"LSAs are VFR only"

[alaskaflyer]

Besides Jason Paur...says who

 

[KennyFlys]

I don't know the LSA market at all but I'd think very few would be IFR certified. The intended buyer won't hold a medical and thus would not be authorized to fly in IMC. Though, I wish all were equipped at least for better training.

My biggest gripe about the Skycatcher is it does not have a navigation receiver so there are limitations on the inexpensive training that can be done for private pilot certificate students.

 

[ScottM]

I don't know the LSA market at all but I'd think very few would be IFR certified. The intended buyer won't hold a medical and thus would not be authorized to fly in IMC. Though, I wish all were equipped at least for better training.

My biggest gripe about the Skycatcher is it does not have a navigation receiver so there are limitations on the inexpensive training that can be done for private pilot certificate students.

Just an FYI I am pretty sure that Jay got his Zodiac IFR certified.

 

[gprellwitz]

Just an FYI I am pretty sure that Jay got his Zodiac IFR certified.

Yes, it is.

 

[Ted]

Yep... 430 and all.

I would suspect that most LSAs are VFR only, but that's not a requirement, rather just an effect of most LSA pilots not being able to get an instrument rating.

 

[KennyFlys]

I'm not sure what Jay's goal was but I'd rather be fully equipped than not. At least the equipment is there to use should the need arise and it's in spec.

 

[Ted]

Seems to me that Jay wanted his plane to be outfitted top of the line, as a plane that would be capable of a lot and something he could keep for a long time to come. If I had the opportunity to spec my plane from new as he did, I likely would've done the same.

What especially impresses me about Jay's plane is the efficient use of limited panel space. It's not cluttered, but it has most everything you'd want, complete with the 496 for weather and backup navigation. His Zodiac is in some ways a better-equipped IFR machine than my Aztec.

 

[jmaynard]

I sent AOPA a letter (well, an e-mail) to the editor as soon as I finished reading that article:

I was very interested to read Jason Paur's article in the January 2009 AOPA Pilot about LSAs as cross-country machines. I've flown my AMD Zodiac XLi several thousand miles over my 108 hours in the air since taking delivery in June. I don't think twice about trips that other pilots would do in a 172 or Warrior. If your mission will fit into two seats, an LSA will get the job done quite nicely and inexpensively.

I do have to take exception to one statement Jason made, however: It is indeed possible to have an IFR-certified LSA. I know because mine is, as the placard above the engine monitor ("Day Night VFR or IFR in Non-Icing Conditions") attests. Both the AMD Zodiac and Tecnam Bravo/Sierra are available in IFR versions. There are some manufacturers that will tell you that an LSA cannot be IFR certified, but that's probably because they don't offer them that way.

Perhaps one of these days the FAA will relax the rules for a third class medical, or do away with it entirely for flights within the US. At that point, I'll add an instrument rating to my private ticket, and won't have to get a different airplane. Until then, I'll have that little bit of extra comfort from knowing my aircraft is more capable than I am.

Most LSAs are indeed not IFR certified. This is due to several factors: Manufacturers don't want to spend the extra money (about $8000 more) for the certificated version of the Rotax 912; they don't see a market for them, since sport pilots or those operating under the sport pilot rule cannot fly IFR; they want to use those sexy glass cockpits that are commonly available for experimentals but aren't TSOd; or they're under the mistaken impression that an LSA cannot be IFR-certified, as the importer of the Sport Cruiser is.

The LSA manufacturers are quite commonly building their aircraft as night VFR capable, even though sport pilots can't fly at night, either. It's not about the capabilities of their intended pilots as much as it might appear.

AMD has sold somewhere about half of their Zodiacs as XLi/LSi models; the i is for IFR certification. There's a market out there. One of these days, the FAA will lighten up on the medical, and people will be able to fly IFR without one. When they do, I'll be ready.

 

[jmaynard]

I'm not sure what Jay's goal was but I'd rather be fully equipped than not. At least the equipment is there to use should the need arise and it's in spec.

Exactly. I'd rather have it and not need it than the reverse. I plan to keep it in pitot/static currency for the same reason.

 

[kevin47881]

I sent AOPA a letter (well, an e-mail) to the editor as soon as I finished reading that article:



Most LSAs are indeed not IFR certified. This is due to several factors: Manufacturers don't want to spend the extra money (about $8000 more) for the certificated version of the Rotax 912; they don't see a market for them, since sport pilots or those operating under the sport pilot rule cannot fly IFR; they want to use those sexy glass cockpits that are commonly available for experimentals but aren't TSOd; or they're under the mistaken impression that an LSA cannot be IFR-certified, as the importer of the Sport Cruiser is.

The LSA manufacturers are quite commonly building their aircraft as night VFR capable, even though sport pilots can't fly at night, either. It's not about the capabilities of their intended pilots as much as it might appear.

AMD has sold somewhere about half of their Zodiacs as XLi/LSi models; the i is for IFR certification. There's a market out there. One of these days, the FAA will lighten up on the medical, and people will be able to fly IFR without one. When they do, I'll be ready.

Have you heard back from them yet?

 

[jmaynard]

Have you heard back from them yet?

No. If anything, I expect to see the letter published in the March or April AOPA Pilot; I wouldn't be surprised to hear nothing at all.

 

[tonycondon]

Exactly. Plus, when Jay's ready to sell the Zodiac (god forbid) and Im looking for a really sweet, modern, well equipped IFR 2 seater, I can buy it!

 

[poadeleted20]

There are some aircraft which qualify as LSA's which are IFR-certified. However, you need at least a PP-ASEL-IA and Third Class medical to fly them IFR because Light Sport pilot privileges don't include IFR operations.

 

[Everskyward]

Exactly. Plus, when Jay's ready to sell the Zodiac (god forbid) and Im looking for a really sweet, modern, well equipped IFR 2 seater, I can buy it!

Those were my thoughts too, Tony. Just because someone has more than a sport pilot rating doesn't mean that might not be interested in a small, modern, 2-seat IFR airplane someday.

 

[LearDriver]

Seriously, most recreational pilots can barely keep their landing currency up. IFR skills are a whole different subject. Why not just use these aircraft for the type of flying that they were meant for.

By all means put in the modern avionics. They make flying somewhere much easier and will help keep you out of airspace you shouldn't be in. But I don't want to share airspace with you in IMC conditions. That is when I am in one of the airplanes that I earn a living in. On my day off I am just like the rest of you, flying around VFR and at less than 100 knots.

Its just not safe for either of us. On departure I will be doing 200 kts and when I exit the class D, It will get pushed to 250 kts. On approach, minimum speed is going to be 125 kts or 130 kts depending on which one I am flying. Jets and LSA's don't mix well.

Just enjoy each one for what they are designed for. It is kind of interesting though. When someone is flying around in their LSA that they just want to fly something bigger. I find that when I am flying around in a kerosene burner with a schedule for the day, weather to contend with, and a PITA high maintenance boss in the back, I am thinking about how nice it would be to just be flying around in that American Legend Cub that I so badly want.

 

[SkyHog]

Seriously, most recreational pilots can barely keep their landing currency up. IFR skills are a whole different subject. Why not just use these aircraft for the type of flying that they were meant for.

By all means put in the modern avionics. They make flying somewhere much easier and will help keep you out of airspace you shouldn't be in. But I don't want to share airspace with you in IMC conditions. That is when I am in one of the airplanes that I earn a living in. On my day off I am just like the rest of you, flying around VFR and at less than 100 knots.

Its just not safe for either of us. On departure I will be doing 200 kts and when I exit the class D, It will get pushed to 250 kts. On approach, minimum speed is going to be 125 kts or 130 kts depending on which one I am flying. Jets and LSA's don't mix well.

Just enjoy each one for what they are designed for. It is kind of interesting though. When someone is flying around in their LSA that they just want to fly something bigger. I find that when I am flying around in a kerosene burner with a schedule for the day, weather to contend with, and a PITA high maintenance boss in the back, I am thinking about how nice it would be to just be flying around in that American Legend Cub that I so badly want.

I think you should reread this thread to determine whether or not you mean to lump recreational pilots with sport pilots. There's a huge difference: Sport Pilots are flying the best they can without medicals in some cases; Rec Pilots are just lazy.

edit: Oh, and the skies don't belong to jets, regardless of what you may think.

 

[Everskyward]

But I don't want to share airspace with you in IMC conditions. That is when I am in one of the airplanes that I earn a living in.

That's a pretty bold statement right there.

 

[SkyHog]

That's a pretty bold statement right there.

But but but....Mari, you fly a jet!! Aren't you one of those super awesome super pilots that can't be bothered know that there are GENERAL AVIATION aircraft in the sky with you at the same time?

I mean, gosh, the mere thought of not being #1 to land because a Cherokee is on Final ahead of you must absolutely drive you insane!

 

[Everskyward]

I mean, gosh, the mere thought of not being #1 to land because a Cherokee is on Final ahead of you must absolutely drive you

This is what I think when I come up behind you, Nick...

Seriously, the thought that smaller, slower GA airplanes should not be flying IFR is incredibly elitist, among other things...

 

[jmaynard]

Seriously, most recreational pilots can barely keep their landing currency up. IFR skills are a whole different subject. Why not just use these aircraft for the type of flying that they were meant for.

You mean going somewhere through the air instead of on the ground?

By all means put in the modern avionics. They make flying somewhere much easier and will help keep you out of airspace you shouldn't be in. But I don't want to share airspace with you in IMC conditions. That is when I am in one of the airplanes that I earn a living in. On my day off I am just like the rest of you, flying around VFR and at less than 100 knots.

How about the guy who runs the FBO here (a former airline pilot) in a Cherokee 180? My CFI (soon to be CFII) in his Arrow? The local orthopedic surgeon who's off somewhere in his Cirrus SR22 or his G58 Baron every time I turn around? Mari in her company's Cessna Citation Sovereign? Every last one of them is IFR rated, experienced, and current. Where do you draw the line?

As for "airspace I shouldn't be in", what do you mean? If I have a clearance from ATC, I belong in the MSP class B just as much as that Northwest A330. I definitely belong in any other airspace below the sport pilot limit of 10000 MSL, whether ATC clears me into it or not (unless they instruct me to remain clear).

The sky isn't just for airliners and airline pilots.

Its just not safe for either of us. On departure I will be doing 200 kts and when I exit the class D, It will get pushed to 250 kts. On approach, minimum speed is going to be 125 kts or 130 kts depending on which one I am flying. Jets and LSA's don't mix well.

My Zodiac is no slower than a 172. Gonna order them out of the sky next?

Just enjoy each one for what they are designed for. It is kind of interesting though. When someone is flying around in their LSA that they just want to fly something bigger.

Not necessarily. I'm quite happy with my Zodiac's capabilities and performance. I ordered it to be as capable an aircraft as it could possibly be, and I think I succeeded quite well. I'm quite able to stay out of the way of airline traffic coming into the big commercial airports, and share the smaller ones with anyone and everyone. Indeed, us pilots of smaller aircraft learn to share the skies early on. Airline pilots should, too.

 

[poadeleted20]

I've flown just about everything from 65HP ragwing taildraggers to double-mach 50-ton fighter/bombers, including mixing light GA with supersonic fighters at the same airport. The National Airspace System has been designed to allow that full mix, including under IFR. We're all in this together, and we all pay our share of the cost of the system. I think that anyone who can't control their aircraft well enough to mix with everything else flying shouldn't be in the cockpit without supervision -- and that cuts both ways.

 

[sba55]

Aren't you one of those super awesome super pilots that can't be bothered know that there are GENERAL AVIATION aircraft in the sky with you at the same time?

I suspect Mari is very aware of that, seeing as though she is flying one of those General Aviation planes herself. It just happens to be jet powered.

On approach, minimum speed is going to be 125 kts or 130 kts depending on which one I am flying. Jets and LSA's don't mix well.

I think you make an excellent point. I feel very unsafe because I will be passing your 130 kts plane on approach at 180 knots. We need to ban those slow jets from our skies!

 

[SkyHog]

I suspect Mari is very aware of that, seeing as though she is flying one of those General Aviation planes herself. It just happens to be jet powered.

Why, that might just be enough to make some Jet pilot's head explode!!

A jet....in general aviation??!?!?

 

[LearDriver]

I think you should reread this thread to determine whether or not you mean to lump recreational pilots with sport pilots. There's a huge difference: Sport Pilots are flying the best they can without medicals in some cases; Rec Pilots are just lazy.

edit: Oh, and the skies don't belong to jets, regardless of what you may think.

First off I know the difference of the types of pilots. I have given enough BFR's to attest to the fact. There are a lot very marginal pilots out there. There are also some very exceptional ones as well. You will find all types of pilots, both good and bad in all levels of aviation.

Did my post sound as if I feel that the sky belongs only to jets. Because, I fly both types, Props and Jets. I just don't feel that they go very well together in an IFR environment.

 

[poadeleted20]

Did my post sound as if I feel that the sky belongs only to jets.

Yes, it did -- at least the IFR sky.

Because, I fly both types, Props and Jets. I just don't feel that they go very well together in an IFR environment.

That depends entirely on the pilots in the planes, but it shouldn't be a problem. We used to mix everything from Cessna 172's doing instrument training to regional airline turboprops to major carrier 737's to Kentucky Air Guard RF-4C's at Standiford Field (now Louisville International) without incident. If it is a problem, one of the pilots involved needs some additional training. That said, I do realize that you probably see a greater incidence of incompetence in light singles than in multiengine jets. However, that's an individual training issue, not a reason for saying light planes and jets don't mix under IFR.

 

[LearDriver]

Well, I stand corrected then. Thanks for setting me straight.

 

[Ted]

I have given enough BFR's to attest to the fact.

Given your attitude, the fact that you are a CFI scares me. Please rip up your CFI ticket and never, ever use it again. No, I'm not joking.

That depends entirely on the pilots in the planes, but it shouldn't be a problem. If it is, one of the pilots involved needs some additional training.

Ron is correct. In this case, it sounds like the Lear pilot.

 

[SkyHog]

First off I know the difference of the types of pilots. I have given enough BFR's to attest to the fact. There are a lot very marginal pilots out there. There are also some very exceptional ones as well. You will find all types of pilots, both good and bad in all levels of aviation.

Well then, I'll remember that the next time I meet a recreational pilot, I can tell him "Hey, you don't need a medical anymore! A really important Jet Flying CFI told me that Recreational Pilot Certificates and Sport Pilot Certificates are the same thing!!

Did my post sound as if I feel that the sky belongs only to jets. Because, I fly both types, Props and Jets. I just don't feel that they go very well together in an IFR environment.

You know, I just can't figure out where I got that from....

But I don't want to share airspace with you in IMC conditions. That is when I am in one of the airplanes that I earn a living in.

Ohhh...that's probably it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Let's keep it business, not personal. And I think we all should understand the difference between recreational pilots and Recreational Pilots (a bad choice of terms by the FAA). Anyone who doesn't, please signify by raising you rhand.

 

[LearDriver]

Well then, I'll remember that the next time I meet a recreational pilot, I can tell him "Hey, you don't need a medical anymore! A really important Jet Flying CFI told me that Recreational Pilot Certificates and Sport Pilot Certificates are the same thing!!


You know, I just can't figure out where I got that from....



Ohhh...that's probably it.

Well you certainly won that argument. Good for you.

By the way I never implied that I was important. Evidently you think so. Good for you.

 

[LearDriver]

Let's keep it business, not personal. And I think we all should understand the difference between recreational pilots and Recreational Pilots (a bad choice of terms by the FAA). Anyone who doesn't, please signify by raising you rhand.

Regardless of what the FAA decides to call it. To most a Recreational Pilot is one who doesn't do it to generate a paycheck.

Though there are many that don't earn a paycheck doing that can do a better job than the professionals.

 

[Teller1900]

I think you make an excellent point. I feel very unsafe because I will be passing your 130 kts plane on approach at 180 knots. We need to ban those slow jets from our skies!

Especially those damn Slowtations! I had less trouble getting in behind a Beech Sport at an uncontrolled field than we have behind a lot of Citations wherever we take our dirty little GA turbo-props.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Seriously, most recreational pilots can barely keep their landing currency up. IFR skills are a whole different subject. Why not just use these aircraft for the type of flying that they were meant for?

Because many (I will not assume most though that was my original thought) pilots, if they ever want to own a factory new airplane in their lifetimes, will only ever have that opportunity with a LSA due to economics. Regardless of the type of certificate in their pockets.

As a private pilot with an instrument rating...if I ever felt the need to have a new aircraft - a $100k LSA with a IFR package would be the perfect way to go.

Many people seem to misunderstand the difference between the sport pilot certificate and the LSA aircraft category. INcluding, perhaps, the author of the article.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Mixing variable cruising speeds of planes IFR does add a bit of work for all involved.
If it were say, a 50/50 mix all the time, it would be a lot more work.

Sometimes, we'll being cruising in IMC along an airway in a T182 with all pistons popping out 165 knots and ATC'll say, turn right 5 degrees. Then we'll often hear something similar said to a faster mover. A few minutes later, no doubt due to the great skills of all involved, both planes have passed and rejoin the Victor.

Sometimes at the end of the day's flights, I'll have an extra beer after flying a flight like that.

 

[sba55]

Especially those damn Slowtations! I had less trouble getting in behind a Beech Sport at an uncontrolled field than we have behind a lot of Citations wherever we take our dirty little GA turbo-props.

Well, yeah, but that's because turbo-props rule!!

 

[poadeleted20]

Regardless of what the FAA decides to call it. To most a Recreational Pilot is one who doesn't do it to generate a paycheck.

I don't think that's necessarily true inside aviation, and with about 250 "Recreational Pilots" out there, misuse of that term (especially when capitalized) is asking for confusion.

Though there are many that don't earn a paycheck doing that can do a better job than the professionals.

The difference between "nonprofessional" and "unprofessional."

 

[jmaynard]

Though there are many that don't earn a paycheck doing that can do a better job than the professionals.

...including the folks I cited in my previous post, all of whom are quite professional. I used to be a volunteer paramedic...but I took professionalism very seriously. I take my flying the same way. Your brush is a bit broad to imply that anyone in a small airplane flying IFR doesn't.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Mixing variable cruising speeds of planes IFR does add a bit of work for all involved.
If it were say, a 50/50 mix all the time, it would be a lot more work.

Sometimes, we'll being cruising in IMC along an airway in a T182 with all pistons popping out 165 knots and ATC'll say, turn right 5 degrees. Then we'll often hear something similar said to a faster mover. A few minutes later, no doubt due to the great skills of all involved, both planes have passed and rejoin the Victor.

Sometimes at the end of the day's flights, I'll have an extra beer after flying a flight like that.

I hear you- Sometimes I had to make the dreaded 20° turn for an airliner landing into Philadelphia when in the class B. Even worse were the scary words "resume own navigation" when I wasn't using a GPS

 

[EppyGA]

When I restarted training last year my intention was to go after a Sport Pilot certificate. My goal is to be able to take myself and my wife on short trips. Due to circumstances with my Instructor moving back to Norway and the number of hours (30) I has in the book at that time I decided to go ahead and go Private. I finished that up at 58 hours and my goal is still the same. I can still target LSA airplanes if I want something new for around $120,000. At that dollar point I can get a new airplane with modern avionics and a GPS and I can fly day or night. If I go ahead and get an instrument rating I could buy a new Tecnam right now for $120,000 plus $37,000 for the IFR package and go flying. A new 172 would cost $283,000 so I would pay roughly $120,000 more for similar performance.

I've had CFI's kind of laugh when I talk about LSA. They like to say that they don't have real engines in them, because of the Rotax. The call them plastice planes because some of them use composites. Just means I have to take time to educate them some. These are usually older CFI's that are my age or older, been flying forever and are set in their ways. I explain that Rotax engines are used in the Predator Drone and that composite materials allow for better useful load numbers.

All of this doesn't mean I migt not end up with a used 172 or something.Right now I have to be happy to rent now and then.

Randy

 

[Ted]

Randy, not all LSAs have the Rotax in them. Jay's Zodiac has a Continental O-200, and I know there's at least one LSA out there with a Lycoming O-235.

Not saying not to go with the Rotax if you get one, but there are other options in the LSA market.