Should the ATSM standards for LSA be reviewed?

Should the ATSM standards for LSA be professionally reviewed?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 40.0%

  • No

    Votes: 13 52.0%

  • Screw standards

    Votes: 2 8.0%
  • Total voters
    25
Henning

Henning

Taxi to Parking
Gone West
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
39,463
Location
Ft Lauderdale FL
Display Name
Display name:
iHenning
In light of the Zenair issue, and my personal observations of the LSA fleet at S-n-F and OSH, I'm kinda wanting to see the standards at least. How many of you are wondering about the ATSM standards? This is a big deal, because it is the opener to getting the FAA to release some authority to industry, and ATSM screwing it up now will be like what happened when GM went diesel in the late 70s, they soured the whole thing.
 
Re: Should the ASTM standards for LSA be reviewed?

(It's ASTM, by the way.)

The standards were developed by a committee of folks from the light aircraft industry, the EAA, and probably others. Reviewed by whom?
 
are you indicating that the ASTM is not made up of professionals?
 
Re: Should the ASTM standards for LSA be reviewed?

jmaynard said:
(It's ASTM, by the way.)

The standards were developed by a committee of folks from the light aircraft industry, the EAA, and probably others. Reviewed by whom?
Click to expand...

http://www.astm.org/

And ANSI accredited

But I am not sure what Henning means by reviewed. By whom? They were already written and approved in a fair and equitable manner by the industry leaders in this area.
 
Henning said:
In light of the Zenair issue, and my personal observations of the LSA fleet at S-n-F and OSH, I'm kinda wanting to see the standards at least. How many of you are wondering about the ATSM standards? This is a big deal, because it is the opener to getting the FAA to release some authority to industry, and ATSM screwing it up now will be like what happened when GM went diesel in the late 70s, they soured the whole thing.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm not really following, but generally, ASTM standards are pretty good.

I think the bigger issue here is what kind of risk are LSA owners/operators willing to take, since the ASTM standards are relaxed compared to Part 23, and further that manufacturers self-certify to meet that lesser standard.


Trapper John
 
tonycondon said:
are you indicating that the ASTM is not made up of professionals?
Click to expand...

Did not mean to imply that, I meant professionals uninvolved with the setting of previous standards. Setting of industrial standards is never an easy thing. There's haggling between the bean counters and the engineers which results in compromises that both sides feel they can live with, but may prove too liberal or conservative. Part 23 rules were written for a reason, how do the ASTM/LSA standards differ from Pt 23? Pt 23 is published in the open domain. Can I find the ASTM/LSA standards somewhere for free so I can compare them? What I am looking for is the difference in standards and an independant review with a bit of experience under our belts as to where these differences are working to benefit, and where they may not be panning out too well. I think it's very important that industry does it before government does.
 
i dont think that comparing the ASTM LSA standard to Part 23 is valid. The whole point of the ASTM standard was that Part 23 was too restrictive and expensive to design and meet for this category of airplane.
 
Trapper John said:
I guess I'm not really following, but generally, ASTM standards are pretty good.

I think the bigger issue here is what kind of risk are LSA owners/operators willing to take, since the ASTM standards are relaxed compared to Part 23, and further that manufacturers self-certify to meet that lesser standard.


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Both points are valid. Perhaps the FAA should tell the NTSB, "Don't talk to us, it's not our problem, talk to the ASTM guys." and the owners get to do as they please. They only get to kill one person with themselves. In that instance, is there/should there be a warning placard at the passengers entry declaring the planes lesser standard such as with Experimental or Restricted aircraft?
 
Henning said:
They only get to kill one person with themselves. In that instance, is there/should there be a warning placard at the passengers entry declaring the planes lesser standard such as with Experimental or Restricted aircraft?
Click to expand...

But certificated planes don't need that same placard since they never crash :rolleyes:
 
Re: Should the ASTM standards for LSA be reviewed?

smigaldi said:
http://www.astm.org/

And ANSI accredited

But I am not sure what Henning means by reviewed. By whom? They were already written and approved in a fair and equitable manner by the industry leaders in this area.
Click to expand...

Uh Oh...if it's ANSI and/or ISO accredited, it'll be years before they can move a comma anywhere in the standards!
 
So--how does one get these standards?
 
tonycondon said:
i dont think that comparing the ASTM LSA standard to Part 23 is valid. The whole point of the ASTM standard was that Part 23 was too restrictive and expensive to design and meet for this category of airplane.
Click to expand...

Exactly, so they changed the standards to meet what they believed at that time to be a more cost effective standard still providing a sufficient level of safety. Good, fact is the standards (as most standards) were based on a set of assumptions that may or may not have all proven out to be true, one of those being "Can/Does ASTM enforce it's standards." This is stuff that I as a consumer and one who advises consumers wants to know. Right now as it stands, I cannot recommend anyone buy a manufactured LSA, not even from Cessna. It just appears that LSA is getting off to a rocky start in the safety department, and I have not personally observed anything that is confidence inspiring. I saw regular hardware store grade pop rivets in sheer on a stressed skin wing. I have questions, you bet I have questions... If LSA wants to survive with minimal gov't interference, it's in the LSA industries and ASTMs best interest to perform a full and complete audit as to whether those original assumptions were in fact correct, and where modification may be in order.
 
EppyGA said:
But certificated planes don't need that same placard since they never crash :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Lets not reduce this to flippant comments. A PT 23 certified air plane does not require it because it is the default standard today for light aircraft. The layperson in the US will assume that every light aircraft is built and operated under FAA standards unless they are informed otherwise.
 
jesse said:
So--how does one get these standards?
Click to expand...


AHHHHHHhhhhhhh!!!!!!! You have discovered my main qualm with all classification and engineering societies, the consumer has to spend money, in some cases like DNV, tens of thousands of dollars to be able to research if standards are being met.
 
Henning said:
In that instance, is there/should there be a warning placard at the passengers entry declaring the planes lesser standard such as with Experimental or Restricted aircraft?
Click to expand...
There are several requirements along these lines:

1) The words LIGHT SPORT must be affixed to the fuselage in the same manner as the words EXPERIMENTAL or RESTRICTED.
2) The placard PASSENGER WARNING: THIS AIRCRAFT WAS MANUFACTURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LIGHT SPORT AIRCRAFT AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS AND DOES NOT CONFORM TO STANDARD CATEGORY AIRWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS is required on the panel.
3) FAR 91.327(e) requires that "Each person operating an aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category must advise each person carried of the special nature of the aircraft and that the aircraft does not meet the airworthiness requirements for an aircraft issued a standard airworthiness certificate."
 
I agree that the standards should be readily available...not so much for review to determine whether they're being met, but so that we can better understand the limits of our aircraft like we can with Part 23 & 25 aircraft. (It's also handy having the historical versions of these parts, as well as CARs 3 & 4, and Aeronautical Bulletin 7a readily available online.)
 
jmaynard said:
There are several requirements along these lines:

1) The words LIGHT SPORT must be affixed to the fuselage in the same manner as the words EXPERIMENTAL or RESTRICTED.
2) The placard PASSENGER WARNING: THIS AIRCRAFT WAS MANUFACTURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LIGHT SPORT AIRCRAFT AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS AND DOES NOT CONFORM TO STANDARD CATEGORY AIRWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS is required on the panel.
3) FAR 91.327(e) requires that "Each person operating an aircraft issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category must advise each person carried of the special nature of the aircraft and that the aircraft does not meet the airworthiness requirements for an aircraft issued a standard airworthiness certificate."
Click to expand...


Well, that's plenty good enough for me along those lines.
 
Re: Should the ASTM standards for LSA be reviewed?

smigaldi said:
http://www.astm.org/

And ANSI accredited

But I am not sure what Henning means by reviewed. By whom? They were already written and approved in a fair and equitable manner by the industry leaders in this area.
Click to expand...

BTW, I've met a couple "Industry Leaders" in my life. It does not indicate infallibility, or in some cases, concern for your best interest. I'd be willing to bet that there were many concessions to the bottom line, and appropriately so as it was the intent. Question stands though were some of the concessions too much. By "Professional" review I was most indicating non governmental, but pretty soon, NTSB is going to get involved, it appears they have some changes in executive mandate possibly.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should the ASTM standards for LSA be reviewed?

Henning said:
BTW, I've met a couple "Industry Leaders" in my life. It does not indicate infallibility, or in some cases, concern for your best interest. I'd be willing to bet that there were many concessions to the bottom line, and appropriately so as it was the intent. Question stands though were some of the concessions too much. By "Professional" review I was most indicating non governmental, but pretty soon, NTSB is going to get involved, it appears they have some changes in executive mandate possibly.
Click to expand...
I would say that you really do not understand the standards development process nor really know what you are asking for.

Standards are developed via consensus with interested leaders from he private sector, market partners, and government that deal with the apropriate part of that industry. The process is regulated by the standards development organization and certified by international regulatory authorities e.g. ANSI or ISO. If a review of a standard takes place it is by the very same people that wrote it. Standards are voluntary in nature and do not carry the weight of law. That can only be accomplished with a regulation such as in the case FAA part 23.

Regulatory authorities such as the FAA who have the responsibility for the maintenance of Part 23 will bring industry leaders into the review process. So the review will again be undertaken by basically the same group that wrote the ASTM standards. There is a chance that some additional people will be brought to the table. But the process can be incestious.

When a review of a regualtion is finished then there is an approval process that needs take place. That is the NPRM process that you may be familiar with.
 
Henning said:
Did not mean to imply that, I meant professionals uninvolved with the setting of previous standards. Setting of industrial standards is never an easy thing. There's haggling between the bean counters and the engineers which results in compromises that both sides feel they can live with, but may prove too liberal or conservative. Part 23 rules were written for a reason, how do the ASTM/LSA standards differ from Pt 23? Pt 23 is published in the open domain. Can I find the ASTM/LSA standards somewhere for free so I can compare them? What I am looking for is the difference in standards and an independant review with a bit of experience under our belts as to where these differences are working to benefit, and where they may not be panning out too well. I think it's very important that industry does it before government does.
Click to expand...

But who will review the reviewers of the reviewers?!?

This gets ugly real fast. I think part of the problem with the aviation industry in general is the amount of second-guessing that goes on. The standard has not even been out for long enough to shake it out, and I'm not sure how ANY standard would have caught the Zodiac issue.

.
 
Re: Should the ASTM standards for LSA be reviewed?

smigaldi said:
I would say that you really do not understand the standards development process nor really know what you are asking for.

Standards are developed via consensus with interested leaders from he private sector, market partners, and government that deal with the apropriate part of that industry. The process is regulated by the standards development organization and certified by international regulatory authorities e.g. ANSI or ISO. If a review of a standard takes place it is by the very same people that wrote it. Standards are voluntary in nature and do not carry the weight of law. That can only be accomplished with a regulation such as in the case FAA part 23.

Regulatory authorities such as the FAA who have the responsibility for the maintenance of Part 23 will bring industry leaders into the review process. So the review will again be undertaken by basically the same group that wrote the ASTM standards. There is a chance that some additional people will be brought to the table. But the process can be incestious.

When a review of a regualtion is finished then there is an approval process that needs take place. That is the NPRM process that you may be familiar with.
Click to expand...


Then they mean nothing. I would think that ASTM, ANSI or IMO could sue as if I found that a plane I had some form of a vested interest in crashed and I can find the fault to be improper enforcement of their standards, I'm coming after them as well (same if I find defect in the standard). They have to have some enforcement authority or their society has no value to the consumer.
 
bullwinkle said:
But who will review the reviewers of the reviewers?!?

This gets ugly real fast. I think part of the problem with the aviation industry in general is the amount of second-guessing that goes on. The standard has not even been out for long enough to shake it out, and I'm not sure how ANY standard would have caught the Zodiac issue.

.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh!!! Exactly!!! The answer will be "The FAA if industry doesn't step out in the lead." LSA could learn a lot from the SCUBA industry. Even though we carry multiple "Missiles" (DOT calls them that, not me...) around with us and have multiple points of potentially fatal failure, the Scuba industry is free from government oversight. One of the key factors is no failure is ignored, it is dealt with swiftly and with positive action within the industry. The LSA industry is right now at the cusp of going the way of the Scuba industry or the automotive industry.
 
Re: Should the ASTM standards for LSA be reviewed?

Henning said:
Then they mean nothing. I would think that ASTM, ANSI or IMO could sue as if I found that a plane I had some form of a vested interest in crashed and I can find the fault to be improper enforcement of their standards, I'm coming after them as well (same if I find defect in the standard). They have to have some enforcement authority or their society has no value to the consumer.
Click to expand...

ANSI has no enforcement authority for the ANSI standards that I'm involved with maintaining/writing. The only enforcement is due to the fact that they are referenced in the FCC Rules. But, then, enforcement would be by the FCC, not ANSI. ANSI is an SDO, Standards Development Organization. They write standards, but unless they are adopted by an organization with regulatory power there's nothing to back them up. Just like the CISPR standards I'm involved with at the international level. We can write all the standards we want, but until a regulatory agency adopts them they are nothing more than ink on paper (or a pattern of bits in a file).
 
Henning said:
AHHHHHHhhhhhhh!!!!!!! You have discovered my main qualm with all classification and engineering societies, the consumer has to spend money, in some cases like DNV, tens of thousands of dollars to be able to research if standards are being met.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's particularly annoying that the distribution of standards is usually geared to folks who would need the standard to design their products in compliance where the cost of the standard is written off as part of the development effort. I suspect that part of the reason for this is that the majority of standards committees are made up primarily of people in the industry (i.e. competitors) who want to raise any obstructions to new competition as possible. Unfortunately that leaves anyone who just want's to understand the standard out in the cold.

Another idiotic example of this is the TSOs for most aircraft equipment. The TSOs themselves are (by law I think) public domain but more often than not all the public document shows is the industry standards that apply and you have to purchase the standards to get the actual requirements.
 
Henning said:
Ahhhh!!! Exactly!!! The answer will be "The FAA if industry doesn't step out in the lead." LSA could learn a lot from the SCUBA industry. Even though we carry multiple "Missiles" (DOT calls them that, not me...) around with us and have multiple points of potentially fatal failure, the Scuba industry is free from government oversight. One of the key factors is no failure is ignored, it is dealt with swiftly and with positive action within the industry. The LSA industry is right now at the cusp of going the way of the Scuba industry or the automotive industry.
Click to expand...

Not completely...scuba cylinders are DOT inspected and certified every five years. :smilewinkgrin:

.
 
Henning said:
Ahhhh!!! Exactly!!! The answer will be "The FAA if industry doesn't step out in the lead." LSA could learn a lot from the SCUBA industry. Even though we carry multiple "Missiles" (DOT calls them that, not me...) around with us and have multiple points of potentially fatal failure, the Scuba industry is free from government oversight. One of the key factors is no failure is ignored, it is dealt with swiftly and with positive action within the industry. The LSA industry is right now at the cusp of going the way of the Scuba industry or the automotive industry.
Click to expand...
A big part of that is because of standards. The SCUBA industry has the RSTC (Recreation Scuba Training Council) that develops minimum standards of training, communication, and other aspects of the sport. The RSTC is an ANSI acredited standards organziation and is internatiolnally recognized.

Standards can keep the government at bay. The nice thing about standards instead of regualtions is that the people most affected by standards can get them changed within a process that they control. Regualtion are controlled by government entities and subject to political oversight.

Also as Bullwinkle mention you fogot about the DOT hydro cert for tanks.
 
Re: Should the ASTM standards for LSA be reviewed?

Henning said:
Then they mean nothing. I would think that ASTM, ANSI or IMO could sue as if I found that a plane I had some form of a vested interest in crashed and I can find the fault to be improper enforcement of their standards, I'm coming after them as well (same if I find defect in the standard). They have to have some enforcement authority or their society has no value to the consumer.
Click to expand...

The FAA (and other similar agencies) which reference the standard have the enforcement authority.
 
smigaldi said:
The SCUBA industry has the RSTC (Recreation Scuba Training Council) that develops minimum standards of training, communication, and other aspects of the sport. The RSTC is an ANSI acredited standards organziation and is internatiolnally recognized.
Click to expand...
I fly with a guy who was a SCUBA instructor and he said that the test you need to take to become an instructor is harder than the CFI test.
 
I'll say it here, as I've said elsewhere. This is a design/engineering problem, not a ASTM standards problem. When three or four, completely unrelated models of LSA's start falling from the sky, we'll talk reviewing the standards. Up until then, I've got no problem with what the standards are, nor do I have a problem flying said aircraft. In fact, from what I've read, the incident involving the CH601XL out in Utah may or may not have been related to the issue. Everything I've read about that one places a significant probability of severe or greater turbulence in the area the aircraft was flying. When 1/6 of your data to support grounding a plane, can't really be connected to the others, I'm not sure what to think
 
Henning said:
Both points are valid. Perhaps the FAA should tell the NTSB, "Don't talk to us, it's not our problem, talk to the ASTM guys." and the owners get to do as they please. They only get to kill one person with themselves. In that instance, is there/should there be a warning placard at the passengers entry declaring the planes lesser standard such as with Experimental or Restricted aircraft?
Click to expand...

As with many other things, the insurance industry will wring this out, and so will the tort system. When people die in airplanes, suits get filed, and how judgements go will say a lot about how the future of LSAs go.


Trapper John
 
tonycondon said:
i dont think that comparing the ASTM LSA standard to Part 23 is valid. The whole point of the ASTM standard was that Part 23 was too restrictive and expensive to design and meet for this category of airplane.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree overall, but this magical 1,320 lb gross weight thing is problematic, IMO. Everyone tries to chase some useful load target, minimizing structure in the process, and if someone decides to not mass balance control surfaces to save a few pounds of empty weight, I think that fails the whole concept.

And anyone that designs an aircraft for general public consumption where stick forces are inversely proportional to g-force needs a good whack upside the head, and so do standards writers that think that's OK, IMNSHO.


Trapper John
 
bullwinkle said:
Not completely...scuba cylinders are DOT inspected and certified every five years. :smilewinkgrin:

.
Click to expand...

Only if you want to transport them on the highways or federally inspected/regulated vessels. The only laws that apply are in regards to transporting missiles. If I have cylinders on my private boat and have my own compressor, there is no legal mandate stating that I must Hydro or VIP my tanks.
 
Re: Should the ASTM standards for LSA be reviewed?

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
The FAA (and other similar agencies) which reference the standard have the enforcement authority.
Click to expand...

But LSA as an industry wants to keep the FAA from using that authority, and the FAA at this point is sounding as if they don't particularly want to either, but the industry has just been put on notice, "Tighten up your act, your loss rate is too high." Couple more forwards from the NTSB to the FAA, or one celebrity death, and it'll be all over for any semblance of autonomy for the industry from the FAA and probably codify LSA into Pt 23 somewhere. Air Taxi operators used to operate under very thin regulation until the day the music died then "bang" pt 135. It will be again a failure of industry that will bring about heavy handed regulation.
 
Trapper John said:
I don't disagree overall, but this magical 1,320 lb gross weight thing is problematic, IMO. Everyone tries to chase some useful load target, minimizing structure in the process, and if someone decides to not mass balance control surfaces to save a few pounds of empty weight, I think that fails the whole concept.

And anyone that designs an aircraft for general public consumption where stick forces are inversely proportional to g-force needs a good whack upside the head, and so do standards writers that think that's OK, IMNSHO.


Trapper John
Click to expand...

This is not a trait restricted to this model either. I have flown another airplane where it was actually divergent and you had to force it back to center in some not too drastic flight regimes. If you pulled back and added throttle like you would if you got into a sinker on short final, and if your thumb wasn't behind the stick ready to take the load, it would plant itself in your lap.:eek: That was scary s-t. Having worked for an LSA manufacturer in Aus, I can attest that not everyone in the industry knows WTF they're doing and the subtleties of design.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I'll say it here, as I've said elsewhere. This is a design/engineering problem, not a ASTM standards problem. When three or four, completely unrelated models of LSA's start falling from the sky, we'll talk reviewing the standards. Up until then, I've got no problem with what the standards are, nor do I have a problem flying said aircraft. In fact, from what I've read, the incident involving the CH601XL out in Utah may or may not have been related to the issue. Everything I've read about that one places a significant probability of severe or greater turbulence in the area the aircraft was flying. When 1/6 of your data to support grounding a plane, can't really be connected to the others, I'm not sure what to think
Click to expand...

Good, so you know what the standards are, could you tell me please?

BTW, what is Va on a CH601XL?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top