.
FAA Reform - Can the LSA 1320lb restriction and other limits be updated?



A few years ago AvWeb had an article titled: " LSA Weight Limits: Is Higher Better?"
http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVWebInsider_LSAWeight_206058-1.html

Another very interesting article appeared in AirFactsJournal titled: " The Great Debate: is the LSA rule a failure? "
http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/08/the-great-debate-is-the-lsa-rule-a-failure/

Also from an AOPA article: "Icon gets weight limit increase for up to 250 pounds -FAA grants exemption for spin-resistant design"
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/July/29/ICON-exemption

I have seen these discussions before, and despite the FAA bureaucracy, perhaps this topic can be revisited.

We are now seeing less-restrictive rules re certified AOA installations, mechanical to electric instrument swaps, pilot medical reform, LSA ICON aircraft weight allowances, BRS, etc. If LSA manufacturers are not financially threatened by the influx of eligible legacy aircraft such as the Cessna 150, etc. and could envision the possibility of more sales, maybe LAMA ( Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association ; http://www.lama.bz/ ), and other business entities would support this.

Some interesting points from the AvWeb article include:

.
The notion of raising the weight limit for light sport aircraft seems to wax and wane and it came up this week again at the Sport Aviation Expo in Sebring. It's not exactly clear to me what this will accomplish, but at the LAMA dinner on Thursday, EAA's Rod Hightower said the idea may be on the table as a means of improving safety.

.
The weight restriction were always based on markets, NOT on safety. Think about that for a while.

.
The weight limit on LSA's is a poor choice of metrics for determining what should be in the category. LSA's were supposed to be for pilots that didn't have the training, experience, or ability to pass a medical that was needed to fly FAR 23 certified machines.
A much better restriction would be based on wing loading and perhaps also overall power. Low wing loading is much more important to ensuring safety than low weight and low maximum speeds.

I think the main thing driving my interest is that realistically, an FAA standard pilot is not typical today.

Stick a 265 + 215 pound pair in an LSA with fuel, oil, and some gear and bingo you are right up against 1320 in a hurry. So if BRS and float systems can get a modification, maybe the whole process can be re-examined in 2015 and moving forward.

Just as ultralight reform included a time frame specification, perhaps factory built or owner manufactured LSAs rolled out after January 2020 could have an increased GW, stall & cruise speed, and engine HP limit. The LSA safety history so far has not been half bad I would say. One of the supposed advantages of LSAs is it puts not only new pilots but new aircraft into the air. Of course if the Medical reforms go through and medical exam requirements lighten up, the impact on the market for LSAs might be quite profound.

This was all brought about from another thread where I was pondering the possibility of building a Bearhawk Patrol as an LSA, but the 1320 pound limit really hampers things. It’s all like a big chess match; it seems everything has a gotcha lurking in the mix.

So much in the FAA does seems to take 8-10 years. 2016 is just around the corner. Let us see what happens.

Very Light Aircraft (VLA) was a category introduced by the European aviation authorities in about 2003, it had a weight limit of 750 kg or 1650 pounds. The FAA introduced LSA in 2004, but instead of following Europe's lead they arbitrarily set the weight limit at 1320. Might be nice if they could bump it up now to match VLA limits. As a side benefit, this would mean 150's both early (1500#) and late (1600#) would be included.

I would like to see LSA wt. limit raised enough to let in some airplanes such as a C150 and similar types but hope LSA stays like it is otherwise since the new PBOR2 has been watered down. Almost want to say leave a sleeping dog lie. Don't want to see LSA jeopardized over the PBOR2 debacle. I still have a medical but now that I don't fly professionally anymore I don't have plans to see an AME again.

A lot of the kitfoxes and other LSA's re designed with a 1550lb gross weight in mind, but "limited" to 1320... would be nice to see a couple hundred extra pounds. Would be nice to have two adults, full fuel, and some cargo and be legal. If the planes themselves were built to handle it - most of them with the more powerful engine options can handle it. It's still a two seater, it's still slow, it's still not complex/multi engine etc.

Why not allow the machine itself to be operated at it's full capability? I mean, is leaving with less fuel and then dealing with the potential issues that can arise because of that really safer because you don't want to break the FAA's imaginary limiting number?

Don't even THINK about opening that can of worms.....This Congress can screw up a wet dream, and the FAA is not your friend, when it comes to aeromedical reform.

MTV

GravityKnight wrote:A lot of the kitfoxes and other LSA's re designed with a 1550lb gross weight in mind, but "limited" to 1320... would be nice to see a couple hundred extra pounds. Would be nice to have two adults, full fuel, and some cargo and be legal. If the planes themselves were built to handle it - most of them with the more powerful engine options can handle it. It's still a two seater, it's still slow, it's still not complex/multi engine etc.

Why not allow the machine itself to be operated at it's full capability? I mean, is leaving with less fuel and then dealing with the potential issues that can arise because of that really safer because you don't want to break the FAA's imaginary limiting number?

The FAA has heard this exact same argument and their response is not going to change. When Part 103 came out years ago which defined ultralights and allowed their use, the ultralight world was ecstatic for the minimal regulation and the few rules defining what an ultralight had to be. A few years later, you heard, "It would be safer if we could carry more than 5 gallons of gas. It would be safer if the weight was increased a little so we could have hydraulic brakes and other safety features. It would be safer if we could weigh a little bit more to carry a more powerful engine for safety reasons. Why can't we have the same limit as they do in Europe?" Exactly what they are starting to hear from the LSA world. I really don't see them visiting this again, it's been put to bed, these are all old arguments to them, and I don't think it would end well for us if they did.

Why can't we have the same limit as they do in Europe?

Please don't let the hype about LSA rules in Europe blind you. I expect to see LSA medical rules wiped out before 2020.

jjbaker wrote:...... I expect to see LSA medical rules wiped out before 2020.

What do you mean? No more drivers license in lieu of a medical? Why would you think that is in the works-- because of PBR2? The two things are separate issues, I have yet to see or hear anything about LSA / sport pilot mentioned with regards to the current "medical reforms" movement aka PBR2.

Looking at the chart Denali provided, I've never been so happy to see that I am simply obese... could be a lot worse!

EZFlap wrote:Looking at the chart Denali provided, I've never been so happy to see that I am simply obese... could be a lot worse!

That graph isn't too accurate - needs to be redone. Task a gov't dept. to do it today and we'll see the new one in a decade.

If it makes you feel better, according to that graph I'm "overweight." I'm no such thing.

The FAA has heard this exact same argument and their response is not going to change. When Part

Doesn't mean it isn't a valid argument.
But I get what your saying. And it's probably best not to draw too much attention... with the exception of the 3rd class changes to PP, it seems things generally get more complicated/involved/locked down/more rules etc. with the FAA