![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You know, I'm really starting to have some doubts about the utility/value of
the Special-LSA ruling in general. Without some legislative changes regarding liability on the part of the manufacturers and potential aftermarket suppliers I wonder if this isn't going to be "The Death of General Aviation - Part II". No doubt there are going to be any number of lawyers just waiting to pounce on S-LSA manufacturers as soon as there's an accident or two - and those manufacturers will get to walk the plank just as their larger predecessors (e.g. Cessna, Piper, Beech, et. al.) have been forced to in the past. I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to envision a whole new batch of ambulance chasers (ala James Sokolov) trolling the airwaves with ads looking for "victims" - "If you or a loved one have been involved in a Light Sport Aircraft incident please contact the law offices of Weel, Screwem and Howe..." (Note that I said "incident" because, as we all know, there's no longer any such thing as an "accident" - or individual stupidity - there's always *someone* who must be blamed 8-)... I applaud the few intrepid manufacturers that will brave this. I suspect that there will be few. As for the potential manufacturers of aftermarket equipment - they will have little incentive to develop and market products because they will need the individual approval of *each and every* SLA manufacturer in order to sell their products. And, as Ron has pointed out, why would they grant such approval at all since it only serves to increase their exposure to liability?!!! If the "old" rules appeared ponderous (i.e. TSO, Part 23, etc.) the "new" rules are worse *unless* additional methods for a blanket approval of some type can be developed. In other words, create some rules for industry "consensus standards" to be applied to add-on products (such as autopilots) which would allow them to be used in S-LSA aircraft *without* requiring individual manufacturer approvals. This gets the LSA manufacturer off the hook in terms of liability - and gives the aftermarket manufacturer an incentive to proceed. Garmin doesn't need Cessna's approval or endorsement for installation. However, Acme Audio Panels will need such approval for *every* installation - and it's not likely to be forthcoming under the current rules 8-)... IF (and this still seems to be a big IF) the Experimental-LSA category will allow more or less unrestrained modification, customization, and installation of newer avionics and systems by the owner - while reducing the burden of the 51% rule - the market might just take off in a big way! (No pun intended). Remains to be seen and it should be quite interesting over the next few years to see how this pans out. As for me, I think that the safe bet for my needs and desires at the moment lead directly back to the current Experimental/Amateur-Built category. And maybe that's the great news for the EAA and all of you builders out there - looks like this category is going to be around for quite some time - LSA or not 8-)....! Rant Off Bill |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 40 | October 3rd 08 03:13 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | October 1st 04 02:31 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | September 2nd 04 05:15 AM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 0 | April 5th 04 03:04 PM |
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 2 | February 2nd 04 11:41 PM |