LSA Weight to be 3600 Pounds soon !!!

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

PagoBay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
131
Location
US Territory of Guam
Dan Johnson provided a good update back in July 2019
UPDATE: January 2020

Be sure to take time to read all the reader comments, as Dan answers lots of questions that address related concerns to the extent information is available.
 

ToddK

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
312
Location
The Real Texas
Now if they would just fix ultralights. Keep 103 as is for anything under 254. Then adopt the Canadian ultralight regulations as written for anything over 254.
 

ToddK

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
312
Location
The Real Texas
It just seems to me that Light Sport was a total screw up, that was largely created so Cessna could sell Sky Catchers to people who were going to loose their medicals, with a dirty side ways glace at people who had been flying "fat ultralights" to get them some official standard training. The problem is that basic med means that private pilots no longer need to down grade to LSA, and the LSA license is basically a private pilot license that locks you out of a lot of airplanes, not to mention that a Quick Silver is not a Sky Catcher. All this expanding the light sport envelope to a Cessna 172 is a stupid waste of time. Light sport was and is a failure. The Canadian rules are logical, and allow pilots get flying sooner, for less, and step up as they go. We should take what they have and insert it between our private pilot and our part 103. You want to make aviation cheap, and get more people in to it? That is the way to do it.
 
Last edited:

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
13,085
Location
Memphis, TN
LSA was brought in to create a reciprocal license with EASA. It was the only missing license. There was Treaty pressure to do it. It was not for us, it was made to fix a promise. It never made any sense. Sport Pilot license was a flop; proof that all or nothing would be how it would work. The US market wants to fly their regular planes, not just fly.
 

PagoBay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
131
Location
US Territory of Guam
It just seems to me that Light Sport was a total screw up.
There is a Sport Pilot Certificate and there are Light Sport Aircraft. Since there is no such thing as a Light Sport Pilot, it is hard to say that "Light Sport was and is a failure." without being clear what you are referring to exactly. The vast majority of E-AB aircraft are Light Sport Aircraft, most of whom are HomeBuiltAirplanes, as in this forum's primary mission.

If someone wants to fly as a Sport Pilot with the applicable restrictions and not do the extra training, and the applicable written and practical exams to get a PPL, how is that not their choice? PPL allows more options. But why would that make all those satisfied with Sport Pilot status part of a failure? And I don't see why a Sport Pilot could not later "step up" to PPL? Am I missing something?
 

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,491
Location
Seattle, WA
The vast majority of E-AB aircraft are Light Sport Aircraft...
Well... not sure I'd use the adjective "vast" in a market where about a quarter of the total registered aircraft are Vans (and less than a hundred are Sport-Pilot Eligible RV-12s).

There are about 28,000 E-AB aircraft in the registry. I've identified almost 18,000 of them as to make and model. Of those, only about 7,000 are sport-pilot eligible designs. Even if one claims that every one of the ~10,000 aircraft I don't categorize are sport pilot aircraft, you'd still be only a bit over half.

Ron Wanttaja
 

PagoBay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
131
Location
US Territory of Guam
Well... not sure I'd use the adjective "vast" in a market where about a quarter of the total registered aircraft are Vans (and less than a hundred are Sport-Pilot Eligible RV-12s). There are about 28,000 E-AB aircraft in the registry. I've identified almost 18,000 of them as to make and model. Of those, only about 7,000 are sport-pilot eligible designs. Even if one claims that every one of the ~10,000 aircraft I don't categorize are sport pilot aircraft, you'd still be only a bit over half.
Ron Wanttaja
Data driven reply. Very good.

But that does not speak to my actual point and focuses instead on one itty bitty adjective. Gosh, shall we all resort to being grammar police and "loose" our way?

Had I simply said "majority", then what?

The point is whether it is appropriate to misuse the term "Light Sport" and whether that description whether applied to the certificate or the aircraft as a failure is accurate.

Why direct attention away from the topic at hand just because of one word that was a bit over stated. Nobody can write a perfect absolutely immaculate post.
 

Wanttaja

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
1,491
Location
Seattle, WA
Had I simply said "majority", then what?
Then you might have been accurate...or at least, closer to being accurate.

Hyperbole doesn't buy anything. When it's challenged, it tends to cause readers to discount whatever else the original author said. If they're willing to exaggerate about one thing (or even LIE about that one thing), how can we trust anything else they say?

Ron Wanttaja
 

ToddK

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
312
Location
The Real Texas
If a guy says he is a light sport pilot, then we all know what he means. He is only certified to fly light sport aircraft. The total number of aircaft that can be categorized as light sport is entirely irrelevant to the whether or not light sport is a failure. I have 1 and 1/3 airplanes that both qualify as light sport, but both were built before light sport existed. I am not a light sport pilot, I hold a private ticket. Most of the light airplanes that qualify as light sport were designed before light sport was a thing, so the total number in the fleet does not matter. What matters is wow many new first time (light) Sport pilots there are, and to a lesser extent if they purchased a new LS airplane specifically to exercise their license. Not people who stepped down from a private before basic med, but people who entered aviation with a sport ticket? How does that number compare to private pilots?
 

ToddK

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
312
Location
The Real Texas
I want to stress that I am not in any way diminishing those of our brethren with sport tickets. A man in the air is a fellow airman, no matter what he has or does not have in his pocket. Rather, I am thinking about the segment of the population who for a time flew all kinds of really novel and often innovative ultralights and fat ultralights safely, and inexpensively, and who now are priced out of aviation all together because they cannot afford the training, and because when the economics of scale went away, the price of ultralight went up. This is directly a result of part 103 and the sport pilot rules that have done more to harm aviation then to help.
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,399
Location
Fresno, California
So, has anyone asked this question???

If the light sport regs were written to encompass a class/category of aircraft produced in Europe and align more seamlessly with their rules, is this proposed increase in weight also reflected by proposed rule making in Europe, or are we widening the chasm?
 
Last edited:

PagoBay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
131
Location
US Territory of Guam
Then you might have been accurate...or at least, closer to being accurate.

Hyperbole doesn't buy anything. When it's challenged, it tends to cause readers to discount whatever else the original author said. If they're willing to exaggerate about one thing (or even LIE about that one thing), how can we trust anything else they say?

Ron Wanttaja
OK. Fair enough. I see your Hyperbolic Fallacy charge and raise you one Red Herring.
Straw Man Argument: A subtype of the red herring, this fallacy includes any lame attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side.
A single adjective gets all the attention and is then followed by an exaggerated, personalized and inaccurate call for "how can we trust anything else they say"? Gosh.. He may even LIE.

All the while...The substantive point is still left begging. Is "Light Sport" a failure?

Does a call for correct use of terms have no merit? Doesn't a lack of fairness and accuracy about Light Sport Aircraft and Sport Pilot certificates deserve a response? Sweeping critical statements and incorrect use of terms is not problematic?

What is really important here?
 

ToddK

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
312
Location
The Real Texas
Is there such a thing as nit picky fallacy where a critic goes over board nit picking something that we all understand, as though he were trying to mix up a formula to cure cancer from the statement?
 
Top