I'm just curious if anyone has heard anymore about the proposed weight increase for the Light Sport catagory, that was touted many months ago. I had thought something was supposed to have been announced back in January, but the govie shutdown put a lot of things on the back burner. I've got a plane I am hoping to get inspected and A/W issued later this year and wondering what I should use for the maximum GW. I know what the manufacturer sugggests, but also realize that if it is eligible to fly under the LS rules, it could be beneficial to the future sale of the plane.

I talked to EAA a couple days ago though not about this specifically but the individual did say something along the lines of, 'we've been trying for years to raise the LSA gross weight but can't get any traction.'

It is so easy to raise the gross weight of an EAB that you really shouldn't be concerned about this. Just set the gross to whatever the LSA rules allow and if the rules change make your logbook entry for the change and log the test flight at the increased weight.

Whee, that is my plan for now. I will be a little on the heavy side flying it with a 1320 GW, but am thinking the plane is going to be around 1,000 lbs. EW. I'm hoping for less, but doubt I will be much under. Heck, I fly solo 99% of the time anyways so it's not a big deal.

WWhunter wrote:Whee, that is my plan for now. I will be a little on the heavy side flying it with a 1320 GW, but am thinking the plane is going to be around 1,000 lbs. EW. I'm hoping for less, but doubt I will be much under. Heck, I fly solo 99% of the time anyways so it's not a big deal.

That won’t leave a lot room for gas, survival gear, and the all important beer cooler, though.

Frankly, I think with the advent of Basic Med, the value of LS compliant aircraft is essentially gone. I’d put the GW where it belongs and do BM. And sell it to a BM pilot.

MTV

MTV

I would like to see Light Sport increased to 2200 pounds and constant speed so that I could fly my 180 hp 170B under Light Sport rather than spend a month or more looking or traveling hundreds of miles to find a doctor who will even consider doing a Basic Med physical. I hate to sound like a broken record but Basic Med doesn't work everywhere or for everyone and it would be nice to have an option other than going back to a third class. Hope they can work something out in the next two years before I need to find a solution, either with a change to Light Sport restrictions or better informing doctors and health provider risk managers about Basic Med. I looked at the FAA list of Aviation Medical Examiners in Michigan the other day and it is at least a one and a half hour drive just to get to one for a third class medical. Just so that no one suggest using an AME for a Basic Medical, all of the AME's listed in Michigan are either unwilling or not allowed by their employer to perform a Basic Med physical. If you are fortunate to have a doctor or live in an area that Basic Med physicals are available consider yourself lucky, for the rest of us it would be nice to have Light Sport as an option without the 1320 pound gross weight limit.

Tim

Tim,

I totally agree with you that it would be nice if the LS rule were to change for the better. My point was that I seriously doubt that's going to happen. Most politicians now probably figure they've fixed that issue.

MTV

Tim & MTV, 100% agree with both of you. Mike, I am flying under Basic Med and will continue to do so as long as I can. I am guessing I will eventually go to Light Sport and this would be beneficial to me if I had a lower GW on the plane, but as you stated, sure doesn't leave much room for UL if the plane comes out close to 1,000 lbs.

A Taylorcraft modified with STC SA1-210 has potentially dual GW - 1280 or 1500# builder's choice. Structurally the same airplane all it takes is paper to change. https://dc65stc.blogspot.com/2018/12/st ... ained.html

That's something to consider when looking for a LS airplane and GW is a consideration now and in the future with LSA or BM.

Gary

I guess that I am the only one that is suspicious when something is "improved". I'm betting that any increase in LSA weights will be accompanied with changes to what we now take for granted. IOW, I think the drivers license medical may go out the window or at least have lots more added to it. I already go to every doc (GP, ear, eye, heart) in the book every year, just because I am an old fart. I am LSA and it's certainly the last plane I will ever buy so I am happy with what is allowed now and I also believe that by the time any changes are made, it will be long after I have hung up my keys. I hope all the rest of you come out well with whatever happens. Me, I just don't trust the powers that be. Just remember what we expected to happen the last time and how it turned into basic med. I doubt that the FAA will do anything without a quid pro quo; we get something, they get something. Hope their something isn't too onerous for those of you just getting into old fartdom.

[list=][/list]

WYflyer wrote:I guess that I am the only one that is suspicious when something is "improved". I'm betting that any increase in LSA weights will be accompanied with changes to what we now take for granted. IOW, I think the drivers license medical may go out the window or at least have lots more added to it. I already go to every doc (GP, ear, eye, heart) in the book every year, just because I am an old fart. I am LSA and it's certainly the last plane I will ever buy so I am happy with what is allowed now and I also believe that by the time any changes are made, it will be long after I have hung up my keys. I hope all the rest of you come out well with whatever happens. Me, I just don't trust the powers that be. Just remember what we expected to happen the last time and how it turned into basic med. I doubt that the FAA will do anything without a quid pro quo; we get something, they get something. Hope their something isn't too onerous for those of you just getting into old fartdom.

Sage advice indeed. And, remember, the only reason that Basic Med is as liberal as it came out, is that the Congress wrote it and essentially jammed it down the FAA's throat. The FAA wanted nothing to do with it, frankly, but didn't have any choice.....it was handed to them. Same would need to happen with any "improvement" of LS, methinks.

Be careful what you wish for.

MTV

mtv wrote: ….Frankly, I think with the advent of Basic Med, the value of LS compliant aircraft is essentially gone.....

I disagree.
The big plus to Basic Med is no tattling to the FAA if you don't measure up
IMHO the health standards are roughly the same for BM as for a third class--
minus (maybe, depending on your doc) the specific blood pressure & vision parameters.
That's a far cry from the "drivers license medical" requirement for sport pilot ops.
Also, unlike BM, you don't need to ever have held a medical certificate to fly SP.
.

Gross weight to include commonly used two seat training aircraft was avoided in the original process. I'm not sure why the C-150 or 7ECA both well proven designs were deemed unacceptable but that's what happened.

What will be interesting if they ever revisit the SP/LSA regs will be their incident and accident statistics and how they're used to reform the regulations. And in particular the use of a driver's license and pre-flight self certification versus the rest of the flying fleet and pilot medical certification. Safety of flight is a concern and a comparison since 2004 can now be developed.

Gary

PA1195 wrote:Gross weight to include commonly used two seat training aircraft was avoided in the original process. I'm not sure why the C-150 or 7ECA both well proven designs were deemed unacceptable but that's what happened.

As I recall an Oshkosh forum several years ago, EAA representatives said the weight was chosen specifically to exclude established trainers like C150's in order to stimulate production of new airplanes.

Stimulate production of new airplanes...now that's an interesting perspective. I wonder who most supported that? EAA? FAA? AOPA? GA? Lots of alphabet soup and I wonder how that's worked out since 2004. New is expensive and an experiment in progress - used can be cost effective and proven.

Well here's another statistic to be examined during the GW review....how has the accident rate/flight hour been for the "stimulated new airplanes" versus the older existing fleet? And, how successful has been the start to completion ratio or sales of these factory or experimental aircraft?

Gary

PA1195 wrote:Stimulate production of new airplanes...now that's an interesting perspective. I wonder who most supported that? EAA? FAA? AOPA? GA? Lots of alphabet soup and I wonder how that's worked out since 2004. New is expensive and an experiment in progress - used can be cost effective and proven.

Well here's another statistic to be examined during the GW review....how has the accident rate/flight hour been for the "stimulated new airplanes" versus the older existing fleet? And, how successful has been the start to completion ratio or sales of these factory or experimental aircraft?

Gary

Well over 100 Light Sport Aircraft designs were brought to market in the US following the new rule. (The lowest cost that I can recall was right around $60K, and the most expensive that I can recall is well over $200K.) From 2005 through last month, there have been 8,514 Light Sport aircraft registered in the US. Of those, 3,195 are SLSA (factory-built), and 5,319 are ELSA (kit-built versions of SLSA types).

On average, the LS industry has contributed 608 aircraft per year since the passage of the rule, compared to an average of roughly 900 single-engine piston GA "certified" aircraft per year being delivered during that same timeframe.

Maybe my thinking is skewed, but I would call that a "WIN" in terms of stimulating new aircraft designs coming to market, and in terms of new aircraft being delivered.

As far as the accident rate per flying hour for the LSA fleet... That's a tough number to derive, given the difficulties in estimating GA flying hours in general. I do have a good friend who runs a flight school that trains both LS pilots and Private/Commercial/Instrument/Multi-engine pilots. He also imports one of the more popular SLSA on the market. His experience has been that their SLSA accident/incident rate is lower than for the "certified" aircraft in their fleet. I haven't seen any data that indicates that LSA accident rates are higher than the comparable 2-4 place certified single-engine trainer fleet.

For a slightly different take on the relative safety of DL-med versus Class 3, I noted during the run-up to BasicMed, there were several articles published that showed that the fatal accident rate for LS pilots flying with drivers licence as their only medical was actually lower than the GA averages, by a healthy margin. I haven't seen anything published in the last couple of years on that topic, as most of the "noise" has been about BasicMed versus Class 3 statistics (which seem to be statistically equivalent).

Personally, I hope the LS PILOT portion of the LS rules gets extended to allow pilots with Light Sport certificates to fly 4-place aircraft in Day VFR conditions, with a weight limit that covers most of the single-engine, 4-seat, fixed-gear fleet.

Thanks Jim for info on new starts of LSA aircraft. There are too few in Alaska for me to observe and compare but that may change with time. I'm sure the designers and builders have contributed to our aviation economy based on your data. I didn't realize the SP and LSA programs were primarily a stimulus package for industry and not a means to keep existing aircraft and airmen flying.

Compared with the cost of a used C-150 and other two seat trainers based in your info some appear to be more expensive and I guess with time we'll see how well they maintain that value especially when ownership changes. I approached the SP license as a means for me to fly existing certified aircraft and gave no consideration to owning an unproven LSA category design, but that's been my choice and may not be for others.

As far as accident rates go new vs old and time in service has to be considered. Aging aircraft have their liabilities and it will take some time for the LSA group to develop known issues and warts. But let's see the data that supports either category as it develops. I have an open mind as a non-EAA member.

Now the question may be will industry and the FAA support extending the GW and seat capacity to both their new designs as well as older aircraft. Maybe my experience is atypical but with the current LSA's 20 some hrs ("half the time and half the cost") of training then operating a heavier higher performance aircraft has obligations that may exceed their capability and experience.

But in any case certified pilots are aging and eventually something will replace us and our aircraft.

Gary