Glass Panel Training

On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:27:03 GMT, vaughn wrote:

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
"Lose of use" as in "loss of income"?

Loss of income.. yes

BT, how is that proven to the adjustor? Past records?

It does not have to be proven to any adjuster. All they need to do is be
willing to sue the renter pilot. Then the renter has to choose between
paying up, or handing the same (or more) money to a lawyer to defend against
the claim.

Vaughn

What I meant was how is the amount of the loss of income determined?

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 20:53:47 -0600, Maxwell wrote:

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...

Actually, part of it is because I goofed. I should have said 800Kg for
the weight--because I wanted my weight to include the common existing
basic trainers, such as the 152 and Tomahawk which actually weigh about
760Kg. The other big problem with the weight is that it still seems to
press the limits of the available materials, so that many of the LSA
aircraft are forced to use a lot of carbon fiber in an effort to give a
practical usefull load--and even then it is not enough because so many of
the pilots who have a problem medical certification are overweight.
Therefore, I strongly suspect that a large proportion of LSA aircraft are
simply operated over gross.

I also have two problems with the speed range allowed. First, I fail to
see any good reason that an entry level aircraft should not deliver a
practical speed for travel. The second is safety--the slower an aircraft
lands and takes off, the less crosswind it can usually tolerate.

In addition to my personal belief in nationalism, it would have been so
much simpler to just create the Light Sport Pilot classification to cover
2 seat aircraft that are neither complex nor high performance. That would
have allowed the development of a far more capable class of LSA--and one
free from the poor initial accident record tat we have experienced.

Peter

Splendid outline, I couldn't agree more. But it seems to me the deliberately
intended to limit all LSA pilots to the fat ultralights that had grown out
of control.

I don't think they were trying to do anyone a favor, just pencil whip a
problem that had grown beyond there desire to control it.

Golly Maxwell, welcome the world of sane discussions. You're not a
complete asshole after all.

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...

Splendid outline, I couldn't agree more. But it seems to me the
deliberately
intended to limit all LSA pilots to the fat ultralights that had grown
out
of control.

I don't think they were trying to do anyone a favor, just pencil whip a
problem that had grown beyond there desire to control it.

Golly Maxwell, welcome the world of sane discussions. You're not a
complete asshole after all.

Thanks. I don't swing at anyone that doesn't hit me first. Never have, at
least not intentionally.

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 19:22:42 -0500, Peter Dohm wrote:

Peter
Comment as requested

Peter, why those numbers? I agree but would appreciate your additional
comments.

Actually, part of it is because I goofed. I should have said 800Kg for the
weight--because I wanted my weight to include the common existing basic
trainers, such as the 152 and Tomahawk which actually weigh about 760Kg.
The other big problem with the weight is that it still seems to press the
limits of the available materials, so that many of the LSA aircraft are
forced to use a lot of carbon fiber in an effort to give a practical usefull
load--and even then it is not enough because so many of the pilots who have
a problem medical certification are overweight. Therefore, I strongly
suspect that a large proportion of LSA aircraft are simply operated over
gross.

I attended Sebring and got to talk to a lot of LSA manufacturers. Nearly
everyone of them had to admit that working under the wgt limits was a
"challenge". Carbon was everywhere but the long term integrity
discussions about it weren't. Translation: Gorilla in the room.

Then to highlight, we had the LSA crash and ""Unfortunately accidents
happen"

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/RemosLSACrashesAtExpo_199651-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum...ad.php?t=26982

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 02:07:03 GMT, vaughn wrote:

I suspect (and this could lead to a dangerous safety culture) that many
LSA's really have two gross weights. One gross weight that satisfies the
Light Sport regulation, and a "whisper" gross weight at which they really
are operated. The actual engineering of the plane may (or may not) actually
support that "whisper" figure. Of course if you guess wrong and die, it is
on you.

Just look at the useful load of the Cessna 162 with a full fuel payload of
346 #. That means that if you have full tanks and a 200# student you have
146 pounds left over for the instructor and the flight bags etc.. I call
that a 1 passenger airplane!

Absolutely.