VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-07-2018, 08:01 PM
Bruce's Avatar
Bruce Bruce is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: ADDISON,TX
Posts: 1,061
Default

2.2 kilos=1 pound

1636 # so it is going down.
__________________
Bruce (BOOMER) Pauley
Kathy (KAT) Pauley

RV 7A--"MISS MARIE"--- N177WD (SOLD FLYING)72742
VAF #582-----------------EAA LIFETIME MEMBER
EX -KC-135A -------------BOOM OPERATOR #3633
VAN'S FLIGHT------------#6930

See you in OSHKOSH


http://www.mykitlog.com/users/index....ley&project=84


=VAF= 2006-2018 DUES PAID
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-07-2018, 08:01 PM
Mike S's Avatar
Mike S Mike S is online now
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dayton Airpark, NV A34
Posts: 14,314
Default

This is all speculative at the moment, breath holding not recommended.
__________________
Mike Starkey
VAF 909

Rv-10, N210LM.

Flying as of 12/4/2010

Phase 1 done, 2/4/2011

Sold after 240+ wonderful hours of flight.

"Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person on the ground incapable of understanding or doing anything about it."
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-07-2018, 10:08 PM
jcarne's Avatar
jcarne jcarne is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Worland, Wyoming
Posts: 628
Default

I wonder if the increase in weight is in part to address the light wing loading. I watched a very well done video not long ago about the safety record of LSA vs Part 23 aircraft which attributed the bad statistics possibly on the light wing loading. Also interesting was the demographics flying LSA, typically older more experienced pilots on average.
__________________
Jereme Carne
PPL
RV-7A Emp. done
Wings mostly done
Fuselage almost done
Finish kit arrived
Exempt but gladly paying!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-08-2018, 06:13 AM
vic syracuse vic syracuse is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Locust Grove, GA
Posts: 2,345
Default

Not to put a damper on anything we all want and hope for, but this is not even close to reality yet. Some of us are involved in these discussions, and at best the FAA will begin to start on new rule making in this area early next year. Lots of things are bing discussed, from weights to performance criteria in lieu of weights.

The best thing we can all do now is to continue to focus on safety, as it is the positive safety record in various areas that is driving the conversations in a good direction.

Vic
__________________
Vic Syracuse

Built RV-4, RV-6, 2-RV-10's, RV-7A, RV-8, Prescott Pusher, Kitfox Model II, Kitfox Speedster, Kitfox 7 Super Sport, Just Superstol, DAR, A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor, CFII-ASMEL/ASES
EAA Homebuilt Council Chair/member EAA BOD
Van's East Coast Representative
www.Baselegaviation.com
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-08-2018, 08:45 AM
rmartingt's Avatar
rmartingt rmartingt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 791
Default

It will be interesting to see how this all pans out. I'm trying to be optimistic, but after seeing how the Part 23 rewrite fell out and comparing it to the Part 23 Reorganization ARC report, and seeing how the rewrite is failing even by the FAA's own metric of "number of new designs certified"... I don't want to get too excited.

It should be noted that from the FAA's own statements in the Federal Register, this was what they pictured most LSA's looking like:


Quote:
Originally Posted by FAA
As stated in the proposal, the FAA intended to limit the definition of light-sport aircraft to primarily address the population of ultralight-like aircraft that are being operated under exemptions to part 103 to conduct flight training.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FAA
Most light-sport aircraft do not have transponders or the capability to conduct radio communications, reducing their ability to coordinate their operations with ATC and be easily identified to ensure collision avoidance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FAA
Also, in establishing the light-sport aircraft, FAA did not intend to promote existing certificated aircraft. When the FAA initially set the proposed limits for the light-sport aircraft definition, the FAA did not look at currently built aircraft, either with type certificate approval or in the amateur-built aircraft marketplace. The FAA's proposed definition was to address aircraft to be designed and built for the sport pilot, rather than addressing existing aircraft for currently certificated pilots.
They truly, honestly expected that the vast majority of LSA's would be simple, no-electrical-system, open-frame or tube-and-rag ultralight-looking aircraft used primarily for training people to fly ultralights or conduct that kind of flying. They really believed that existing certified aircraft, or new-build airplanes at the top of the performance limits that were equipped with full glass cockpits etc., would be rare exceptions rather than the norm, and they expected that most people operating under LSA rules would be specifically licensed as Sport Pilots, rather than Private Pilot or higher.


Of course, as everyone else other than the FAA knew right from the beginning, LSA was just going to be a way to fly "real" airplanes without a medical.


My guess from the outside is that someone in the FAA is finally realizing that the full-blown certification and conformity requirements--not really the design standards (Part 23, or the equivalent industry standards for LSAs and Part 23 means of compliance), but rather Part 21 and parts of Part 43--are overkill for light aircraft.


All that said, my (maybe optimistic?) prediction based on what I've seen so far:
  • An additional Light Sport category will be created (I'll call it LSA/H, for "heavy"), covering aircraft beyond those currently allowed as LSAs. I expect a weight limit somewhere between 1650 to 3000 lb, single non-turbine propeller (thus allowing electric aircraft), fixed gear (except amphibians), unpressurized, four seats. Perhaps a max level speed of 200kt or so, but quite possibly lower.
  • Existing certified aircraft meeting this requirement will be allowed to irreversibly convert from a standard airworthiness certificate to E-LSA/H category, possibly through a time-limited amnesty program. Through this conversion, LSA maintenance rules will apply and owners will be able to obtain a repairman certificate for their aircraft after taking the appropriate courses. The aircraft will then be limited to LSA operating rules (i.e. no commercial operations except flight training).
  • New aircraft meeting that performance category can be "self-certified" as S-LSA/Hs (using Part 23 and/or the current industry consensus standards instead of the current ASTM light sport standards) and produced under the same rules, rather than through the traditional certification path.
  • IA E-LSA/H category for homebuilts will be created just like the existing E-LSA cagetory that lots of RV-12s are built under. Thus, one could build an RV-14 exactly to plans, lets say, and get the short flyoff time etc.
  • Operating under LSA/H will be similar to existing LSAs--day VFR, 10,000ft, no commercial use. Pilot qualification will be something like "Private Pilot or higher, or Light Sport (heavy) Pilot" where the qualifications for the latter are essentially the same as Private Pilot, except for the night flying time. Driver's license medical will apply to LSA/H.


Why do I think this? Consider:
  • The E-AB and LSA safety records are decent and improving, and are not indicative of systemic fundamental flaws in design, maintenance, or operation. (Keep this up y'all!)
  • Self-certification of LSAs to consensus standards has not led to glaringly unsafe designs.
  • FAA brass finally realize (see Mr. Dye showing them his airplane at Oshkosh, for example) that safety-beneficial equipment and technology is widely available at much cheaper prices on the non-certified market.
  • Sport pilot operation on a drivers-license medical, and recent application of BasicMed, have shown no adverse safety impact.
  • Relatively few commercial operations outside of flight training are being conducted with aircraft in the above noted size/performance categories.
  • The FAA is swamped just trying to handle certification of larger aircraft and helicopters, modernize ATC, and regulate commercial operations. They barely have the time, manpower, and funding to handle the few light aircraft cert projects that are rolling now.


By pursuing a path as I described in my prediction, it achieves the following:
  • Alleviates the burden on certification for new, improved designs, and further reduces barriers to installation of new technology in existing aircraft, without concerns about the non-certified aircraft/equipment being used for commercial operations.
  • Further relieves the burden on medical office staff for low-risk operations.
  • Encourages more standardized (and thus theoretically safer) "homebuilt" aircraft, through either building exactly to plans and/or being professionally built.
  • Makes maximum use of existing rules and regulations; changing limits and expanding categories is much easier than creating new regulations out of whole cloth.
  • Addresses the issues of maintenance costs and potential A&P shortages in a controlled manner, again leveraging existing rules.


Edit: It also just occurred to me that, in doing what I've proposed above, the FAA pretty much implements the Primary Non-Commercial proposal from the 2013 Part 23 ARC report, except the "convert back to standard category" clause that nobody would follow anyway--and does so with a whole lot less rule-changing than it would otherwise require.
__________________
RV-7ER - canoe flipped
There are two kinds of fool in the world. The first says "this is old, and therefore good"; the second says "this is new, and therefore better".

Last edited by rmartingt : 10-08-2018 at 01:14 PM. Reason: reformatted and added a note
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-08-2018, 02:11 PM
jnorris's Avatar
jnorris jnorris is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oshkosh
Posts: 140
Default

Please see the EAA news item that explains the current state of the issues....

https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-...lt-regulations
__________________
Cheers!

Joe
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-08-2018, 07:28 PM
vlittle's Avatar
vlittle vlittle is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Victoria, Canada
Posts: 2,021
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce View Post
2.2 kilos=1 pound

1636 # so it is going down.
Only if you are building a Gimli Glider. For the rest of us, it's the opposite... 2.2 lbs = 1 kilogram (actually 9.8 Newtons, but nobody cares).
__________________
===========
V e r n. ====
=======
RV-9A complete
Harmon Rocket complete
S-21 under construction
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-09-2018, 12:38 PM
MIKE JG MIKE JG is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmartingt View Post

Why do I think this? Consider:
  • The E-AB and LSA safety records are decent and improving, and are not indicative of systemic fundamental flaws in design, maintenance, or operation. (Keep this up y'all!)
  • Self-certification of LSAs to consensus standards has not led to glaringly unsafe designs.
  • FAA brass finally realize (see Mr. Dye showing them his airplane at Oshkosh, for example) that safety-beneficial equipment and technology is widely available at much cheaper prices on the non-certified market.
  • Sport pilot operation on a drivers-license medical, and recent application of BasicMed, have shown no adverse safety impact.
  • Relatively few commercial operations outside of flight training are being conducted with aircraft in the above noted size/performance categories.

  • The FAA is swamped just trying to handle certification of larger aircraft and helicopters, modernize ATC, and regulate commercial operations. They barely have the time, manpower, and funding to handle the few light aircraft cert projects that are rolling now.

I'm also guessing much of the change we're starting to see is a result of just how short staffed the FAA truly is all across this country. You can't regulate things if you don't have the manpower to do so. You fix that by changing the rules so that you have less things to regulate.

If you have a heartbeat and a pilot or A&P certificate, the FAA is hiring....
__________________
-Mike G
Northeast Ohio
Future RV8 Builder (I hope!)
VAF Dues Paid 2018
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-10-2018, 09:45 AM
Ironflight's Avatar
Ironflight Ironflight is offline
VAF Moderator / Line Boy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dayton, NV
Posts: 11,698
Default

Paul Bertorelli of AvWeb posted an interview with Sean Elliott, the bellybutton at EAA who is the point man for working this with the FAA. The podcast is 15 minutes long, but it really does give you the big picture of what this initiative is all about, what's on the table, and how long it will take. Bottom line - you're not going to be flying a 3600 lb LSA next year...but if you wait long enough, there could be a wide variety of changes for the better!

https://cdn.avweb.com/media/podcast/...tt_Podcast.mp3
__________________
Paul F. Dye
Editor in Chief - KITPLANES Magazine
RV-8 - N188PD - "Valkyrie"
RV-6 (By Marriage) - N164MS - "Mikey"
RV-3B - N13PL - "Tsamsiyu"
A&P, EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Dayton Valley Airpark (A34)
http://Ironflight.com
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-29-2018, 04:32 PM
RV8JD's Avatar
RV8JD RV8JD is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 915
Default "The real story behind the proposed changes to LSA"

An interesting article on the whole debacle by Dan Johnson, the President of the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association:

"The real story behind the proposed changes to LSA"
__________________
Carl N.
Arlington, WA (KAWO)
RV-8, 415 Tach Hours
(Pic 1),(Pic 2)
- Out with the Old, In with the New
(Pic)
RV-8, 1938 Tach Hours (Pic 1),(Pic 2) - Sold

Glasflügel Standard Libelle 201B, N564NS - Sold
Rolladen-Schneider LS1-f, N61MP - No longer owned
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:31 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.