A Call to Arms from Richard VanGrunsven

In article ,
jan olieslagers wrote:

Steve Hix schreef:
In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:

On 2008-03-18, Highflyer wrote:
The FAA did precisely that with the S-LSA certification process. It
greatly
simplified the proof and oversight needed to ensure an adequate standard
for
aircraft that cannot endanger a lot of unsuspecting people. That is why
they limited them to slower airspeeds and lighter weights as well as two
places. They are also only allowed to fly Daytime and by Visual flight
rules.
Not true. They can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped.

As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above.

This was about plane certification, not about pilot rating.

Nevertheless, whether or not you can legally fly one at night or in IFR
conditions is dependent on pilot rating as well as installed equipment.

Things may be different on your side of the pond, but SLSA applies over
here, and pilot certification affects legal use.

Peter Dohm wrote:

I am not sure of the phrasing on that last part, regarding the engines; but
engine and propeller combinations not certified under parts 34 and 35 (IIRC)
are not supposed to be approved for night IFR.

Several contributors here are much more knowledgeable of the specifics.

Peter




The SLSA version of the 601XL built by AMD can be flown both IFR and VFR
day or night. It all depends on your ticket.

On 2008-03-18, Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:
Not true. [LSAs] can fly IFR or night VFR if properly equipped.
As long as you have a Private Pilot rating, or above.

True, and, for that matter, as long as you're not operating under the sport
pilot rules with just your driver's license as medical.

I was referring strictly to the aircraft. As always, there are a lot more
rules that apply to any given operation than just those.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message
...
Peter Dohm wrote:

I am not sure of the phrasing on that last part, regarding the engines;
but engine and propeller combinations not certified under parts 34 and 35
(IIRC) are not supposed to be approved for night IFR.

Several contributors here are much more knowledgeable of the specifics.

Peter




The SLSA version of the 601XL built by AMD can be flown both IFR and VFR
day or night. It all depends on your ticket.

I took a look on their web site, and saw that they are using the Continental
O-200, which appears to be consistant with what I supposed.

Peter

Peter Dohm wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message
...
Peter Dohm wrote:

I am not sure of the phrasing on that last part, regarding the engines;
but engine and propeller combinations not certified under parts 34 and 35
(IIRC) are not supposed to be approved for night IFR.

Several contributors here are much more knowledgeable of the specifics.

Peter



The SLSA version of the 601XL built by AMD can be flown both IFR and VFR
day or night. It all depends on your ticket.

I took a look on their web site, and saw that they are using the Continental
O-200, which appears to be consistant with what I supposed.

Peter




But I don't think that particular Sensenich propeller is certified.

On 2008-03-18, Peter Dohm wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrote in message
...
The SLSA version of the 601XL built by AMD can be flown both IFR and VFR
day or night. It all depends on your ticket.
I took a look on their web site, and saw that they are using the Continental
O-200, which appears to be consistant with what I supposed.

The certificated version of the O-200, and a certificated Sensenich
composite prop, and TSO'd instruments and avionics. There are only two LSAs
(well, the other one's actually a family of closely related aircraft) that
meet those requirements, the other one being the Tecnam Bravo/Sierra.
There's at least one LSA manufacturer that claims LSAs can't be legally
flown IFR, but I strongly suspect that's because they don't offer one.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Jay Maynard wrote:
There's at least one LSA manufacturer that claims LSAs
can't be legally flown IFR, but I strongly suspect that's because they
don't offer one.

Sport Aircraft Works Inc. may or may not be who you mean, but I've seen
them make that claim in the past. Here's their web page (which looks like
it has been changed since I've last checked, so it doesn't read as absolute
as it used to):

http://www.sportaircraftworks.com/ot...%20CRUISER.htm

On 2008-03-18, Jim Logajan wrote:
Jay Maynard wrote:
There's at least one LSA manufacturer that claims LSAs
can't be legally flown IFR, but I strongly suspect that's because they
don't offer one.
Sport Aircraft Works Inc. may or may not be who you mean, but I've seen
them make that claim in the past. Here's their web page (which looks like
it has been changed since I've last checked, so it doesn't read as absolute
as it used to):
http://www.sportaircraftworks.com/ot...%20CRUISER.htm

Yes, that's the page I was referring to. Even though they've toned it down,
it's still corporate sour grapes because they don't offer an IFR-legal
aircraft.

Meanwhile, the sales manager for AMD commutes an hour or so each way in
various of their aircraft in both VMC and IMC, and has run up about 500
hours of actual in the Zodiac.

Those who say a thing can't be done shouldn't get in the way of those who
are doing it.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 21:05:16 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:

Yeah, of course. They do it all the time. There are a few BD5s flying (
that was a typo) and they are most definitely quite dangerous. There are
a few other contraptions flying around that have some serious issues
structuarally, aerodynamically, etc. There's one particular type which
is quite popular in my local group that fortunately never seems to get
finished. The accident reports are littered with these things and I'm
terrified that one of the members is going to ask me to test fly theirs
for them. (think 180 mph VW)

Bertie

Then who'se to say the Skywalker, for instance, certified to the hilt, is
safe? Aren't we back to Square One? FAA certification means exactly what?A
higher possibility of a safe aircraft?
--
I would also add that certification also implies a degree of
mainatainability (if that is a real word) as well as fitness for a fairly
wide range of applications.

Basically, Part 23 is a set of generally accepted engineering standards; and
I agree with Bertie that the RV series appear to be quite capable of being
certified.

The maintainability makes sense. The fact that a certification is long,
expensive and extremely political makes sense why many don't.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 21:05:16 -0400, Peter Dohm wrote:


Yeah, of course. They do it all the time. There are a few BD5s flying (
that was a typo) and they are most definitely quite dangerous. There are
a few other contraptions flying around that have some serious issues
structuarally, aerodynamically, etc. There's one particular type which
is quite popular in my local group that fortunately never seems to get
finished. The accident reports are littered with these things and I'm
terrified that one of the members is going to ask me to test fly theirs
for them. (think 180 mph VW)

Bertie

Then who'se to say the Skywalker, for instance, certified to the hilt, is
safe? Aren't we back to Square One? FAA certification means exactly what?A
higher possibility of a safe aircraft?
--

I would also add that certification also implies a degree of
mainatainability (if that is a real word) as well as fitness for a fairly
wide range of applications.

Basically, Part 23 is a set of generally accepted engineering standards; and
I agree with Bertie that the RV series appear to be quite capable of being
certified.


The maintainability makes sense. The fact that a certification is long,
expensive and extremely political makes sense why many don't.

Educate us.

What part of the certification process is "political"?