Light Sport Aircraft

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:30:18 GMT, (sleepy6) wrote:

In article ,
says...

Is it correct to say that the consensus standards do not apply, when
it is a plans built? How about kit meeting 51% self built rule?

I'm still not exactly sure I understand what an experimental LSA is, a
and what hoops must be jumped through.

An ELSA is simply an SLSA that has been pulled off the production line
at whatever point the customer wants. The customer then finishes the
planes following the EXACT factory instructions but it must be
identical to the SLSA. All factory parts and no modifications at all.

It is subject to the same maintaince etc requirements as SLSA but can
not be used for instruction or rental.

Sleepy is correct. The LSA regs do not affect the classic 51% homebuilts *at
all*. The same old process is in effect. If your 51% homebuilt meets the
definition of a Light Sport Aircraft (gross weight, stall speed, etc.) it can be
flown by a person with Sport Pilot privileges (either someone with an actual
Sport Pilot license, or someone with a higher license and an lapsed medical) but
the licensing and maintenance regulations are the same as they've always been.

One small point that I'll correct Sleepy on: The Experimental LSA is not quite
subject to the same maintenance requirements of a Special Light Sport Aircraft.

On the SLSA:

1. Preventative maintenance can be performed by the owner (just like FAR 23
aircraft).
2. Normal/major maintenance must be performed by an A&P or a person with a
Light Sport-Maintenance (LS-M) Repairman Certificate
3. Annual inspections must be performed by either an A&P or a person with a
LS-M Repairman Certificate.

For the ELSA:

1&2. Preventative AND Normal/major maintenance can be performed by the owner
3. Annual inspections must be performed by an A&P, a person with a LS-M
Repairman Certificate, or someone with the other new Repairman Certificate,
Light Sport- Inspection (LS-I).

The LS-I Repairman Certificate is similar to the Amateur-Built aircraft
repairman certificate, with two significant exceptions:

First, the applicant must complete a 16-hour training course. You can NOT
receive an LS-I just by assembling an ELSA. You MUST take the course.

Second, a person with an LS-I may perform the annual inspection on *any* ELSA
they own. Unlike the Amateur-Built Repairman Certificate, it is not applicable
to only one aircraft. Once you earn the LS-I, you can buy another ELSA kit or a
completed ELSA aircraft and perform the annual inspections on it.

Sleepy touches on one sporty item about the ELSA category. Like he says, the
ELSA kit *must* be built exactly to the LSA kit manufacturer's instructions.
You cannot install an alternate engine, use a different covering system, etc.
It must be built precisely to the manufacturer's callout.

However... as far as I can tell, the owner can then modify the aircraft however
they chose, once the plane receives its formal ELSA airworthiness certificate.

Owners of SLSAs (the production LSAs) must maintain their aircraft in precise
accordance to the manufacturer's maintenance plan and continued safety
directives to continue to conform to the consensus standard. But the FAA also
says that owners of SLSAs can avoid having to follow the SLSA's manufacturer's
safety directives by changing their plane's airworthiness to ELSA.

It follows, then, that ELSAs are NOT required to continue to comply to the
consensus standard, and owners can modify them once they've received their
original ELSA certification.

Ron Wanttaja

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 23:24:21 GMT, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

It is subject to the same maintaince etc requirements as SLSA but can
not be used for instruction or rental.

Sleepy is correct.

Whoops, noticed something else. I believe ELSAs *can* be used for instruction
and rental, through 2010. That's what's covering the two-seat ultralight
trainers that must convert to ELSA.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 23:24:21 GMT, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

It is subject to the same maintaince etc requirements as SLSA but can
not be used for instruction or rental.

Sleepy is correct.

Whoops, noticed something else. I believe ELSAs *can* be used for
instruction
and rental, through 2010. That's what's covering the two-seat ultralight
trainers that must convert to ELSA.

Ron Wanttaja

What happens in 2010?
--
Jim in NC

Ron Wanttaja wrote in
:

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 23:24:21 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

It is subject to the same maintaince etc requirements as SLSA but can
not be used for instruction or rental.

Sleepy is correct.

Whoops, noticed something else. I believe ELSAs *can* be used for
instruction and rental, through 2010. That's what's covering the
two-seat ultralight trainers that must convert to ELSA.

Ron Wanttaja
ONLY the "converted" (grandfathered) 2 seat ultralight ELSA's can be
used for instruction until 2010, you CANNOT by a new ELSA tomorrow and
use it for instruction.

ET

On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 05:40:25 GMT, ET wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote in
:


Whoops, noticed something else. I believe ELSAs *can* be used for
instruction and rental, through 2010. That's what's covering the
two-seat ultralight trainers that must convert to ELSA.

Ron Wanttaja

ONLY the "converted" (grandfathered) 2 seat ultralight ELSA's can be
used for instruction until 2010, you CANNOT by a new ELSA tomorrow and
use it for instruction.

Yes, on closer inspection, 14CFR 91.319 does limit the commercial use to the
converted 2-seat trainers. The "Light-Sport Aircraft Maintenance and
Certification Requirements" table near the beginning of the FAA release is a bit
deceptive....

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote

It follows, then, that ELSAs are NOT required to continue to comply to the
consensus standard, and owners can modify them once they've received their
original ELSA certification.

Ron Wanttaja


Thanks, Ron. That's a keeper.

When you gonna write your LSA repair and building book? I'll buy one to
add to my collection!
--
Jim in NC

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 22:30:18 GMT, (sleepy6) wrote:

In article ,
says...

Is it correct to say that the consensus standards do not apply, when
it is a plans built? How about kit meeting 51% self built rule?

I'm still not exactly sure I understand what an experimental LSA is,
a
and what hoops must be jumped through.

An ELSA is simply an SLSA that has been pulled off the production lin
e
at whatever point the customer wants. The customer then finishes the

planes following the EXACT factory instructions but it must be
identical to the SLSA. All factory parts and no modifications at all
.

It is subject to the same maintaince etc requirements as SLSA but can

not be used for instruction or rental.

Sleepy is correct. The LSA regs do not affect the classic 51% homebui
lts *at
all*. The same old process is in effect. If your 51% homebuilt meets
the
definition of a Light Sport Aircraft (gross weight, stall speed, etc.)
it can be
flown by a person with Sport Pilot privileges (either someone with an
actual
Sport Pilot license, or someone with a higher license and an lapsed me
dical) but
the licensing and maintenance regulations are the same as they've alwa
ys been.

One small point that I'll correct Sleepy on: The Experimental LSA is
not quite
subject to the same maintenance requirements of a Special Light Sport
Aircraft.

On the SLSA:

1. Preventative maintenance can be performed by the owner (just like
FAR 23
aircraft).
2. Normal/major maintenance must be performed by an A&P or a person w
ith a
Light Sport-Maintenance (LS-M) Repairman Certificate
3. Annual inspections must be performed by either an A&P or a person
with a
LS-M Repairman Certificate.

For the ELSA:

1&2. Preventative AND Normal/major maintenance can be performed by th
e owner
3. Annual inspections must be performed by an A&P, a person with a LS
-M
Repairman Certificate, or someone with the other new Repairman Certifi
cate,
Light Sport- Inspection (LS-I).

The LS-I Repairman Certificate is similar to the Amateur-Built aircraf
t
repairman certificate, with two significant exceptions:

First, the applicant must complete a 16-hour training course. You can
NOT
receive an LS-I just by assembling an ELSA. You MUST take the course.

Second, a person with an LS-I may perform the annual inspection on *an
y* ELSA
they own. Unlike the Amateur-Built Repairman Certificate, it is not a
pplicable
to only one aircraft. Once you earn the LS-I, you can buy another ELS
A kit or a
completed ELSA aircraft and perform the annual inspections on it.

Sleepy touches on one sporty item about the ELSA category. Like he sa
ys, the
ELSA kit *must* be built exactly to the LSA kit manufacturer's instruc
tions.
You cannot install an alternate engine, use a different covering syste
m, etc.
It must be built precisely to the manufacturer's callout.

However... as far as I can tell, the owner can then modify the aircraf
t however
they chose, once the plane receives its formal ELSA airworthiness cert
ificate.

Owners of SLSAs (the production LSAs) must maintain their aircraft in
precise
accordance to the manufacturer's maintenance plan and continued safety
directives to continue to conform to the consensus standard. But the
FAA also
says that owners of SLSAs can avoid having to follow the SLSA's manufa
cturer's
safety directives by changing their plane's airworthiness to ELSA.

It follows, then, that ELSAs are NOT required to continue to comply to
the
consensus standard, and owners can modify them once they've received t
heir
original ELSA certification.

Ron Wanttaja


Ron is correct about the maintaince and other details. To me the
differences between SLSA and ELSA are minor compared to the differences
between ELSA and amature built experimental.

Personally, my only reason to consider ELSA would be to avoid building
at least 51%. The restrictions and requirements associaed with ELSA
would easily outweigh that benefit in my opinion.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 06:12:42 GMT, (sleepy6) wrote:

Personally, my only reason to consider ELSA would be to avoid building
at least 51%. The restrictions and requirements associated with ELSA
would easily outweigh that benefit in my opinion.

The world has become a lot more impatient... in nearly every conventional
hobby, people want to buy more and do less. People buy ready-to-fly RC models,
no one builds their own stereos, those who build their own computers basically
just plug ready-to-run components together. ELSA kits won't appeal to those who
want to customize their planes, but might be a good cost-savings opportunity for
those who don't want to do a lot of work.

The aspect that intrigues me is the SLSA to ELSA conversion. The FAA says that
owners of SLSAs will be able to convert their planes to ELSAs. Once it's in
ELSA, the plane apparently no longer has to continue to conform to the consensus
standards (the FAA says one can do the conversion if one doesn't want to
implement a change required by the manufacturer).

One of the more common homebuilding questions come from guys who want to take a
stock Cessna, install an auto engine in it, and "license it as a homebuilt." As
we've discussed here many times, it's almost impossible to transfer such a plane
to the Experimental Amateur-Built category.

However, it looks to me that such a switchover WILL be possible, within ELSA.
You still won't be able to do it with a Standard category airplane, but you will
be able to buy a flying aircraft (new or used SLSA), put it into the
Experimental category (ELSA), and then perform whatever modifications you please
with no further limitations by the FAA. You'll even be able to rent it out,
until the permission to do so expires in 2010. You'll be able to maintain the
aircraft yourself, and, with the completion of that 16-hour course, be able to
sign off the annuals.

I don't know if that was the intent of the developers, it sure looks like it's a
result of the program....

Ron Wanttaja

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 06:12:42 GMT, (sleepy6) wrote:

Personally, my only reason to consider ELSA would be to avoid buildin
g
at least 51%. The restrictions and requirements associated with ELSA

would easily outweigh that benefit in my opinion.

The world has become a lot more impatient... in nearly every conventi
onal
hobby, people want to buy more and do less. People buy ready-to-fly R
C models,
no one builds their own stereos, those who build their own computers b
asically
just plug ready-to-run components together. ELSA kits won't appeal to
those who
want to customize their planes, but might be a good cost-savings oppor
tunity for
those who don't want to do a lot of work.

The aspect that intrigues me is the SLSA to ELSA conversion. The FAA
says that
owners of SLSAs will be able to convert their planes to ELSAs. Once i
t's in
ELSA, the plane apparently no longer has to continue to conform to the
consensus
standards (the FAA says one can do the conversion if one doesn't want
to
implement a change required by the manufacturer).

One of the more common homebuilding questions come from guys who want
to take a
stock Cessna, install an auto engine in it, and "license it as a homeb
uilt." As
we've discussed here many times, it's almost impossible to transfer su
ch a plane
to the Experimental Amateur-Built category.

However, it looks to me that such a switchover WILL be possible, withi
n ELSA.
You still won't be able to do it with a Standard category airplane, bu
t you will
be able to buy a flying aircraft (new or used SLSA), put it into the
Experimental category (ELSA), and then perform whatever modifications
you please
with no further limitations by the FAA. You'll even be able to rent i
t out,
until the permission to do so expires in 2010. You'll be able to main
tain the
aircraft yourself, and, with the completion of that 16-hour course, be
able to
sign off the annuals.

I don't know if that was the intent of the developers, it sure looks l
ike it's a
result of the program....

Ron Wanttaja

I haven't researched it since the actual changes in the FARs so you
may be right ... but earlier versions allowed only the ultralight
transfers to be used as trainers and rentals for a limited period of
time. The factory kit ELSA were never allowed as trainers and rentals.

Also the factory kit ELSA and the SLSA that moved down to ELSA were not
allowed anything but factory approved modifications. We never got an
answer about modifications on the transfered ultralights. It was real
confuseing because they refered to transfered ultralights as ELSA also
and we had to see which ELSA we were dealing with as we looked up a
reference to a different section. That may have happened when they
wrote the actual FARs.

I hope your interpretation is right because ELSA kits were too
restricted for the life of the plane in the early discussions.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:55:13 GMT, (sleepy6) wrote:

I haven't researched it since the actual changes in the FARs so you
may be right ... but earlier versions allowed only the ultralight
transfers to be used as trainers and rentals for a limited period of
time. The factory kit ELSA were never allowed as trainers and rentals.

Since the transitioned two-seat ultralights get the same ELSA certificates as
the kit-built machines, I can't see how they could allow one type of ELSA to be
rented and not the other. But I think that's the reason for the 2010 expiration
date; to allow the two-seat UL trainers to continue in their present operations
for a reasonable amount of time.

BTW, Jim asked what the significance of 2010 is. It's just the date the FAA
selected at which time Experimentals will no longer be able to be used for
training purposes. No other significance, I think....

Also the factory kit ELSA and the SLSA that moved down to ELSA were not
allowed anything but factory approved modifications. We never got an
answer about modifications on the transfered ultralights. It was real
confuseing because they refered to transfered ultralights as ELSA also
and we had to see which ELSA we were dealing with as we looked up a
reference to a different section. That may have happened when they
wrote the actual FARs.

I hope your interpretation is right because ELSA kits were too
restricted for the life of the plane in the early discussions.

I have a sneaking suspicion my interpretation is wrong, just because it *would*
allow a lot more flexibility that I believe the FAA and EAA intended. I've been
given a good contact at the FAA, I'll try get a clarification.

Ron Wanttaja