I know this is a "back country" forum. I Just had been thinking about the Cessna 150 I learned to fly in and grew to love. So many people on here probably agree that today's LSA factory built aircraft are just way to expensive for the average Joe to think about owning. I see mostly flight schools and older retired guys who are into buying these LSA factory built aircraft, going for well over 100K in most instances. Older legacy LSA's are pricey and OLD.
There is nothing wrong with a CUB or Ercoupe, but not practical for the masses, as classic airplanes are a bit of a specialty and very pricey.

When you can pick up a good used Cessna 150/152 all day, any day of the week for 20K- 25K and the performance envelope is exceeded by many of these New LSA aircraft, why not petition and rally to get the G.W. restriction for Sport Pilot bumped up?

I know it has to do with a lot of politics and industry money floatng around in people's back pockets. I dont foresee the LSA market blossiming any time soon, with inflation/CPI rising......and a predicted brutal housing market / forclosure for 2011.

Opening up aircraft like the Cessna 150/152 would do more for the economy and for recreational flying overall, than the current LSA factory aircraft have done, Period.

Anybody on here have any thoughts on if it is possible we can group together and Rally to petition the FAA?

lownslow79 wrote:I know this is a "back country" forum. Anybody on here have any thoughts on if it is possible we can group together and Rally to petition the FAA?

NO

You can rally & petition all you want to, but that doesn't mean they're gonna pay any attention. Not long ago there was some talk going around on the internet about a guy who started a petition to the FAA to eliminate the requirement for a medical certificate for airplanes with a gross wt of 6,000# or lower. That was a bit much, but I wouldn't see anything wrong with eliminating the medical for up to 4-seaters, 2,500# GW & under, with a top speed of 150-- sort of a LSA heavy. Unfortunately I don't think any change in medical cert requirements is gonna happen-- even as restrictive as it is, we were lucky to get LSA & sport pilot.

LSA was a great initiative but I think they missed the mark by not structuring the category to include the C150 (and similarly sized aircraft). As you point out, the low cost and high production numbers of the 150 make them a truly affordable platform. Certainly not sexy, but definitely affordable.

I don't know how promising it is but there are indications that there is a serious effort building to do away with the third class medical. Even if they do though that would only close the gap partially between LSA and PP. The bulk of the potential cost savings of LSA is the drastically lower minimum time to complete the ticket.

Who knows, maybe they deliberately excluded the C150 to stimulate demand for the LSA compliant models in production now.

Vick wrote:.....
Who knows, maybe they deliberately excluded the C150 to stimulate demand for the LSA compliant models in production now.

As I recall, one of the stated reasons for the LSA concept was to encourage producing new airplanes & making them easier to certify. The sport pilot idea kind of got connected to the LSA idea, to create a new market for all the new LSA designs, & so was stuck with the same restrictions. I'd love to see the sport pilot limits bumped up to include the C150-- IMHO it's probably about the overall safest & most affordable airplane out there. But if you set the weight limit at 1600# for C150's, why not 1670 for C152? Then why not 1750 for the supercub?Then ....
Personally I think 1760 is just about right... coincidentally that's exactly my airplane's gross weight.

Oh no....here we go again! No offense, but this subject seems to get brought up every couple of months. If you care to search nearly any aviation site you will most asuradly find plenty of discussion on it.
Basically....it is NOT going to happen.

The manufacturing sector of LSA engineers to hit the upper ranges of GW of what the class allows. They all want to push for the ultimate plane in the category. Huge investments have been made by these companies to achieve this. They want time to recover these costs so a change in requirements will be met with this whole industry's resistance this time around. Remember many of these companies were not around to weigh in on the original debate over the LSA rule that created them. They are now an industry lobby with power of their own.

In addition, removing the FAA medical requirement for LSA has placed the insurance companies in the position of requiring medicals for those 65 or older who are wanting to learn. For that group, the LSA rule did not really remove the medical requirement but only privatized it. If the medical is done away with on four place GA planes or the LSA is expanded to higher weight classes, expect more of the same from insurance companies. The third class medical could actually become more intense in the hands of the insurance companies. They have butts to cover too and yours is not their first concern.

dirtstrip wrote:In addition, removing the FAA medical requirement for LSA has placed the insurance companies in the position of requiring medicals for those 65 or older who are wanting to learn. For that group, the LSA rule did not really remove the medical requirement but only privatized it. If the medical is done away with on four place GA planes or the LSA is expanded to higher weight classes, expect more of the same from insurance companies. The third class medical could actually become more intense in the hands of the insurance companies. They have butts to cover too and yours is not their first concern.

With all due respect to the seniors who are enjoying the benefits of LSA, if the point of the question is how we make aviation relatively affordable for younger generations the liability of self certifying should be pretty easy to work out. Even if it did drive a medical required only by the insurance companies, the simple fact is that the 15-40 demographic (just a SWAG) is not going to be deterred by what is essentially a simple annual exam nor do they tend to have the type of health issues that would prevent them from getting coverage.

And while the LSA industry does now constitute a lobby group of its own there is a lot of attention being given to the issue of dwindling student pilot ranks by the likes of AOPA, EAA, and others. I wouldn't be surprised if LSA is modified over time if they determine that redefining the class is deemed to be a critical measure to increasing those numbers. It's not like the guys buying $200k LSA SuperCubs are the ones they're worried about.

On a tangent, I did just read that they are modifying the GI Bill to cover flight training (up to $10k/yr I think it was). That should have some measurable contribution to student pilot numbers if it goes into effect. Having the option to do that training in a clapped out C150 vs a plastic eastern bloc LSA with snazzy MFDs would make that money go a lot further.

The actual wording is 1320# MAX TAKE OFF WEIGHT not Gross weight (for wheels). I know one person who has succesfully argued, and won the argument with the FAA allowing him to fly his KF mod 5 (with a manufactures stated gross weight of 1550) under sport pilot rules. He just has to limit his max take off weight to 1320#. He had asked the EAA guy about the max take off versus the gross weight and the guy would have no part of the argument as everyone seems to be hung up on gross weight and not the actual wording on the regs. He approached his local FSDO and they sided with him saying that yes, as long as the max take off weight is less than 1320 and he follows the other sport pilot restrictions, he is good to go flying his KF 5 under sport pilot rules.

hotrod150 wrote:You can rally & petition all you want to, but that doesn't mean they're gonna pay any attention. Not long ago there was some talk going around on the internet about a guy who started a petition to the FAA to eliminate the requirement for a medical certificate for airplanes with a gross wt of 6,000# or lower.

Had an MPA board meeting today and this very thing was on the agenda. It is being considered now in the deep recesses of the FAA to eliminate the third class medical. Basically no medical unless you fly for hire.

akavidflyer wrote:The actual wording is 1320# MAX TAKE OFF WEIGHT not Gross weight (for wheels). I know one person who has succesfully argued, and won the argument with the FAA allowing him to fly his KF mod 5 (with a manufactures stated gross weight of 1550) under sport pilot rules. He just has to limit his max take off weight to 1320#. He had asked the EAA guy about the max take off versus the gross weight and the guy would have no part of the argument as everyone seems to be hung up on gross weight and not the actual wording on the regs. He approached his local FSDO and they sided with him saying that yes, as long as the max take off weight is less than 1320 and he follows the other sport pilot restrictions, he is good to go flying his KF 5 under sport pilot rules.

Hmnn, Thats interesting..now ya got my wheels in my head starting to turn. "so ya mean there is a chance?" - dumb&dumber
I would love to exploit that, and be able to get a Sports pilot instructor rating and give instruction in a C-150.

The actual wording is 1320# MAX TAKE OFF WEIGHT not Gross weight (for wheels). I know one person who has succesfully argued, and won the argument with the FAA allowing him to fly his KF mod 5 (with a manufactures stated gross weight of 1550) under sport pilot rules. He just has to limit his max take off weight to 1320#. He had asked the EAA guy about the max take off versus the gross weight and the guy would have no part of the argument as everyone seems to be hung up on gross weight and not the actual wording on the regs. He approached his local FSDO and they sided with him saying that yes, as long as the max take off weight is less than 1320 and he follows the other sport pilot restrictions, he is good to go flying his KF 5 under sport pilot rules.

So do you think this can be applied to using a Cessna 150 as a sport pilot aircraft?

Never mind, I did the math. Cessna 150 is too heavy.

The lightest C150 I have personal knowledge of is an early straight-tail that comes i at around 1,000#. Add 2 people & you're at or above 1320 without even having any fuel on board. So unless you want to instruct yourself I think you'd be shit outa luck.

hotrod150 wrote:The lightest C150 I have personal knowledge of is an early straight-tail that comes i at around 1,000#. Add 2 people & you're at or above 1320 without even having any fuel on board. So unless you want to instruct yourself I think you'd be shit outa luck.

Yup, your right. I realized that myself after posting. I really want to instruct and LSA is my route of choice. I do not want to mess with commercial and instrument cert. I love the pure basics of VFR flying. However, cant afford a new LSA and the old legacy aircraft and not new enough. Would love to have a cub, but afraid it wont appeal to a younger set of new flyers i would like to eventually attract.

I am already prepping for my sport pilot instructor written/ knowledge test. I intend to be stateside in a year or two more of living overseas as a contractor.

mr scout wrote:

lownslow79 wrote:I know this is a "back country" forum. Anybody on here have any thoughts on if it is possible we can group together and Rally to petition the FAA?

NO

Have you not figured out the answer yet

mr scout wrote:

mr scout wrote:

lownslow79 wrote:I know this is a "back country" forum. Anybody on here have any thoughts on if it is possible we can group together and Rally to petition the FAA?

NO

Have you not figured out the answer yet

YUP

lownslow79 wrote: Would love to have a cub, but afraid it wont appeal to a younger set of new flyers i would like to eventually attract.

I would have loved to learn how to fly in a cub rather than the 172 with the G1000 that I am flying now.

akavidflyer wrote:The actual wording is 1320# MAX TAKE OFF WEIGHT not Gross weight (for wheels). I know one person who has succesfully argued, and won the argument with the FAA allowing him to fly his KF mod 5 (with a manufactures stated gross weight of 1550) under sport pilot rules. He just has to limit his max take off weight to 1320#. ...

First of all, please tell me the difference between "maximum takeoff weight" and "gross weight".
Secondly, per FAR part 1 (definitions), 1.1 (general definitions): "light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since it's original certification, has continued to meet the following:
1) a maximum takeoff weight of not more than ...(ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on water".
Note the "since it's original certification" qualifier in the applicable FAR.
If the KF 5 in question was originally certified with a gross weight of 1550# , I think that's that-- end of story. Unless it was intended to take off at only 1320#, then be aerial-refueled to it's 1550# gross.

[quote="lownslow79....I really want to instruct and LSA is my route of choice. I do not want to mess with commercial and instrument cert. I love the pure basics of VFR flying. However, cant afford a new LSA ....[/quote]

I've had that same thought, but not only I can't afford a new LSA, I wouldn't want one of those plastic George Jetson looking things-- I'm too old school. Unless they change the weight limits, if & when I end up flying sport pilot I'll be in a Cub,Champ, Kitfox, or something similar-- definitely tailwheel equipped.
I think it's great that you can get a sport pilot instructor rating right off a SP license- no commercial or IFR ticket required. Don't know how that one got past the FAA but I'm sure glad it did. I'm kind of surprised that more people aren't taking advantage of that, but I think it's for the same reason more people aren't taking advantage of the SP license itself--a lack of suitable rental aircraft at the local FBO's.
If & when I do go LSA I'd want to get a SP instructor license, just for part-time instructing. Anyone know if a SP instructor can do BFR's for private pilots? FAR part 61.56 (flight review) just sez "authorized instructor".