Light Sport Aircraft

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

In article ,
says...

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 rental
s.

Since the transitioned two-seat ultralights get the same ELSA certific
ates as
the kit-built machines, I can't see how they could allow one type of E
LSA 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 o
perations
for a reasonable amount of time.


It's hidden in the operation limitations that the DAR puts on the
plane. The factory ELSA have different limitations which do not allow
training. Transition ultralights have training included in their
operational limitations but their registration expires in 2010. At
that time they must register all over agian. The new operational
limitations will not include training.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 01:58:23 GMT, Ron Wanttaja wrote:

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.

I've had a good exchange with one of the inspectors in the Light Sport branch at
the FAA.

1. Owners of an Experimental Light Sport Aircraft (ELSA) must strictly conform
to the manufacturer's assembly instruction during construction.

2. Once the aircraft is completed, the owner is free to change and modify the
airplane as he desires without permission or guidance from the original kit
manufacturer. Just like Experimental Amateur-Built, though, if a major change
is made, the aircraft will have to go back to the Phase 1 testing.

3. Persons owning an aircraft with a Special Light Sport Aircraft (SLSA)
certificate (e.g., production LSAs) may receive a new airworthiness certificate
in the Experimental category upon application (e.g., no prerequisites).

4. When the new airworthiness certificate is granted, the owner must surrender
the Special LSA certificate (which I interpret as meaning there's no going
back).

5. Once the new certificate is awarded, the owner is free to change and modify
the former SLSA as desired without permission or guidance from the original
aircraft manufacturer. Major changes will require the aircraft perform Phase 1
testing.

I did not ask specifically in regard to former two-seat ultralight aircraft, but
given #2 and #5 above, I can't believe it'd be any different.

Keep in mind, though, that this is new ground for the local FSDOs. It's likely
there may need to be some policy documents generated at the national level to
ensure a consistent interpretation.

What struck me during the exchange is how similar the SLSA to ELSA transition is
to the "owner maintenance" category in Canada. The owner of a production-type
aircraft will be able to have a lot more freedom as far as changes to his bird.

Ron Wanttaja