Latest updated on FAA's plan to change light sport regulations

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

rdj

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
312
Location
Northern California
Thanks for that link. Presumably if LSA will allow 4 seats, the Light Sport pilot rating will also change to allow more than one passenger? It's also interesting that electric motors are "on the table", but batteries were not part of the discussion. Curious that.
 

Dennis DeFrange

Active Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 16, 2019
Messages
42
Yup , there are a lot of us out here that got nothing from the last big hupalla that the EAA and AOPA bragged about . All they accomplished was getting a free pass for those that could already fly without restrictions . Those of us that hinge on medical issues took it up the whazoo when very minor changes would have freed up the tensions ie. 5 mph in landing or stall speed , 1,000 lbs. gross etc. Who's going to hurt anyone but themself by being able to fly a Ceesna 150 or 172 ,or even a 120/140 a Cherokee or whatever as opposed to Cubs , Champs , Ercoupes etc . Think about it , a 350 lb truck driver with high blood pressure in a semi tractor trailer is a far bigger threat than anyone in a small aircraft and there is a hellova lot more questionable auto and truck drivers out there than there are pilots . I feel that it's a great deal safer settin at home waitin for an airplane to come through your roof as it is headin to town with all the potential of being killed by someone physically impaired heading directly towards ya in the other lane , not to mention the cell phone issues and the legalization of Pot . We are only inches from death every time a vehicle passes in the other direction . Hopefully something will come out of your article above . The last surge did nothing .
 

choppergirl

Banned
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Messages
1,682
Location
Choppergirl's Flying Circus ★★☠★★ AIR-WAR.ORG
Thanks for the link, I posted my total opposition to it in the comments section on their website.

I'm not seeing any evidence at all that the United States government has any rights whatsoever to make any rules about the sky.

No native american tribe sold any "sky" or "parts thereof" in any treaty whatsoever.

Further, the United States can't plant a flag in the sky. And even if they could, that does not give you the right to suddenly own it or make rules about it.

The United States was certainly not the first to be in the sky or claim dominion of it.

Mother nature was the first in the sky, and continues to be the most prolific flying things inventor, with millions of flying creatures under her belt.

Further, there are dozens of ancient gods and goddess that proceeded the United States by hundreds and thousands of years that purportedly ruled over the sky.


Further, might does not make right. Just because you have a bigger gun, and threaten to do violence against that do not obey you, does not mean something is suddenly yours or that you morally have any more right to something than anyone else.


The sky is a commons for everyone to use and enjoy, and the United States has zero dominion over it.

You can't claim dominion of something just because it's above you. That is ludicrous. If so, anyone could claim vast quadrants of space extending out to infinity just because it was above me and I started making rules about it.

Do not believe what statists tell you that they own the sky. They do not. The bird and the clouds and the free air were there long before they came along bleeting out their corruption and rule making. Do not become a broken record yourself bleeting out these rules and rubbish from them. Instead, become a lighthouse shining out freedom.

Nobody alive today agreed to make any rules about the sky, and even if they did in some smoke filled room with their compatriots... I did not agree to it... you did not agree to it... and you can't definitively say ever that 100% people everywhere agree with anything made behind closed door, or open doors, or in any meeting, in a place where the whole wide world can not attend to oppose such machinations against freedom.
I have never understood men's intense need to obey strangers or follow rules. It's almost if as if many people seek out someone to tell you what to do, or seek out rules to follow and then broadcast them to others, self police themselves, live in fear of transgressing such rules, and then police others, spreading fear and obedience. It perplexes me, as I was born free and prefer to remain so :) I don't know, is freedom really that scary?
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,085
Location
Memphis, TN
It’s not following the laws, as much as knowing when it’s more valuable to break the them. There is plenty of value in breaking them, but if you break all of them, you become a problem or have to become a recluse. Both is really jail; one is instituted the other self protection by self induction. There is a growing group that can’t figure out if what they’re doing is worth the consequences. They just do like a dog and hope the owner does not beat them when they get caught.
 

Heliano

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
90
Location
Campinas, SP, Brazil
Allow me to poke my nose here. I wonder why the FAA does not evaluate the possibility of allowing LSA aircraft with retractable landing gear, as Europe's EASA does in its CS-VLA airworthiness requirements. Many european LSA aircraft have to be converted to fixed landing gear to be sold in the US, as for example the italian Tucano replica.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,085
Location
Memphis, TN
Simple part is they don’t want tons of people forgetting to put the gear down. They’re not going to let anyone have retractable when it takes a special endorsement with a regular license. The FAA underestimated what LSA needed to be in the US. They wanted two seat ex 103 ultralights to be the prime use; a Cub is not much different so they let that tag along. I don’t think they had a clue of the performance of the rest of the world’s ultralights. The FAA was trying to fix two things. One,two seat ultralight rule abuse. Two, lateral license agreement to other nations. Other nations don’t have the freedom we have with aviation so LSA is their thrown bone. Other nations don’t have 120,000 GA airplanes. I would think the only place in the US that would be close to other nations would be Hawaii. Pretty much trapped to flying in circles because of boundaries. Trapped resources too.
 

gtae07

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
1,966
Location
Savannah, Georgia
The FAA underestimated what LSA needed to be in the US. They wanted two seat ex 103 ultralights to be the prime use; a Cub is not much different so they let that tag along
Precisely.

What everyone else did was read the rules as written, and do what humans naturally do when artificial limits are imposed--work right up to and beyond them. The FAA saw LSA as regulating those old two-seat ultralights; everyone else saw it as a way to fly something close to a "real" airplane without a medical.

The two-seat ultralight-type airframes all but vanished because (1) all the effort was going into making "real" airplanes that fit in the decreed performance box, and (2) even though the "certification" and production standard were relaxed, they're still extremely expensive (I'd argue they're overkill even for top-end LSAs) and made producing the FAA's desired ultralight-like airplanes cost-prohibitive. Nobody was going to pay the prices that such aircraft would have required in order to be profitable, if only a little bit more bought them a whole lot more performance and utility.

I had an email discussion last October with an EAA high-up involved in all this. We discussed the rumors of LSA changes/enhancements (about which I expounded a great deal) as well as some other stuff of great interest to homebuilders like clarification/relaxation of some of the operating limitations, flight test changes, alternatives to the 51% rule, other ways to get a repairman certificate, and so on. He couldn't give me any firm answers about what the FAA was intending but he did say they were "pushing for" a couple of specific things I really wanted.

I'm cautiously optimistic about what might come out of the process, actually. Unlike the Part 23 changes which were largely driven by ASTM and the major certified aircraft producers, this one seems to have a lot more "push" from groups like EAA and AOPA.
 

PW_Plack

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2015
Messages
154
Location
West Valley City, UT
I have never understood men's intense need to obey strangers or follow rules.
Because anarchy takes more time and effort than you think. If you accept the system's rules, it frees you from the administrative overhead of defending yourself against people who think their freedoms include taking your life, health and property. So, the rules create freedoms, in a way. A vast majority of US citizens will accept the rules, (or most of them,) because it frees them from fears of, say, marginally-trained Sport Pilots crashing into their houses.

There is a difference between rules and laws. True laws, such as the laws of physics, are relationships between action and consequence, and do not depend on enforcement by men. So, if a "law" requires getting caught to suffer the consequence, it's really just a rule.

The LSA rules are a rare example of rules being loosened when history demonstrates they didn't need to be so tight. That's rare, in my opinion. The more usual outcome for regulation which is demonstrated to be excessive is simply reduced funding for enforcement, allowing more people to get away with ignoring the "law" in question. (See also Part 103.)
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,087
Location
Rocky Mountains
I keep wondering how all of the media backlash over Boeing "self certifying" the 737 is going to effect this change?

The FAA is(was?) apparently comfortable with this reduced oversight or they would have never gone down the ASTM part 23 replacement path.
 

Lendo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
504
Location
Brisbane
There rumors to the effect that CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority) Australia is considering a weight increase for the 600 kilo (1320 lbs) current limit to maybe 760 kilo (maybe). We already have no speed limit and can use Flaps for Stall speed in Landing Configuration (45 knots) under RAA (Recreational Aviation Australia) governance.

We also have Experimental Light Sport under RAA, with special approvals for Retracts, and Constant speed props.

What are you old boys doing, your letting the side down.
George
 

Heliano

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
90
Location
Campinas, SP, Brazil
A quick comment about the effect of the 737 Max issue on rulemaking: hopefully there will be no implication. The 737 Max case is NOT requirements not properly addressing safety aspects. The 737 Max case was about existing requirements NOT being met, namely Part 25, 25.1309 (safety assessment) regarding catastrophic failures. Primary flight control failures are catastrophic and require a failure rate of one in one billion hours (10^-9), and it is impossible to satisfy that requirement when the system relies on a single sensor. Why did FAA ignore a requirement created by themselves? good question.
 
Top