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

Discussion in 'Rules and Regulations / Flight Safety / Better Pil' started by Cy V, Jul 19, 2019.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Jul 19, 2019 #1

    Cy V

    Cy V

    Cy V

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    409
    Likes Received:
    118
    Location:
    Virginia
  2. Jul 20, 2019 #2

    rdj

    rdj

    rdj

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    168
    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.
     
  3. Jul 20, 2019 #3

    Dennis DeFrange

    Dennis DeFrange

    Dennis DeFrange

    Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2019
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    9
    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 .
     
    dragon2knight likes this.
  4. Jul 20, 2019 #4

    choppergirl

    choppergirl

    choppergirl

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,533
    Likes Received:
    530
    Location:
    AIR-WAR.ORG ★★☠★★
    Thanks for the link, I posted my total opposition to it in the comments section on their website.

    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?
     
    undean likes this.
  5. Jul 20, 2019 #5

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,328
    Likes Received:
    3,133
    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.
     
  6. Jul 20, 2019 #6

    Heliano

    Heliano

    Heliano

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    29
    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.
     
    jedi likes this.
  7. Jul 20, 2019 #7

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,328
    Likes Received:
    3,133
    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.
     
  8. Jul 20, 2019 #8

    gtae07

    gtae07

    gtae07

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Location:
    Georgia
    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.
     
    akwrencher likes this.
  9. Jul 21, 2019 #9

    PW_Plack

    PW_Plack

    PW_Plack

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2015
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    65
    Location:
    West Valley City, UT
    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.)
     
  10. Aug 9, 2019 #10

    Hephaestus

    Hephaestus

    Hephaestus

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2014
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    197
    Location:
    YMM
    akwrencher likes this.
  11. Aug 9, 2019 #11

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    6,117
    Likes Received:
    2,076
    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.
     
  12. Aug 11, 2019 #12

    Lendo

    Lendo

    Lendo

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2013
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    45
    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
     
    bmcj likes this.
  13. Aug 11, 2019 #13

    Heliano

    Heliano

    Heliano

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    29
    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.
     

Share This Page

arrow_white