cavelamb himself wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:

Jim Logajan wrote:

cavelamb himself wrote:


Nowdays it's supposed to be Easy aircraft assoc.


Which ones are easy? The ones that take less than 10 years to build?

Which ones are hard? The ones that never get built?


Well, by inferance, the ones that come with all the parts already
made.


That includes all E-LSAs - by definition.

I should really get back on point - which is why the EAA is being
taken to task for a situation not of its making?


I don't remember the ELSA rules being that way.

Any project can qualify as ELSA if it meets the
weight and performance criteria.

Maybe I got that wrong?

I suspect that we are both wrong. As I understand it, to sell an ELSA kit
it first has to meet the standards for SLSA. I believe that means it also
has to meet certain engineering standards in addition to weight and
performance standards. And I believe an ELSA has to be built exactly
according to the specifications and design of the SLSA. I would expect
that last bit is accomplished by delivering ready-made parts, but
technically nothing seems to require that aspect. So it isn't true that
ELSAs need have all prebuilt parts by definition - just merely unlikely.

Anyway, maybe I don't have the history right, but didn't the whole xLSA
concept originate with the EAA? I mean they basically managed to find a
way to get the FAA to adopt something less than the normal full
certification process for a class of RTF aircraft. And for a new class of
pilots - lowering the barrier there - or trying. Not perfect but I'm not
sure it is fair to fault them for any aspect of a decline of experimental
aviation.