smjmitchell wrote:
I don't think EAA is the right vehicle for
that but we can disagree on that - perhaps SSA is not the right organisation
either.
EAA is the defacto organization. Whether that is right or not is
apparently water under the bridge.
You are absolutely right that JAR 22 probably should just be adopted as the
design standard (perhaps with some minor revision).
How about JAR22 or CAR05 or ...
come up with a list of all the standards ever used, and hand it over.
There's no reason not to simply use the word "or." If it was ever a
standard, then add it.
Keep in mind that the standards for this class should be very low.
Many ultralights can't even handle any negative G's. There's no
reason to require all gliders to do so either. The point of LSA
is to relax the requirements, not make a good glider, or a standard glider.
Just remember that many of the older gliders, which presumably you refer to
when you say that 50% of the Californian clubs would benefit, will not be
certificated to JAR 22, many will be certificated to CAR 05 so the benefit
is not that large.
So CAR 05 or JAR 22 or the older JAR 22 or ...
ASTM is, in my personal oppinion, not an appropriate
vehicle for the development of such standards
Until there is something else, ATSM is there.
My interpretation of the Light Sport regulations is that a standard can be
developed outside of ASTM by any concensus group .... right ?
The usefulness is that a FAA inspector will issue a certificate.
If the applicant hands the inspector...NOTHING...then I suspect
little will be accomplished.
The US does not have any glider manufacturers to speak of ... certainly none
with experience in certification. This is simply why the committee is not
active. The involvement of the few US companies you mention is of little
value beyond lobbying for the adoption of JAR 22.
Hey. That is a HUGE start, and would add a ton of value. Don't discredit
this contribution just because it doesn't involve lots of engineering
sweat. Simpler stuff gets through much easier...all in favor say "Aye."
The development of a new
standard...
Who said anything about "new?" I certainly don't want anything new.
I just want all of the old standards listed and accepted, and then
the open possibility of more standards to be added later.
The only thing I don't want, is some balloon ATSM guy being asked to
fill in at the meeting and writing out that LSA gliders must use
bunsane burners for launch ;(
My recommendation: add JAR-22 and CAR 05 and adopt them without
modification. Then add anything else anyone can think of...
"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41acb39d$1@darkstar...
smjmitchell wrote:
This has got nothing to do with the EAA ...
This is incorrect. FAA has been consistently using EAA, and not SSA,
as the point of contact and advice for gliders.
This is painfully clear when one reads the "3 hours of flight training in
a glider with an authorized instructor...within 60 days before the test."
61.321 1. ii. This should read "3 flights" instead of "3 hours" but
nobody from SSA ever saw this. EAA reviewed it before it was published
and didn't notice this error.
they don't regulate or run the
Light Plane categories
Absolutely true. FAA set the rules. But EAA is heavily consulted for
this.
Quote from an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector at the SJC FSDO about Sport
Pilot:
"This is mostly an EAA thing." There are times when perception becomes
reality.
- they have however been active in lobbying the FAA
and they chair the ASTM concensus committee.
Yes! They chaired the ATSM committee on October 27, 2004 at Sebring,
Florida.
"A number of standards for all classes of LSA were brought into
compliance"
www.sportpilot.org/news/041027_atsm_sebring.html
I pointed out that this was misleading, and that there were no glider
standards worked on at all at this meeting.
Ron Wagner is the EAA HQ Sport Pilot Team head and EAA Field Relations
Manager. He said "the reason there is no consensus standard for gliders
is that "no glider manufacturers elected to participate. The glider
manufacturers and soaring community were invited to participate, and in
fact
showed up for the organizational meeting of the ATSM committee, but
have not returned since."
Keep in mind Ron Wagner holds a glider rating and for a short time owned
a small glider flight school and ride operation. He wants to help
gliders with respect to Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft, but he
needs some glider pilots and manufacturers to show more interest.
Windward and HP and Pipistrel and SZD USA making a few calls or sending
e-mails would get some warm responses. Asking SSA to do this just creates
a chokepoint, in my opinion.
The SSA is the one that you
should be writing to - they need to get involved in the process in a
similar
manner to the EAA and work on behalf of glider pilots.
I disagree. SSA has too many other priorities to have any member
of its full time staff work on Sport Pilot as an "additional duty."
Better to volunteer to work as a liason between SSA and EAA. The best
folks for this are those who do commercial or very active club operations
(for the Sport Pilot side) or USA manufacturers and importers (on the
Light Sport Aircraft and ATSM standards side).
The regulations (Part 21 etc) already make provison for gliders.
If you think any FAA inspector will ever issue a single LSA-glider
airworthiness certificate to a glider (say for example a Pipistrel Sinus
912)
without ANY participation in the EAA ATSM committees, then I think you
are sorely mistaken. The manufacturers and importers need to at least
argue that if it is imported under JAR standards it should automatically
be eligible as a certified LSA. This opens the door for L-13 and L-23
certification as (non-experimental) LSA if/when the Vne limit for gliders
is raised (I'm working on this).
There is a LOT of opportunity here before the ink is dry.
The ASTM apparently have a subcommittee to establish a consensus standard
but it is not clear how active this is. Anyone know ???? Who are the
members.
I know. It is now inactive. There are no members who showed up to the
latest
meeting. With the SSA website redesign, the SSA forums where I would
discuss this have disappeared. E-mails to the overworked full time
staff recieve less priority than the same e-mails to EAA. It's time
to get some publicity so this gets some more attention and (as Ron Wagner
put it) "interest in Sport Pilot."
However before you get too excited. Carefully consider what value the
existing sport plane regulations are to glider manufacturers and pilots.
I have very carefully considered the value. It is enormous. I've
given rides to 30+ folks who are already airplane pilots, and arranged to
solo six of these. Only one (me) has gotten a passenger carrying rating.
If sport pilot had been in effect this past year, all six would have
gotten
sport pilot endorsements, and some of the other 30+ would have been
enticed
by the "no FAA practical test" aspect. I would also have at least two
more Sport Pilot - CFI - Glider qualified instructors available for
our club's popular events.
An 80%+ increase in licensing? That is VALUE!
Granted, only the clubs with gliders with a Vne under 120knots get
immediate value. But this is 50%+ of the clubs in California.
Still a pretty good percentage. And I'm working on getting the
Vne limit raised to include the L-13 and maybe the Grob 103
and perhaps some motorgliders...
Keep in mind Vne is a small change because it ONLY applies to gliders,
so FAA is more likely to listen...
Remember that gliding is a very international sport and most of the
gliders
come from O/S. At this stage there are only a few countries that have
regulations for light sport aircraft and this will probably restrict the
usefullness of the regulations ... unless the US is going to start making
gliders in a big way again.
Like I said, perhaps the best input for these is simply to tell
EAA and ATSM and FAA that if it meets JAR in another country it should
automatically get a standard LSA certificate (not an LSA-experimental
certificate). Then getting this airworthiness certificate is as simple
as showing the JAR documnet to the FAA inspector.
I'm not excluding the possibility of other, even less restrictive
standards for US manufactured gliders, or for gliders imported with
certain documentation, but at least get somebody at the meeting to eat a
donut, recommend in writing that the JAR standard always be sufficient
for an standard LSA airworthiness certificate, and then smile for
a picture.
Why is it if someone says "committee," everyone assumes they have to do
something complicated?
EAA has several full time staff solely dedicated to this issue.
They even have a team, and a committee where other members of
sport aviation show up. They also have a Sport Pilot magazine,
which would accept articles from glider enthusiasts and help
recruit ultralight/etc. pilots into gliders.
EAA has the staff. connections, and interest to make this thing fly...
"Slick" wrote in message
...
The new FAR's address the issue with gliders and sport ratings.
"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41abcbc9$1@darkstar...
I'd like anyone with interest to e-mail EAA at
asking why they haven't included gliders in their list of
Light Sport Aircraft, and why their literature doesn't
address gliders in the Sport Pilot summaries.
I've been in touch with the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA)
here in the USA, and they haven't seen much interest from the
"soaring community." Please e-mail them and encourage them to
promote gliders in their Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft
publicity.
I know there are a lot of experimental glider owners, and
the Light Sport Aircraft maint. section will likely affect you
if you have a glider with Vne below 120 knots. Here is your chance
to affect the course of forming regulations...
And for you glider manufacturers (Bob K., Greg Cole, SZD USA,
Pipistrel, etc.) you may want to get a finger in the pie as the
LSA glider "industry consensus standards" are written. I'm
told at the recent ATSM meeting for LSA, all LSA categories had
representatives EXCEPT gliders.
Write EAA and tell them you are interested in their promotion of
gliding.
Cheers!
Mark J. Boyd
P.S. The Soaring article is done, and should appear in Feb 2005.
If anyone has SZD 50-3 Puchasz or Bocian photos with caption, I'd
still like them. Please e-mail me a web link to them, as my
anti-spam
filter will bounce e-mail that has big files otherwise...
I can also give another e-mail to interested parties...
--
------------+
Mark J. Boyd
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
100,000
Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
--
------------+
Mark J. Boyd
--
------------+
Mark J. Boyd