let the pilots and repairmen do it all. Haven’t you been reading some of the threads on here. We are not necessary.

Or it really could just be a rumor not to worry about. At my age and point in my career, I don’t really care. I’ll adapt. I might even retire. It’s all good.
 
sounds like you need to read the current regs on lsa. It’s rather insteresting how many A&Ps don’t understand LSA regs, especially S-LSA. Just about every A&P I’ve talked to tells me they don’t have to comply with mandatory SBs on an S-LSA, which is incorrect. The ones that bother to look, realize they were wrong when they do.
 
Last edited:
Raising the weight limit on lsa doesn’t magically make all those planes experimental....they are still certified aircraft.

What is an interesting question is if it does make them all unairworthy until all past SBs have been complied with.
 
If the FAA changes the numbers in part 1.1, definitions, then you get to fly larger aircraft without a medical and/or a sport pilot certificate. Nothing else changes.

If the FAA changes the numbers in part 21.190, then manufactures would be able to market new aircraft under the ASTM consensus instead of the part 23 requirements. Nothing else changes. [edit 21.190 just references "light sport aircraft" which would suggest that a change in 1.1 would cover this as well assuming that the "consensus standard" is updated as well.]

Since maintenance requirements are a function of the type certificate, absafreekingly nothing would change W.R.T. legacy aircraft such as 172's etc. since (one would assume) they would not be re-certificated just as Champs and Cubs were never re-certificated and can't (legally) be maintained by someone with a light sport repairman certificate. Of course, if there is a flood of new aircraft that replace the current 172's etc. then, well, A&P's might lose a handful of clients to light sport repairmen - but the "throw the keys at the mechanic" owners will still exist - just look at the trends in the auto industry - how many people even change their own oil any more? The net result may be more airplanes = more work for A&Ps. And, one would have to consider the possibility that a sport pilot certificate may be more popular for new pilots with the result that these pilots will be even more dependent on their friendly neighborhood A&P since low life, baby eating, sport pilots are not (by regulation) allowed to do things like change oil, add air to tires, etc. Finally, given that pilots without medicals are inferior to real pilots, one would expect this to be a boon to A&P's because they will be wrecking aircraft port and starboard.

What was the question again?
 
Last edited:
I was under the impression that rumor has been widely rescinded. At the very least the timing of the NPRM was really optimistic by more than a year, and it sounds like industry will pushback on changes to the weight to that extent.
 
mondtster said:
Nothing happened to the maintenance requirements of the Champs, Cubs, t-crafts, etc. that are able to be flown under the light sport rules as they are currently written. Why do you think that will magically change once the weight limit is changed to 3600?

They’re still TCd airplanes and need to be maintained appropriately.
Click to expand...

I hope you are correct..

but read AC65-32A
 
Tom-D said:
but read AC65-32A
Click to expand...
Not applicable to A&Ps. See 91.327. A&Ps, IAs, and RSs can all maintain/inspect all LSAs when required. On your OP, any aircraft with a TC still follows 43 regardless is flown by a PPL or a LS certificate.
 
Salty said:
mandatory SBs on an S-LSA
Click to expand...
Salty said:
What is an interesting question is if it does make them all unairworthy until all past SBs have been complied with
Click to expand...
FYI: Aircraft produced under the ASTM consensus standards are required to have all OEM safety directives and bulletins complied with to maintain airworthiness. Aircraft produced under a TC and operated under Part 91 are only required to comply with ADs to maintain airworthiness, regardless what type of pilot operates them.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: Aircraft produced under the ASTM consensus standards are required to have all OEM safety directives and bulletins complied with to maintain airworthiness. Aircraft produced under a TC and operated under Part 91 are only required to comply with ADs to maintain airworthiness, regardless what type of pilot operates them.
Click to expand...
I would think that changes if they reclassify them as special LSAs to allow them to be flown by sport pilots.
 
Tom-D said:
but read AC65-32A
Click to expand...
Read AC65-32A Q and R.
Only applies to aircraft with a S-LSA or E-LSA certificate.Where would you find an 172 or PA-28 that was produced with a S-LSA or E-LSA certificate? I'm pretty sure they don't exist.

Salty said:
I would think that changes if they reclassify them as special LSAs to allow them to be flown by sport pilots.
Click to expand...
Why would they be reclassified, and why would any kind of reclassification be required for an aircraft to be flown by sport pilots? That's not what is done now.
If an aircraft meets the definition of LSA, then it can be flown by a sport pilot or under the sport pilot rules.
The definition of LSA does NOT specify that the aircraft has to have a S-LSA or E-LSA certificate. It can be a standard type certificate, E-AB, whatever. A sport pilot can fly a Cub which is not an S-LSA or E-LSA. A sport pilot can fly my airplane which is E-AB.

1.1 Definitions:
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.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Read AC65-32A Q and R.
Only applies to aircraft with a S-LSA or E-LSA certificate.


Why would they be reclassified, and why would any kind of reclassification be required for an aircraft to be flown by sport pilots? That's not what is done now.
If an aircraft meets the definition of LSA, then it can be flown by a sport pilot or under the sport pilot rules.
The definition of LSA does NOT specify that the aircraft has to have a S-LSA or E-LSA certificate. It can be a standard type certificate, E-AB, whatever. A sport pilot can fly a Cub which is not an S-LSA or E-LSA. A sport pilot can fly my airplane which is E-AB.

1.1 Definitions:
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.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. I didn’t understand that.
 
Have to take it one step at a time,the new ruling isn’t even out yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top