Light Sport Aircraft for Private Pilots (Long)

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:07:22 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:18:02 GMT, "Vaughn"
wrote:

"Jimbob" wrote in message
. ..

I agree 100%
It is also my understanding that the owner could
self maintain after as little as 16 hours of training.

This could have a great effect on flying costs. On the other hand, a owner
who can sign off on his/her own annual would have an opportunity to defer needed
maintenance. This will have a negative effect on both safety and resale value.

I missed this item on the original posting.

Owners can do no more maintenance on a production-type LSA (technical term is
Special Light Sport Aircraft, or SLSA) than they can do now on any
production-type airplane (e.g., they can only perform preventative maintenance).


[snippage]

However, by regulation, the owner of a production LSA can convert it to ELSA.
If that happens, the plane is then covered by the ELSA rules...the owner can now
do all his own maintenance and, after taking the 16-hour LS-I course, do his own
annuals.

Note that Canada has had similar rules for several years, called the "Owner
Maintenance" Category.

SLSAs and ELSAs are simple aircraft...their maintenance shouldn't be too
complex. The developers of the aircraft are required to develop complete
maintenance manuals for their planes, too, which gives an amateur maintainer a
lot of help.



I got my facts screwed but, but the S-LSA to E-LSA conversion was what
I was referring to. Am I correct in assuming that the only limitation
after this after this are that the A/C has to be labeled as
"Experimental" and can't be used for commercial/leaseback operations?

The resale value would probably take a hit also.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:30:32 GMT, Jimbob wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:07:22 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

However, by regulation, the owner of a production LSA can convert it to ELSA.
If that happens, the plane is then covered by the ELSA rules...the owner can now
do all his own maintenance and, after taking the 16-hour LS-I course, do his own
annuals.

I got my facts screwed but, but the S-LSA to E-LSA conversion was what
I was referring to. Am I correct in assuming that the only limitation
after this after this are that the A/C has to be labeled as
"Experimental" and can't be used for commercial/leaseback operations?

Once it's switched to ELSA, it's supposedly treated just the same as any other
Experimental aircraft.

However, I'm not sure if the FAA is going to let it work like that. They may
well instigate policies to govern this switchover. For instance, if you put an
auto engine in a Cessna and license it as Experimental/R&D or
Experimental/Market Survey, the FAA often requires that the airframe maintenance
still be performed by a licensed mechanic. The Operating Limits for most types
of experimental aircraft are still pretty much left to the local FSDOs to
define, and an SLSA-ELSA conversion may end up with its OLs still requiring
annualling by an LS-M or A&P.

The resale value would probably take a hit also.

I suspect this'll depend on a number of factors. The ability to do *all* the
maintenance and inspections yourself will be an attractant. We still don't know
if the rental lines at FBOs will see scads of LSAs...if not, SLSA vs. ELSA
certification may not make that much difference in price. Personally, I'd
prefer a machine that I could work on myself. But just because an airplane is
licensed as ELSA doesn't mean the owner cannot have an A&P do the work, if they
prefer. ELSA certification at least gives the owner a choice.

Ron Wanttaja