Bear_Builder wrote:The problems I'm seeing is where manufacturers and owners are trying to use Light sport planes as utility planes. That's why I think the LSP weight limit should be LOWER not higher.

But isn't there already a definition for that "Ultralight"?

I don't recall the exact wording but the LSA was supposed to promote "Recreation" as part of it's purpose. It's not an accident people want planes with more utility than what is being offered in order to be able to recreate in them. Not discounting the fun of Ultralights by any means but they're pretty limited for taking a short recreational trip with a friend or spouse, particularly a camping trip.

Craig.

GroundLooper wrote:

Bear_Builder wrote:The problems I'm seeing is where manufacturers and owners are trying to use Light sport planes as utility planes. That's why I think the LSP weight limit should be LOWER not higher.

But isn't there already a definition for that "Ultralight"?

Craig.

Actually No. This is the side of LSP that most pilots done think about. Part 103 does NOT address 2 seat ultralights, and neither did any other FAR. The FAA was issuing waivers to allow 2 seat "ultralights" for instructional use only ( I use quotes because an ultralight is defined as having only 1 seat). The problem was that most of the 2 seaters were being used for recreation and taking a spouse, kid or buddy for a ride. This put them outside any existing rules or definitions. One article I read in Custom Planes listed exactly what a 2 seat heavy ultralight pilot could be fined for if not giving instruction. It totaled 7 violations with a typical fine of $1000 each.

And since there were no standards for training, there were increasing numbers of accidents and problems. I know one local airport here that had numorous close calls because the ultralight pilots there (all flying 2 seaters and taking passengers) weren't following pattern rules. For the most part, they didn't even know there were pattern rules! The FAA seems not to care if an ultralight pilot kills him or her self, but once they started taking passengers things changed. So what the Light sport rule did was 1. Offer a leagal way to fly a 2 seat 'ultralight' for recreation. 2. ensure there was minimum training required for taking passengers. 3. set standards for construction and maintenance of 2 seat ultralights.

Oh yeah, and 4. Let aging pilots with expired medicals continue to fly something other than a 254lb single seat lawnchair.

Phil

I think the real potential in, and one of the original intents of, the Light Sport category lies in making aviation more accessible. Adjusting the GW to include the workhorses of the training aircraft fleet, notably Cessna 150/2s, Piper Colts, and such, would do more to actually get more people flying than just about anything else. It really doesn't matter how badly somebody wants to do something, if they can't afford it they simply won't be able to. Barnstormers has 14+ pages of Cessna 150/2s for sale, most of them between $15-25k. Even if someone who had the passion couldn't afford to buy one at that price, renting one to earn their LSP license would cost half of what it would cost to earn a PP. And all those flight schools & FBOs with 150/2s sitting on their ramp would certainly see their utilization rate go up - everyone wins.

While I'm glad that the current LSP medical requirements have allowed a generation of life-long flyers to keep on trucking (I'll be in their shoes someday I know), keeping those guys flying doesn't do much for the long-term health of the GA community. Exotic composite-bodied aircraft designed to exploit the edges of the LSA performance envelope that that go for $100-200k aren't the answer either.

Making flying affordable will make it accessible. LSA would then become a real gateway to the world of flying rather than a category that guys slip into when they don't want to renew their medical.

I agree, making aviation more affordable to the average "Joe Plumber" type (like me) is the key to keepiing GA invigorated, not the $100K-and-up LSA's- although they obviously have a role in GA also. Changing the rules to make it easier for people to fly the traditional "trainer" airplanes like the C150, etc couldn't do anything but help GA and I really can't see a down side to it. The people who want and can afford a fancier newer airplane will still go out and buy one, the old trainer fleet will attract the lower-end buyers. Win/win.

Eric