 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
MichaelGibbs(at)cox.net
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) |
 |
|
Scott asks:
| Quote: | If you register as an experimental but still fit
the limits of a LSA can't you still fly it with
a LSA liscence?
|
Yes, Noel and Mark are mistaken, but it's a sport
pilot license not an LSA license. Sport pilots
can fly any experimental, experimental light
sport, or certified aircraft that meets the
restrictions for a light sport aircraft:
"...as discussed in the section-by-section
preamble discussion for §1.1, Definition of
Light-Sport Aircraft, a sport pilot can operate
an aircraft meeting the light-sport aircraft
definition in §1.1, regardless of the
airworthiness certificate issued."
--Final Rule, Docket No. FAA-2001-11133; Amendment No. 1-53;
21-85; 43-39; 45-24; 61-110; 65-45; 91-282
The FAA considers any airplane (other rules apply
to helicopters and lighter-than-air vehicles) to
be a "light sport aircraft" if it has met the
following criteria continuously since its
original certification:
Maximum takeoff weight of 1320 lbs for land planes or 1430 for float planes.
Maximum airspeed of 120 KCAS.
Maximum stall speed (Vsi) of 45 KCAS at max takeoff weight.
Maximum seating capacity of 2.
Maximum of one engine.
A fixed or ground adjustable prop.
A non-pressurized cabin.
Fixed landing gear (except for float planes).
For more information, check out:
<http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certification/sport_pilot/>.
Mike G.
N728KF
Phoenix, AZ
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
avidfox
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:05 pm Post subject: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) |
|
|
Excellent.
And let's not forget, quoted from the same source.....
" The maximum weight of
a light-sport aircraft is the sum of:
(1) Aircraft empty weight;
(2) Weight of the passenger for each
seat installed;
(3) Baggage allowance for each
passenger; and
(4) Full fuel, including a minimum of
the half-hour fuel reserve required for
day visual flight rules in § 91.151(a)(1).
You won't find the term "Gross weight" used, or implied, anywhere by
the FAA in regards to LSA issues. Period.
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MichaelGibbs(at)cox.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:16 pm Post subject: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) |
|
|
Steve sez:
| Quote: | You won't find the term "Gross weight" used, or implied, anywhere by
the FAA in regards to LSA issues. Period.
|
What does that have to do with the discussion, Steve? Just want to
beat that dead horse or yours some more?
Mike G.
N728KF
Phoenix, AZ
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
av8rps(at)tznet.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:58 am Post subject: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) |
|
|
Steve,
I'm all for what you are saying as that would allow a lot more light
aircraft to be flown as LSA's. And that would be really great for a lot of
people.
But during Oshkosh this year I heard a couple of FAA people talking about
this issue, and (fwiw) they were saying it was already in the works to
rewrite the LSA rule to further clarify the 1320/1430 lbs as "aircraft gross
weight". Personally, I wish they would leave it alone and let us include
aircraft like our 1550 lb Kitfoxes, but from what I heard, it appears they
are already on this issue.
So I hope there aren't any pilots out there buying airplanes with gross
weights over the 1320/1430 lb numbers hoping to be able to fly them as a
sport pilot. These same FAA people said if the rule as it is written were
to be challenged, a board of review would be assigned to interpret the rule,
and the FAA would base their enforcement actions on the boards
interpretation. But like my retired IRS auditor friend told me, it is a
rare case to have a board of review not agree with the government agency, as
they will be reminded to interpret the rule as the rule was intended when
written. In this case, I think it is more than obvious the FAA intended (or
meant to say) "aircraft gross weight" but just slipped up in their final
wording.
I hope you don't think I'm arguing with you, as I'm not. Technically, from
what I heard the FAA is "unofficially" admitting they slipped up. So after
hearing that conversation, I know you were right all along. I have been
holding back from telling anyone all this as what I heard is really only
heresay. But it would be a disservice to my friends here on the list if I
didn't tell everyone what I heard. From here on in, everyone can make their
own mind up as to whether or not they want to challenge the FAA on this. I
know I won't.
Paul Seehafer
Kitfox IV 912ul amphib
Central Wisconsin
---
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Float Flyr
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:21 am Post subject: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) |
|
|
Michael:
So, some of the advantages of registering experimental are, you can have;
retractable gear, IFA props and night/IFR capability and heavier gross
weights. But you must have the proper license to take advantage of those
things.
Very interesting.
Noel
[quote] --
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akflyer
Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 574
Location: Soldotna AK
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:46 am Post subject: Re: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) |
|
|
| MichaelGibbs(at)cox.net wrote: | Steve sez:
| Quote: | You won't find the term "Gross weight" used, or implied, anywhere by
the FAA in regards to LSA issues. Period.
|
What does that have to do with the discussion, Steve? Just want to
beat that dead horse or yours some more?
Mike G.
N728KF
Phoenix, AZ |
Take a look at your original post, you pasted it.. Steve was just try to help clarify something YOU posted. Based on Pauls reply... nevermind.... I dont know how many people here deal with code books or have to make interpretations, I know I do every day. I NEVER take someone elses word on a code issue, look it up myself to assure we are performing up par. I am still amazed that people like you have to argue over something they were told, not what is in black and white, in the government publication, right in front of you and about 3rd grade comprehension level.
This is the last time I will ever post on this issue so dont get all worked up thinking I want to start a war again.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
_________________
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Leonard Perry aka SNAKE
Soldotna AK
Avid "C" / Mk IV
582 (147 hrs and counting on the rebuild)
IVO IFA
Full Lotus 1450
#1 snake oil salesman since 1-22-2009
I would rather die trying to live, than to live trying not to die.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RRTRACK(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:39 am Post subject: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) |
|
|
I never stated a Sport Pilot could not fly an experimental or a certified aircraft if it meets the qualifications for LSA. They sure can, but they would be limited by SP rules for it's use. I just stated there are a lot of pilots out there that are looking for LSA qualified planes. Another advantage of an LSA aircraft is you do not have to be the builder to be able to do the annual of your plane if you take the FAA approved coarse.
My favorite time to fly is the last hour of the day when the weather calms down. I usually fly until about 30 minutes after sunset to get a taste of night flying in as well. I would miss that if flying under SP rules.
Mark
Kitfox 5 Vixen
912UL IVO
Hartford, Wisconsin
See [quote][b]
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
avidfox
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) |
|
|
Paul,
Thank you for your open and honest reply. And no, I don't consider
this an argument, but a open exchange of ideas, thoughts and
information. And that's good.
If I may.....
As of today, there is NO 'Notice of Proposed Rule making' on the FAA
Docket for any changes to the existing text of the Final Rule.
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/
Since the "Final Rule" has been in effect, the only changes to date have been:
1. permit development of lighter-than-air Light Sport Aircraft (LSA),
i.e. hot air
balloons, and to LTA lighter than air and that provided for an
INCREASE in their weight limits.
2. allow retractable landing gear for LSA intended for operation on water.
Published April 19, 2007; Changes to the Definition of Certain
Light-Sport Aircraft
(72 FR 19661). No adverse comments were received.
The rule became effective on June 4, 2007.
Both of these changes increased the benefits and privileges under the Rule.
No attempt was made at that time to reduce privileges or change
weight definitions, including "maximum takeoff weight", which remains
the same. The FAA continues to state that the provided definition
will be used to define "maximum takeoff weight"
" In this case, I think it is more than obvious the FAA intended (or
meant to say) "aircraft gross weight" but just slipped up in their final
wording."
I disagree, and would have a hard time believing that that type of
oversight would exist.
Would you want us to believe that from February 5, 2002, the original
NPRM date, to July 27, 2004, a 2+ year consideration period, open for,
and receiving 4700 public comments, that they, the DOT and FAA, just
'forgot'. And also, just forgot to 'fix' things during the recent
changes?
Why didn't they just say 'gross weight' to begin with... ? Because it
has no bearing on the intention of the 'maximum inertia' concept they
envisioned, and approved. All the bases are covered under the "maximum
takeoff weight" definition. From day one I have stated that the Final
Rule is fair and objective.
On the lighter side:
"....during Oshkosh this year I heard a couple of FAA people talking....."
Perhaps these were the same ones who "grounded" Bob Hoover", because
he didn't "look" right to THEM.
Or the ones who put "RedTags" (grounded) on certain aircraft that had
the "new" 'Q-Tip' propellers because the "tips were bent".
Again, I too am not arguing, I am discussing.
Thanks again for your positive input.
Steve
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MichaelGibbs(at)cox.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject: Sport Pilot vs. LSA (was: Aircraft Bill of Sale) |
|
|
Paul had sed:
| Quote: | " In this case, I think it is more than obvious the FAA intended (or
meant to say) "aircraft gross weight" but just slipped up in their final
wording."
|
To which Steve sez:
| Quote: | I disagree, and would have a hard time believing that that type of
oversight would exist.
|
I think Steve is exactly right. Even given how slowly our federal
bureaucracy sometimes moves, if the FAA had intended to refer to max
gross weight they would have changed it a long time ago.
Mike G.
N728KF
Phoenix, AZ
| | - The Matronics Kitfox-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
