Light Sport Aircraft for Private Pilots (Long)

Hi all.

I'm a current student pilot(PPSEL) and I have been reading up on the
new sport pilot/LSA stuff that has come about. My interest, like most
potential pilots, is to eventually own an aircraft, but that will be
several years down the road. However, the new Light Sport Aircraft
class caught my attention. I wanted to throw a few
observations/opinions out and get some comments.

When I was deciding to go for my certificate, the one of the things
that I weighed was the cost of aviation. Since the general pool of
pilots has been decreasing for a while, I didn't see much of a
possibility for prices to drop any time in the near future.

Generally, I see the issue as FAA certifications costs. Massive, to
say the least. Couple that with a lack of pilots to purchase
aircraft, preventing manufacturers from spreading those and other
tooling costs over a large volume.

Then I started reading up on the new sport pilot rules. I don't see a
rush of sport pilots in the near future, unless this thing gets pushed
by AOPA/EAA big time. Doubt it. I think they view it as a way to
bring ultralight pilots into the fold. However, this LSA thing
appears to have some serious promise for current private pilots.

From most of the pilots I've talked to, A LOTof their flying consists
of tooling around flying, usually involving themselves and maybe
another passenger. The quest for the $100 hamburger, etc. Hence, the
popularity of the Cenna 15X/17X and Piper 140 class airplanes. A
quick check of my local airfield showed roughly 70% in this class.

From what I am told, it seems that LSA can meet this need nicely. The
speeds are within range. It is my understanding that these aircraft
can be night and IFR certified as long as the pilot holds the
appropriate ratings. It is also my understanding that the owner could
self maintain after as little as 16 hours of training.

With the consensus standards, the initial prices for the airframes
will be much cheaper. The homebuilt companies appear to be already
chomping at the bit. I have seen some nice aircraft advertised for
much less than $80K. However, these prices are using FAA certified
engines and instruments. In the future, I would expect consensus
standard powerplants (Honda, perhaps?) and instruments. Some of the
nice homebuilt glass panels and FADEC systems may meet ASTM standards
in the near future and they cost a fraction of a G1000.

Given this, I'm pretty jazzed about this development. If things go
this way, I would expect sales of LSA's to rocket as current pilots
trade in their older, expensive to maintain A/C for newer, cheaper
ones.

Speculation: If this really takes off and the industry starts making
some money, could the FAA be pressured to expand speeds, weight limits
and # of seats. Include retracts? Maybe incorporate all
non-commercial A/C operations under the LSA rule? It may be far
fetched, but not outside the realm of possibility.

The only downside I can see is that the bottom may drop out of the
Cessna 152/172 - Piper 140 market.

And of course if Dateline runs a story about those new "dangerous
uncertified" airplanes.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 04:30:13 GMT, Jimbob wrote:

...In the future, I would expect consensus
standard powerplants (Honda, perhaps?) and instruments. Some of the
nice homebuilt glass panels and FADEC systems may meet ASTM standards
in the near future and they cost a fraction of a G1000.

The consensus standard for the engines is out as well...it's all of three pages
long. The part I got the biggest kick out of? To meet the consensus standard,
an LSA must have an engine with the number of ignition systems equal to the
number of seats.

Anyway, the majority of the engine standard addresses establishing a TBO. A
company can either base the TBO on bench testing or on an engine installed in a
flying aircraft ("Fleet Leader").

Speculation: If this really takes off and the industry starts making
some money, could the FAA be pressured to expand speeds, weight limits
and # of seats. Include retracts? Maybe incorporate all
non-commercial A/C operations under the LSA rule? It may be far
fetched, but not outside the realm of possibility.

I don't think we're likely to see this, but who knows? The program limits were
set based on the desire to minimize the forces involved in a crash. The FAA
published a pretty big press release at the time the program was instituted, and
they discuss the reasons for limiting the speed and carrying capacity.

The only downside I can see is that the bottom may drop out of the
Cessna 152/172 - Piper 140 market.

*If* the FAA bumps the limits of the rule high enough to cover the 150/152
range, these airplanes will be much more valuable. The trouble is, the LSA
definition covers few production type airplanes built since ~1955 or so.

And of course if Dateline runs a story about those new "dangerous
uncertified" airplanes.

....or one of the new manufacturers DOESN'T do the required substantiation and
lies about it on their certification application....

Ron Wanttaja

"Jimbob" wrote in message
...
Hi all.

I'm a current student pilot(PPSEL) and I have been reading up on the
new sport pilot/LSA stuff that has come about.

Welcome!

My interest, like most
potential pilots, is to eventually own an aircraft, but that will be
several years down the road.

Good! That is about the soonest that we will be seeing any new airframes.

When I was deciding to go for my certificate, the one of the things
that I weighed was the cost of aviation. Since the general pool of
pilots has been decreasing for a while, I didn't see much of a
possibility for prices to drop any time in the near future.

I still don't.

Generally, I see the issue as FAA certifications costs. Massive, to
say the least. Couple that with a lack of pilots to purchase
aircraft, preventing manufacturers from spreading those and other
tooling costs over a large volume.

That is only part of the problem. Other problems include the small market
(compared to that for other major manufactured goods) and product liability.

Then I started reading up on the new sport pilot rules. I don't see a
rush of sport pilots in the near future, unless this thing gets pushed
by AOPA/EAA big time. Doubt it.

Is it terrible to say that I do not have a great desire to experience a
glut of new lesser-trained pilots? New airplanes are another matter!

I think they view it as a way to
bring ultralight pilots into the fold.

They will be welcome.

However, this LSA thing
appears to have some serious promise for current private pilots.

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.


With the consensus standards, the initial prices for the airframes
will be much cheaper.

This is yet to be seen.

The homebuilt companies appear to be already
chomping at the bit. I have seen some nice aircraft advertised for
much less than $80K. However, these prices are using FAA certified
engines and instruments. In the future, I would expect consensus
standard powerplants (Honda, perhaps?)

After that big court decision ($96 million, Textron Lycoming) last week do
you really think that Honda would want anything to do with that market?

and instruments. Some of the
nice homebuilt glass panels and FADEC systems may meet ASTM standards
in the near future and they cost a fraction of a G1000.

True. Do you think that they will last for 30 years like today's
instrument panels?


Given this, I'm pretty jazzed about this development. If things go
this way, I would expect sales of LSA's to rocket as current pilots
trade in their older, expensive to maintain A/C for newer, cheaper
ones.

I have been following aviation for the last 40 years. There have always
been hoards of cheap new GA aircraft on the horizon. I remain slightly hopeful,
but am no longer a believer.


The only downside I can see is that the bottom may drop out of the
Cessna 152/172 - Piper 140 market.

As a licensed non-owner pilot, I would not consider that altogether bad.
That said, the value of the 172 will never be impacted by today's LSA rules. If
you want an airplane that can really carry two normal-sized adults and their
luggage to a real place, the 152 is not your answer, and I doubt if any LSA will
be your answer; for that you need, at minimum, a plane in the 172 class. If you
don't believe me, just do a weight and balance on a real 152 (that has likely
gained 20 or 30 pounds since it has left the factory) and assume two 190#
passengers and full tanks.

As another poster noted. a slight change in the LSA ruling could
significantly improve the value of Cessna 15X planes, making flying that much
more expensive for us weekend renters.

Vaughn

Jimbob wrote:

Speculation: If this really takes off and the industry starts making
some money, could the FAA be pressured to expand speeds, weight limits
and # of seats. Include retracts? Maybe incorporate all
non-commercial A/C operations under the LSA rule? It may be far
fetched, but not outside the realm of possibility.

Not a chance. The only way the FAA was convinced to relax the requirement for a
medical certificate was to convince the powers that be that an LSA can't do very
much damage when the pilot has a heart attack. Expand the size or speed of those
planes, and they'll start requiring medicals for that class.

George Patterson
He who tries to carry a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in
no other way.

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).

The FAA has instituted a new "mechanic's license"; a Repairman Certificate
called "Light Sport Maintenance" (LS-M). These individuals can perform all
maintenance and inspections on SLSAs. The minimum course length for the LS-M
repairman certificate for fixed-wing SLSAs is 120 hours. A&Ps can also perform
maintenance and all inspections on SLSAs.

There is another type of LSA aircraft certificate, called Experimental LSA
(ELSA). This category is for former two-seat ultralights and for LSAs
constructed from kits. The rules on this are similar to that of conventional
homebuilts. An owner of an ELSA can perform all maintenance on that aircraft,
just like owners of amateur-built aircraft can. No training is required.

However, where ELSA and Amateur-Built differ is in the annual inspection. The
builders of Amateur-Built aircraft can receive a Repairman Certificate to enable
them to perform the annual condition inspection on aircraft they built. This is
based on the assumption that, as the manufacturers of the aircraft, they are the
ones most knowledgeable about the plane.

There is no such program for ELSAs. Instead, the FAA has instituted another
repairman certificate, called Light Sport - Inspection (LS-I). After a 16-hour
course, an individual will be authorized to perform the annual inspection on any
ELSA that they own.

The key difference is the holder of an Amateur-Built aircraft repairman
certificate can only exercise the certificate on a specific plane that he built.
If he builds an RV-7, gets the repairman certificate, and later buys someone
else's completed RV-7, he *cannot* perform the condition inspection on that new
airplane. If they were ELSAs and he had the LS-I repairman certificate, he
could.

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.

Finally, remember that aircraft that have already received their airworthiness
certificates *cannot* be converted to either LSA category. A Champ, for
instance, can be flown by a Sport Pilot since it meets the LSA definition, but
it cannot be re-licensed as a Special Light Sport Aircraft or an Experimental
Light Sport Aircraft. Maintenance rules for the Champs et al don't change.

Ron Wanttaja

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


"Jimbob" wrote in message
.. .
Hi all.

I'm a current student pilot(PPSEL) and I have been reading up on the
new sport pilot/LSA stuff that has come about.

Welcome!

Thanks!

Generally, I see the issue as FAA certifications costs. Massive, to
say the least. Couple that with a lack of pilots to purchase
aircraft, preventing manufacturers from spreading those and other
tooling costs over a large volume.

That is only part of the problem. Other problems include the small market
(compared to that for other major manufactured goods) and product liability.

Product liabily is a large variable. Unfortunately it is hinged more
on marketing and public perception than law. Maybe tort reform will
fix this. I can't even being to speculate on the future direction
this takes with LSA.


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.

Good point. However, I don't think an owner can sign off on the
inspection. That requires a different rating. He can just do the
maintenance required to bring it up to snuff. Therefore, there is a
little check and balance here.

(I could be wrong here.)



With the consensus standards, the initial prices for the airframes
will be much cheaper.

This is yet to be seen.

Given, since nothing has been delivered yet. But the companies are
taking preorders at reasonable prices. If they start losing their
shirts, things might change.


The homebuilt companies appear to be already
chomping at the bit. I have seen some nice aircraft advertised for
much less than $80K. However, these prices are using FAA certified
engines and instruments. In the future, I would expect consensus
standard powerplants (Honda, perhaps?)

After that big court decision ($96 million, Textron Lycoming) last week do
you really think that Honda would want anything to do with that market?


(I think the damnages will be reduced on appeal)

Yes, actually I do. I think Toyota is still toying with a GA plane and
Honda is working on the HondaJet. Commercial aviation is pretty
litigous, so think they would be prepared.

I would expect it work more like FlyBoys, inc has licensed honda
engine technology for use in GA. Some minimal liability protection,
but not much.


and instruments. Some of the
nice homebuilt glass panels and FADEC systems may meet ASTM standards
in the near future and they cost a fraction of a G1000.

True. Do you think that they will last for 30 years like today's
instrument panels?


Hard to say. Solid state electronics don't wear out as much as they
become obsolete. Sensors need to be replaced, etc. But compared to
truely mechanical devices like gyros, they could potentially have a
much longer life.

But if the price comes down enough, they wont have to.



As another poster noted. a slight change in the LSA ruling could
significantly improve the value of Cessna 15X planes, making flying that much
more expensive for us weekend renters.


Maybe for a short speculative period, but not in the long term.

1) If the rule allowed more pilots to use it, but the number of pilots
was unchanged and no new planes enter the market, demand remains
constant. Therefore, the value would not change.

2) If the number of pilots increased without an increase in supply of
new cheap aircraft, then demand increases and supply remains fixed.
Their value would go up. i.e. increased interest in sportpilot.

3) However, if the rule changed, # of pilots remained fixed and there
were new competative products on the market that were more desireable
and cost effective, then their value would drop. i.e. LSA are released
on the market and they are cheaper to maintain.

The questions are; How interested are people in sportpilot and will
the new planes really hit the market? I see #3 personally.

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.

"George Patterson" wrote in message
...


Jimbob wrote:

Speculation: If this really takes off and the industry starts making
some money, could the FAA be pressured to expand speeds, weight limits
and # of seats. Include retracts? Maybe incorporate all
non-commercial A/C operations under the LSA rule? It may be far
fetched, but not outside the realm of possibility.

Not a chance. The only way the FAA was convinced to relax the requirement
for a
medical certificate was to convince the powers that be that an LSA can't
do very
much damage when the pilot has a heart attack. Expand the size or speed of
those
planes, and they'll start requiring medicals for that class.


Gotta agree. Increase the plane capabilities and you increase the impact on
others in the system and on the ground. If you are going to fly over two
nautical miles per minute, you likely need to learn about the airspace rules
and get your PPL anyway. You gotta draw the line somewhere.

If LSA is successful in letting more members into the club, I would hope we
would look into rewriting a lot of the mishmash we now have as regulations
to make things simpler. The simpler the regulations, the more time we can
devote to training real safety issues.

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

Dude wrote:

If LSA is successful in letting more members into the club, I would hope we
would look into rewriting a lot of the mishmash we now have as regulations
to make things simpler. The simpler the regulations, the more time we can
devote to training real safety issues.

I sincerely hope that the next 20 years will provide the statistical ammunition
to overturn the requirement for third-class medical certificates. My personal
belief is that there will be no significant difference in the number of
accidents caused by medical problems in the SP and PP/RP categories. It probably
won't matter to me by that time, though.

George Patterson
He who tries to carry a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in
no other way.