Which aircraft certification is required for R&D?

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

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:31:23 -0500, "Netgeek" wrote:

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.

But they probably won't have two coins to rub together to start with ANYWAY, and
if they're smart, they won't carry liability insurance. Without a deep pocket
to go after, the liability lawyers won't be interested. Makers of current
homebuilt kits are vulnerable, too.

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.

Well...remember that the LSA rules were created for a specific purpose: To make
new, low-cost simple aircraft available again. The main push was to remove the
government from the process and let aircraft builders innovate. Making things
easier for aftermarket component vendors was not a factor.

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!

The difficulty comes in the process required to license a new airplane as an
ELSA. To get approved as an ELSA kit, the design must first be certified as an
SLSA. Joe Smith can't just build a prototype, fly off 40 hours, and start
selling ELSA kits of the design. He must perform all the analyses and flight
testing the consensus standard requires, and earn a SLSA certificate for his
prototype. Only then can he sell ELSA kits.

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.

Bill, it really depends on what type of aircraft you anticipate selling your
product to. If you're going to sell it to Cessna and Piper owners, you'd best
pick up a Cessna/Piper to use for flight testing. If your market is going to be
RV/Glasair/Lancair homebuilders, pick up one of those types of planes for
testing.

And if you anticipate your product will be primarily of interest to LSA owners,
work on making it capable of non-permanent mounting. That probably will still
be legit, even under the LSA restrictions.

Ron Wanttaja