Light Sport Update ... kinda, sorta, maybe, perhaps -

Daleandee

Daleandee

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
6,878
Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
No one knows where the FAA is headed with Light Sport Aircraft but here are some of the proposed rules changes (until they change them again):

 
Last edited:
samiamPA said:
50 minute video... is there a summary / highlights article anywhere?
Click to expand...

weight going up... 3000 a decent guess

cruise speed going up... 140mph a good guess

single lever operation a near certainty
 
Article says: Single Lever Control (in-flight adjustable prop)


What LAMA/USUA originally requested:
  • Special-LSA (fully built, not kit) Gyroplanes
  • Aerial Work/Commercial Use of LSAs
  • Electric Propulsion
  • Single Lever Control (in-flight adjustable prop)
Other changes under consideration by the FAA:
  • Increased weight (likely based on a formula)
  • Four seats
  • Retractable gear
  • Increased airspeed
  • Electric/Hybrid propulsion
  • A maximum stall speed and a horsepower cap
 
I guess that means constant speed props that are controlled like the cirrus with the throttle control, but not where throttle and prop are two separate controls?
 
Salty said:
I guess that means constant speed props that are controlled like the cirrus with the throttle control, but not where throttle and prop are two separate controls?
Click to expand...
Actually goes further. From what I have previously seen, FAA is considering constant speed prop as a part of a true single level control only.

Currently most LSA are two levers, throttle and mixture. To get the constant speed prop, FAA is looking at requirements which only allow a single lever. Historically this meant FADEC.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
 
tspear said:
Actually goes further. From what I have previously seen, FAA is considering constant speed prop as a part of a true single level control only.

Currently most LSA are two levers, throttle and mixture. To get the constant speed prop, FAA is looking at requirements which only allow a single lever. Historically this meant FADEC.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
OIC

I get your interpretation now.
 
Salty said:
I guess that means constant speed props that are controlled like the cirrus with the throttle control, but not where throttle and prop are two separate controls?
Click to expand...
Variable pitch - the FADAC picks the pitch/throttle/rpm combination according to the demand from the "throttle" lever. Not really "constant speed" - more like an automatic transmission that will downshift when you thump the pedal and put you in overdrive when cruising.
 
Given that guiding principles are safe, simple and easy to fly, I’m surprised they’re considering retracts. The vid explains this as a natural extension of the “repositional” gear found on LSA float planes. Adding variable pitch props makes sense because they’re offloading that responsibility to a computer. But with retracts they’re adding what’s arguably the most problematic element of a complex aircraft.
 
I'd like them to leave LSA alone, just because it seems all of the kinks in that category have been ironed out.
Then, add Light Personal Aircraft. Somewhere between LSA and these: 3000 lb. gross weight, 140 knots, 4 seaters, maximum stall speed, etc., but no horsepower cap. I'm with Sonoran, retractable is problematic.
 
I'd like to see them increase the weight to allow Sport Pilots to fly Skyhawks and Cherokees. They're simple aircraft and there's no reason to omit them.
 
It's frustrating not being legal to fly a 150/152 as a sport pilot. Hopefully that changes in the near future.
 
I’m a simple guy. Align the future of LSA to the equipment and capability allowed under BasicMed today. Six place, day/night, IFR outside of Class A airspace.
 
TCABM said:
I’m a simple guy. Align the future of LSA to the equipment and capability allowed under BasicMed today. Six place, day/night, IFR outside of Class A airspace.
Click to expand...
That would be an elegant, simple solution.

Add to that
  • Eliminate the requirement of a medical prior to getting basic med.
  • Any requirement needing a 3rd class now satisfied by basic med
  • Common certification of Avionics. That is, any avionics shown to be airworthy in experimental planes are acceptable for any plane that a person with Basic Med can fly in.
I'll wake up from this nice dream and face reality now......
 
I’d be happy with an increase in GW to 2000 lbs and a CS prop
 
TCABM said:
I’m a simple guy. Align the future of LSA to the equipment and capability allowed under BasicMed today. Six place, day/night, IFR outside of Class A airspace.
Click to expand...

I hear ya 100%. Thing is, based on what the LAMA folks were intimating in their article, that's not their priority. They're more hung up on the allowance to revenue-operate the stupid things as-is. As such, this MOSAIC is already smelling like a nothingburger for the majority of the captive audience in fac-built land or compromised medical land. Key takeaways in that article that require a bit of reading between the lines, include the emphasis on manufacturers and design kabuki going forward. That's dogwhistle for non-retroactive line items. There goes your cost savings proposition (aka the retroactive inclusion of old fac builts). This is part 23 re-write all over again. I've pretty much resigned myself to keep the Arrow and not put a nickle in upgrades until I'm able to downshift to an RV, or SF260 if I decide to do the unusual attitude clinic shtick a side hustle in mil retirement.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
That would require an act of congress. Literally.
Click to expand...

Not really. Private Pilot could still exist unchanged for people that want to fly internationally.

SP for everyone else.

(Anyways, LSA is for the plane, SP is for the pilots, it would just make SP more useful.)
 
hindsight2020 said:
I. That's dogwhistle for non-retroactive line items. There goes your cost savings proposition (aka the retroactive inclusion of old fac builts). This is part 23 re-write all over again..
Click to expand...

First post. Considering sport pilot. Not in a hurry. Sorry if this is a naive question.

If rules did change, does the above mean to imply that all existing aircraft that fit into any new rules (4 seat, <XXXX lbs GW, etc, whatever they are) would not be eligible to be flown with a sport pilot license. How exactly would that work? It would only apply to new planes that were certified to meet the new requirement?
 
MendLeft said:
First post. Considering sport pilot. Not in a hurry. Sorry if this is a naive question.

If rules did change, does the above mean to imply that all existing aircraft that fit into any new rules (4 seat, <XXXX lbs GW, etc, whatever they are) would not be eligible to be flown with a sport pilot license. How exactly would that work? It would only apply to new planes that were certified to meet the new requirement?
Click to expand...

Welcome to POA.

No of course they could. That wasn't my point. The point of my prior statement is that I infer based on my read, that such an initiative is in fact not a lobbying priority in the laundry list of things we re all getting excited about. Hence my reference about the practical outcomes of the part 23 rewrite Kabuki earlier last decade. Milquetoast incrementalism that doesn't hit the pressure point. The middle class is hollowed out, the production numbers are too inconsequential. We'll never address access with new production alone, LSA in present circumstances or not.

It's good you're not in a hurry, because they're not even touching this in any kind of legislative manner until 2023. Do yourself a favor and go EAB as soon as you can. I was childless when I first started wasting my time musing to the AP back then about 337s and field approvals for modifications to the 4 seater spam can that's all I could afford. I'm now up to my waist with a second grader, in the time I've been waiting for Godot. I've certainly moved on, though I'm rooting for y'all. Cheers!
 
MendLeft said:
If rules did change, does the above mean to imply that all existing aircraft that fit into any new rules (4 seat, <XXXX lbs GW, etc, whatever they are) would not be eligible to be flown with a sport pilot license. How exactly would that work? It would only apply to new planes that were certified to meet the new requirement?
Click to expand...
The way it works now is that any aircraft that meets the requirements for speed / seats/ weight /etc.can be flown with a sport pilot certificate. How the airplane is/was originally certificated is totally irrelevant - that's why you can fly Cubs, Champs, E-AB, etc. with your sport ticket.
 
Thank you both. Appreciate the clarifications.

One other question is that I have read that weight would be based on a ratio or formula. This would be a power to weight ratio? Are different ratio's easier/safer to fly? In my mind I can think of reasons why a higher power to weight ratio could be both safer or more dangerous....but then I again I don't really know anything. Feel free to direct me to a link or tell me what to look up if this is common knowledge. Thanks.
 
MendLeft said:
This would be a power to weight ratio? Are different ratio's easier/safer to fly? I
Click to expand...
No way will it be as simple as power to weight. We're talking FAA here.
And, it's to limit performance because us light and sporty guys just can't handle hot rods like the big kids.
Don't expect it to make sense.
 
It’s all just guessing at this point, many people are making assumptions without remembering your working with the FAA. Change will come in time.
 
Thanks. The link really helped. Yes, looks like the power index as defined here is just a ratio of wing area square footage and horsepower.

hindsight2020 said:
Do yourself a favor and go EAB as soon as you can.
Click to expand...

Not super excited about the A in EAB. What advantage would this have over ELSA if I only had a sport pilot license?...its till has to meet LSA requirements, correct?
 
MendLeft said:
Not super excited about the A in EAB. What advantage would this have over ELSA if I only had a sport pilot license?...its till has to meet LSA requirements, correct?
Click to expand...

I forgot you were speaking from the purview of someone who isn't interested or can't qualify for basicmed or a class III. I was speaking more generally. Disregard my last in that case. Good luck to ya.
 
Made a quick table with common single engine aircraft and if they stick with something like the criteria and equation that were mentioned, it looks unlikely that this metric (power index) would be limiting in many cases. Seems like total horsepower, air speed, stall speed or some other criteria would likely become the limiting factor before power index would.
 
Here's hoping that if I can give flight instruction in an SLSA, I can also take pictures from it legally!!!
 
MendLeft said:
it looks unlikely that this metric (power index) would be limiting in many cases.
Click to expand...
Looks like the power index equation has something wrong (or they are not using horsepower / square feet) with it as printed on that web page. A 182 comes out at 0.34, a DC-3 is 0.81... One heck of an LSA.

But it is the FAA after all.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Looks like the power index equation has something wrong (or they are not using horsepower / square feet) with it as printed on that web page. A 182 comes out at 0.34, a DC-3 is 0.81... One heck of an LSA.

But it is the FAA after all.
Click to expand...

I believe it’s the cubed root of P/S. A bit confusing read as inline text. I think the 182 came out right around the supposed cut off but can’t recall right now. To give you an idea, a bonanza was below the cutoff.
 
A DA40 or 172 would meet the criteria currently thrown out there I believe. (Stall, max HP, power index)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top