The other shoe drops...Grounded.

Trapper John said:
Yeah, I understand that. I've seen the list of pre-LSA designs that qualify as LSAs and there are some nice choices, like certain Champs, Chiefs and Cubs.


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Close, but not exactly.

A certificated aircraft that falls under all the LSA restrictions doesn't become an LSA, nor can it be re-registered as such. But it can be flown by Sport Pilots who have the appropriate category, class, and set privileges. This mainly affects things like maintenance. A certificated bird that can be flown under SP cannot be maintained or inspected by a Repairman - LS.

In fact, at one time a Sport Pilot who owned, say, a Cub or a Champ could not legally add oil to it or do other preventative maintenance tasks that he could have done were it an LSA. I'm not sure whether that has changed. I know EAA was working on it.

On the other hand, another company can build an exact clone of one of these older aircraft, get it originally certificated as an S-LSA, and then it really is an LSA and none of the aforementioned Catch-22s apply.

Go figger.

-Rich
 
Not only that, those you mention actually look like real airplanes, as opposed to the new designs that invoke more "WTF's" than "ain't they purty's."

Trapper John said:
Yeah, I understand that. I've seen the list of pre-LSA designs that qualify as LSAs and there are some nice choices, like certain Champs, Chiefs and Cubs.


Trapper John
Click to expand...
 
Trapper John said:
Obviously the industry needs new pilots to survive, and LSA is one way to help that. But the industry also needs to realize that they are competing with a number of other activities for people's disposable income/recreation dollars. And at $100k plus for an LSA, that's going to exclude a lot of people from ownership. Sure you can say, well they can just rent, but a lot of people buy recreational things not just to use, but to also for the satisfaction of ownership and they like to wash and wax and tinker with them and admire them when they're not actually using it. And I know I'm pushing a regulatory rope here, but there are a lot of perfectly safe existing 2-seat aircraft that don't make the LSA cut but could be purchased for $20,000 to $30,000 which is right in the range of things like bass boats, classic cars, dressed-out motorcycles and the like.


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Excellent points, John!
 
We have a guy on field who just flew off (5 months ago) the hours on his self-built XL. He's utterly beside himself!
 
wabower said:
Not only that, those you mention actually look like real airplanes, as opposed to the new designs that invoke more "WTF's" than "ain't they purty's."
Click to expand...

There is something to be said for older designs that had enough structural margin to allow for a little flair in the industrial design department, isn't there? Who couldn't look at a Lockheed 10, a DC-3, a C195 or C170 and say, "Ahh, that looks like a real airplane?" Maybe I'm just old, but looking at a piece of plastic with a bulbous cabin and an impossibly skinny tailboom makes me say, "Do they produce Chinet and Pampers on the same production line?"

It's the same as seeing a 1950s Harley Earl styled Buick with portholes in the front fenders, then seeing a new Honda Accord/Hyundai Accent or whatever it is, because I can't tell who the hell built it without reading the badge on the trunklid...


Trapper John
 
You nailed it.

Trapper John said:
There is something to be said for older designs that had enough structural margin to allow for a little flair in the industrial design department, isn't there? Who couldn't look at a Lockheed 10, a DC-3, a C195 or C170 and say, "Ahh, that looks like a real airplane?" Maybe I'm just old, but looking at a piece of plastic with a bulbous cabin and an impossibly skinny tailboom makes me say, "Do they produce Chinet and Pampers on the same production line?"

It's the same as seeing a 1950s Harley Earl styled Buick with portholes in the front fenders, then seeing a new Honda Accord/Hyundai Accent or whatever it is, because I can't tell who the hell built it without reading the badge on the trunklid...


Trapper John
Click to expand...
 
Trapper John said:
There is something to be said for older designs that had enough structural margin to allow for a little flair in the industrial design department, isn't there? Who couldn't look at a Lockheed 10, a DC-3, a C195 or C170 and say, "Ahh, that looks like a real airplane?" Maybe I'm just old, but looking at a piece of plastic with a bulbous cabin and an impossibly skinny tailboom makes me say, "Do they produce Chinet and Pampers on the same production line?"
Click to expand...

I understand where your coming from, but I like the looks of many of the new LSA's out there. Many of them are of designs that otherwise couldn't have been made without new technology. And for me, and many other young people, that's a big thing to see. The new planes all have a modern look to them, and that's going to help draw new, younger pilots to join the game.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I understand where your coming from, but I like the looks of many of the new LSA's out there. Many of them are of designs that otherwise couldn't have been made without new technology. And for me, and many other young people, that's a big thing to see. The new planes all have a modern look to them, and that's going to help draw new, younger pilots to join the game.
Click to expand...

Like I said, maybe I'm just old...:smile:

That doesn't mean I can't whoop your young backside in a flour bombing or spot landing contest. I'll take the C150, and you can have your choice of today's plastic fantastic. But if McCormack shows up in his Chief that can fly at 17-1/2 mph sideways, all bets are off...:D


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
Like I said, maybe I'm just old...:smile:

That doesn't mean I can't whoop your young backside in a flour bombing or spot landing contest. I'll take the C150, and you can have your choice of today's plastic fantastic. But if McCormack shows up in his Chief that can fly at 17-1/2 mph sideways, all bets are off...:D


Trapper John
Click to expand...

The ones he likes come with a stand-mount for your bedroom. When you push the button, they oscillate.
 
wabower said:
The ones he likes come with a stand-mount for your bedroom. When you push the button, they oscillate.
Click to expand...

Aargh, you would have to tie plastic and fans together!. My 1955 Robbins & Myers hassock fan, which moves more air than a 172 fresh out of the overhaul shop, is suffering from cancer of the phenolic shroud. What a bummer, I just changed the brushes in the motor 20 years ago.

But I still have my 1949 Sunbeam automatic toaster, 1954 Farberware percolator that makes the real deal "Cafe Americano" and my 1962 Harman Kardon Citation I preamp and Citation II power amp at Casa de Luddite to console me.


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
Like I said, maybe I'm just old...:smile:

That doesn't mean I can't whoop your young backside in a flour bombing or spot landing contest. I'll take the C150, and you can have your choice of today's plastic fantastic. But if McCormack shows up in his Chief that can fly at 17-1/2 mph sideways, all bets are off...:D


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Bring it!!! :yesnod::target:

Original 1940 Panel -- what else do you need?

2702942080049606952hSyRSe_th.jpg
2702942080049606952hSyRSe_th.jpg


(Give me a good headwind and I'll hover)
 
Last edited:
tdager said:
Which shows the absurdity of the current weight limits.
Click to expand...

No, what it shows is what the FAA intended to us SP/LSA rules to cover, stuff like this:
gt500.gif


and this:
MXL-2-Sport-400.jpg


That is what they were trying to regulate. If it wasn't for JAA SP/LSA level ratings and certifications, next step would have been a full PPL to fly one. They never intended for it to turn to full capability aircraft, that's why the 1320 restriction (was going to be 1200).

I'll say it one more time, SP/LSA was never intended to "open" anything up, it was intended to "Pin Down" maverick operators of the aircraft exemplified above. The FAA wishes that GA would go away, we are a nuisance.
 
Trapper John said:
Exactly. You know there's just no way a person trained as a Sport Pilot could possibly handle big iron like a 1,600 lb C150 safely! Not to mention a 1,950 lb Cherokee 140...

No, it's much better to shave down structure to stay at 1,320 lb than to expose the world to the carnage that would surely result by letting people fly proven, sturdy and docile aircraft! Ugh.


Trapper John
Click to expand...

THEY WANT YOU TO GET A MEDICAL & PPL IF YOU ARE GOING TO FLY A FULLY CAPABLE AIRCRAFT!!!!!! If you want to fly an ultralight by yourself, you need nothing. If you want to fly people in a 2 seat fat ultralight, you need an SP. If you want to teach people to fly ultralights in a fat ultralight, you need to have a CFI-SP. The reason for it is there was enough carnage by the people flying 2 up under exemptions in 103 that it was causing significant enough liability & life insurance claims that the politicians got involved since insurance companies are pretty good political contributors at all levels..

WTF is so hard to grasp about that?
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
Your second statement falls into the category of your opening statement. Public companies manage their businesses to generate earnings and cash flow. They are not looking to generate hard-dollar losses of any kind. Ever.
Click to expand...

I didn't say "wants to get" I said "will get". They want to get a profit, and with construction in China they may make one, however there is no assurance, and no major track record of this industry sector being a significant revenue generator. My arguments are the only ones I could see to use to free up capital from known profit centers and expand into this market, and I think that without having a major production/sales deal for the Chinese, Indian and other Asian markets, they will fall back on that as a reality. The only bright point I see about the program really is future parts sales. Parts are where the money is anyway.
 
wabower said:
Where are the stone tablets that say "specifically designed" is part of the equation? If they qualify, they qualify.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse LSA with SP. An LSA is specifically designed under LSA rules. A SP can fly anything that falls under the guidlines of what they may fly be it CAR 8, FAR 23 or LSA designed aircraft. An Ercoupe or Luscombe, Chief, Champ, J-3.... will never be LSA aircraft, most however may be flown by the holder of a Sport Pilot Airman's Certificate.

LSA Governs ONLY aircraft, SP governs ONLY people.
 
Trapper John said:
there are a lot of perfectly safe existing 2-seat aircraft that don't make the LSA cut but could be purchased for $20,000 to $30,000 which is right in the range of things like bass boats, classic cars, dressed-out motorcycles and the like.


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Then people should get a PPL and a class III medical and get one. This whole discussion is taking on the tone of th SSRI threads....
 
Henning said:
No, what it shows is what the FAA intended to us SP/LSA rules to cover, stuff like this:
gt500.gif


and this:
MXL-2-Sport-400.jpg


That is what they were trying to regulate. If it wasn't for JAA SP/LSA level ratings and certifications, next step would have been a full PPL to fly one. They never intended for it to turn to full capability aircraft, that's why the 1320 restriction (was going to be 1200).

I'll say it one more time, SP/LSA was never intended to "open" anything up, it was intended to "Pin Down" maverick operators of the aircraft exemplified above. The FAA wishes that GA would go away, we are a nuisance.
Click to expand...

There's some element of déjà vu in the SP and LSA rules in that like Part 103, they were promulgated largely to regulate a sector of aviation that the FAA really didn't want to acknowledge, much less have to ride herd over. Truth be told, it began with hang gliders.

Back in the 1970's, a new sport called "hang gliding" was starting to get some news coverage. People were basically strapping wings to themselves, sans license or FAA regulation of any sort, and jumping off cliffs. As new people became interested in the sport, some existing hang glider pilots went into the business of strapping students onto themselves and jumping off cliffs in tandem.

I remember when the sport started to get some publicity, in fact. When I was a teen-ager, I worked summers at a bungalow colony in the Catskills, and attended Aviation High School during the school year. Hang gliding had already become a topic of some interest and curiosity in school before it attracted much attention in the mass media; so come summer, I spent a few of my days off hitchhiking through the Catskills looking for hang gliders and trying to get a chance to fly one.

I finally found hang gliders at Peekamoose Mountain after explaining to a friendly ride what I was looking for. "Oh, okay," he said, "You're looking for those crazies who jump off the cliffs with the wings tied to their backs." Yeah, them. He drove me up a trail to a clearing, and there they were: a peculiar combination of young hippie types and old geezers, and their brightly-colored wings.

I didn't get to fly one, however, because the instructors demanded a pesky thing called "parental consent" before allowing a minor to jump off a cliff with them; and had my parents known where I was, how I'd gotten there, and why, they probably would have had me committed. Or maybe killed me. Hard to say.

But the hang glider pilots were happy to talk to me about the sport, despite being somewhat disturbed by some of the early publicity that hang gliding had started to get. They were just as happy to keep flying under the radar (literally and figuratively) because they feared that publicity would bring FAA regulation.

For its part, the FAA really didn't want to have to regulate people who jumped off cliffs, at least partly because regulating them would require acknowledging them, and they really wished the whole fad would blow over. Besides, early hang gliders required cliffs to leap from, so the activity tended to be concentrated in the boondocks, where participants didn't present any risk to "real" aviation.

But then some hang-gliding aficionados started doing things like jumping off bridges and buildings, bringing about exactly the kind of publicity that most people in the sport (along with FAA) wanted to avoid. But probably the last straw before FAA had to so something to corral the herd was when hang glider pilots decided to start attaching engines to their wings and calling them "powered hang gliders" so they could take off from the ground.

Part of the reason why hang gliding had presented an unusual regulatory question had been because it was considered somewhat of a stretch to call a pair of wings attached to a human being an "aircraft." But wherever that fuzzy line between "pair of wings" and "aircraft" was, attaching an engine and enabling the wings to take off from the ground and gain altitude under their own power seemed to qualify them as aircraft.

The FAA responded in an interesting way: Still having no desire to regulate this offbeat bunch, they promulgated Part 103, which simply redefines flying machines falling within certain parameters as Ultralight Vehicles, not aircraft; and exempts people who operate those vehicles from most laws governing training, certification, registration, and so forth as long as they comply with a minimal set of restrictions on where, how, and under what conditions they operate them.

Of course, over time, these individuals (who, one must remember, were sort of an adventurous lot to begin with) started looking for ways to stretch the boundaries of the regulations; and by the mid-1980's ultralight pilots could be found at many rural airports stretching the instructional exemption to give paid "instruction" to anyone who wanted a ride.

Fat ultralight pilots had fairly commonly given rides to family and friends under the guise of instruction, and the FAA had just as commonly turned a blind eye to it because these "students" presumably knew what they were getting into. The same could not be said of ignorant city-slickers who drove past little airfields, thought to themselves, "Gee, that looks like fun," and then proceeded to take a "lesson." These people had an incorrect, but understandable assumption that anyone taking people up in any sort of flying machine for hire had to be operating under some sort of government oversight and had to have some sort of certification.

And in a way, they did. The fat ultralight exemption did require that the instructor be certified by EAA or USUA, for example, and these groups did try to police their members to the extent that they could. But again, remember that these individuals were of the adventurous sort by nature. Also, in fairness, what they were doing wasn't that different from what many flight schools do to this day with "discovery flights." It's expected that not every student who takes one will proceed with his training. For some, it's basically a joy ride.

The difference, I think, was that the ultralight guys knew that few, if any, of the tourists they took up would actually become regular students (who presumably would know, and accept, that they were doing something that fell largely outside FAA's purview and was riskier than flying a certificated aircraft). I lived about ten miles north of a small airfield in Upstate New York for a couple of years back in the early 1980's, and during the tourist season, some of these guys openly advertised "Ultralight Rides," not "Lessons," on roadside signs. Only once the passenger was strapped in and the money collected did it become a "lesson," usually ending with the issuance of a single-sheet of paper with a log entry for the flight.

Unfortunately, not every flight ended that way. Some ended tragically, and the FAA found itself being pressured by Congress (who in turn were being pressured by insurance companies and attorney groups) to do something to reign in these cowboys and their uncertified, uninspected flying machines. SP/LSA was the result.

Part 103 is still there. If you want to fly a lawnmower that happens to fall within the 103 definitions, you can do so. No training, no certification, no knowledge requirements, no aircraft certification or registration, no specific maintenance or inspection requirements. But also no passengers. Your right to endanger your own life flying pretty much anything you want that conforms to Part 103 is still intact.

But if you want to take someone for a ride, you must be an SP; if you want to teach someone to fly, you must be a CFI-LS; and in either case, the thing that you fly has to be an aircraft that meet LSA requirements as to design, registration, maintenance, and so forth.

This is the background of SP and LSA. Both rules evolved from hang gliding, and the LSA that FAA envisioned looked a lot more like what Henning posted (and what I posted earlier) than "real" airplanes. That designers and manufacturers have managed to use innovative technology to make "real" airplanes that fall under the LSA definition is a tribute to their ingenuity, and will likely benefit all of aviation as these technologies prove themselves trustworthy. But these aircraft were not what FAA had in mind when the regulations were drafted; and those of us who fly them need to remember that to some extent, we're all test pilots, whether we want to be or not.

-Rich
 
Last edited:
Nicely (and cleverly) written, Rich.

RJM62 said:
There's some element of déjà vu in the SP and LSA rules in that like Part 103, they were promulgated largely to regulate a sector of aviation that the FAA really didn't want to acknowledge, much less have to ride herd over. Truth be told, it began with hang gliders.

Back in the 1970's, a new sport called "hang gliding" was starting to get some news coverage. People were basically strapping wings to themselves, sans license or FAA regulation of any sort, and jumping off cliffs. As new people became interested in the sport, some existing hang glider pilots went into the business of strapping students onto themselves and jumping off cliffs in tandem.

I remember when the sport started to get some publicity, in fact. When I was a teen-ager, I worked summers at a bungalow colony in the Catskills, and attended Aviation High School during the school year. Hang gliding had already become a topic of some interest and curiosity in school before it attracted much attention in the mass media; so come summer, I spent a few of my days off hitchhiking through the Catskills looking for hang gliders and trying to get a chance to fly one.

I finally found hang gliders at Peekamoose Mountain after explaining to a friendly ride what I was looking for. "Oh, okay," he said, "You're looking for those crazies who jump off the cliffs with the wings tied to their backs." Yeah, them. He drove me up a trail to a clearing, and there they were: a peculiar combination of young hippie types and old geezers, and their brightly-colored wings.

I didn't get to fly one, however, because the instructors demanded a pesky thing called "parental consent" before allowing a minor to jump off a cliff with them; and had my parents known where I was, how I'd gotten there, and why, they probably would have had me committed. Or maybe killed me. Hard to say.

But the hang glider pilots were happy to talk to me about the sport, despite being somewhat disturbed by some of the early publicity that hang gliding had started to get. They were just as happy to keep flying under the radar (literally and figuratively) because they feared that publicity would bring FAA regulation.

For its part, the FAA really didn't want to have to regulate people who jumped off cliffs, at least partly because regulating them would require acknowledging them, and they really wished the whole fad would blow over. Besides, early hang gliders required cliffs to leap from, so the activity tended to be concentrated in the boondocks, where participants didn't present any risk to "real" aviation.

But then some hang-gliding aficionados started doing things like jumping off bridges and buildings, bringing about exactly the kind of publicity that most people in the sport (along with FAA) wanted to avoid. But probably the last straw before FAA had to so something to corral the herd was when hang glider pilots decided to start attaching engines to their wings and calling them "powered hang gliders" so they could take off from the ground.

Part of the reason why hang gliding had presented an unusual regulatory question had been because it was considered somewhat of a stretch to call a pair of wings attached to a human being an "aircraft." But wherever that fuzzy line between "pair of wings" and "aircraft" was, attaching an engine and enabling the wings to take off from the ground and gain altitude under their own power seemed to qualify them as aircraft.

The FAA responded in an interesting way: Still having no desire to regulate this offbeat bunch, they promulgated Part 103, which simply redefines flying machines falling within certain parameters as Ultralight Vehicles, not aircraft; and exempts people who operate those vehicles from most laws governing training, certification, registration, and so forth as long as they comply with a minimal set of restrictions on where, how, and under what conditions they operate them.

Of course, over time, these individuals (who, one must remember, were sort of an adventurous lot to begin with) started looking for ways to stretch the boundaries of the regulations; and by the mid-1980's ultralight pilots could be found at many rural airports stretching the instructional exemption to give paid "instruction" to anyone who wanted a ride.

Fat ultralight pilots had fairly commonly given rides to family and friends under the guise of instruction, and the FAA had just as commonly turned a blind eye to it because these "students" presumably knew what they were getting into. The same could not be said of ignorant city-slickers who drove past little airfields, thought to themselves, "Gee, that looks like fun," and then proceeded to take a "lesson." These people had an incorrect, but understandable assumption that anyone taking people up in any sort of flying machine for hire had to be operating under some sort of government oversight and had to have some sort of certification.

And in a way, they did. The fat ultralight exemption did require that the instructor be certified by EAA or USUA, for example, and these groups did try to police their members to the extent that they could. But again, remember that these individuals were of the adventurous sort by nature. Also, in fairness, what they were doing wasn't that different from what many flight schools do to this day with "discovery flights." It's expected that not every student who takes one will proceed with his training. For some, it's basically a joy ride.

The difference, I think, was that the ultralight guys knew that few, if any, of the tourists they took up would actually become regular students (who presumably would know, and accept, that they were doing something that fell largely outside FAA's purview and was riskier than flying a certificated aircraft). I lived about ten miles north of a small airfield in Upstate New York for a couple of years back in the early 1980's, and during the tourist season, some of these guys openly advertised "Ultralight Rides," not "Lessons," on roadside signs. Only once the passenger was strapped in and the money collected did it become a "lesson," usually ending with the issuance of a single-sheet of paper with a log entry for the flight.

Unfortunately, not every flight ended that way. Some ended tragically, and the FAA found itself being pressured by Congress (who in turn were being pressured by insurance companies and attorney groups) to do something to reign in these cowboys and their uncertified, uninspected flying machines. SP/LSA was the result.

Part 103 is still there. If you want to fly a lawnmower that happens to fall within the 103 definitions, you can do so. No training, no certification, no knowledge requirements, no aircraft certification or registration, no specific maintenance or inspection requirements. But also no passengers. Your right to endanger your own life flying pretty much anything you want that conforms to Part 103 is still intact.

But if you want to take someone for a ride, you must be an SP; if you want to teach someone to fly, you must be a CFI-LS; and in either case, the thing that you fly has to be an aircraft that meet LSA requirements as to design, registration, maintenance, and so forth.

This is the background of SP and LSA. Both rules evolved from hang gliding, and the LSA that FAA envisioned looked a lot more like what Henning posted (and what I posted earlier) than "real" airplanes. That designers and manufacturers have managed to use innovative technology to make "real" airplanes that fall under the LSA definition is a tribute to their ingenuity, and will likely benefit all of aviation as these technologies prove themselves trustworthy. But these aircraft were not what FAA had in mind when the regulations were drafted; and those of us who fly them need to remember that to some extent, we're all test pilots, whether we want to be or not.

-Rich
Click to expand...
 
RJM62 said:
Thanks. Re-reading it, it was pretty well-written, even if I do say so myself.

-Rich
Click to expand...

I say so as well. Nice work, delete (or better yet explain) the bit about Henning's comment and you've got a nice article for publication.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top