PDA

View Full Version : "Since original Certification..." Editorial



84KF
06-25-2008, 10:33 PM
One reason (out of many) for the confusion in regards to aircraft eligible for use under Sport Pilot privileges is that from day one the true concept was corrupted by the very people many depend on to provide accurate information. Well known aviation writers from many organizations and\or publications, not grasping what they had been presented with, immediately imposed their own interpretations and proclaimed them to be fact. Their statements are based on figurative (abstract, imaginative, or symbolic) reading of text instead of the actual desired literal meanings. (being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word)
In other words, it's not what the FAA says that matters to them...it's what they feel, or think that is correct. These flawed concepts have now been paraphrased by others and published countless times.

A case in point: “Since original certification....”. Why was this statement included in the Final Rule?

§*1.1***General definitions.
“Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:”
Title 14: Aeronautics and SpacePART 1—DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Again....., Why was this statement included in the Final Rule?
It was not included in the original NPRM.
Well, because questions were brought up regarding the modification of Type Certificated aircraft in order to meet the original FAR 1.1 definition of LSA (a general term used, meaning any aircraft that is sport pilot eligible, not to be confused with or inclusive of ELSA and SLSA category aircraft)

As stated in the Final Rule.....
The words, ‘‘since its original
certification has continued to meet the
following’’ are added to the introductory
text of § 1.1. The reasons for this are
discussed in the section titled
‘‘Modification of Type-Certificated
Aircraft to Meet the Light-Sport Aircraft
Definition.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations Pg.44801

Modifications of Aircraft To Meet the
Light-Sport Aircraft Definition
Some commenters stated that aircraft
with quite high payload and
performance characteristics that far
exceed the stated definition of lightsport
aircraft could be modified to meet
the definition of light-sport aircraft. The
FAA has revised the definition of lightsport
aircraft in the rule to prevent these
modifications. The FAA notes that these
types of modified aircraft are outside the
stated purpose of the proposal.
Pg 44792 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

But...., according to a writer and “expert” from a well known experimental aviation publication, we are led to believe, through his own “interpretation” .....

“This verbiage clearly says that an aircraft must meet all the criteria called out in the definition of an LSA at the time of its original certification AND CONTINUOUSLY thereafter. One of the items it must meet is a maximum takeoff weight of 1320 lbs (1430 lbs for seaplanes). Since it must meet this requirement continuously since it's original certification, it can NEVER have been operated at a maximum takeoff weight of anything greater than the weight called out in the LSA definition. If it operates at a maximum takeoff weight greater than that called out in the definition EVEN ONE TIME, it no longer meets the definition and is not eligible for operation by sport pilots forever thereafter.”http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/afmviewfaq.asp?faqid=415

Bull****. That statement is both a total fabrication and a distortion of the intent of the inclusion of the wording by the FAA

Read the entire posting from the above link to see the original question and reply post in it's entirety. Then...read it again. (It IS Kitfox related)
I hope my point is being presented clearly here.... The FAA states something for a specific reason, that being clarification on the issue of “modification of Type Certificated aircraft”, yet the words get twisted and published to represent a different intent.

This is just one example of how the aviation community has been subjected to misinformation and why we have the confusion that exists to this day when attempting to understand the actual privileges the FAA has bestowed us.

The Final Rule ( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf ) is the most thought out and wonderfully worded document I have ever came across in all my years as a professional in aviation. It covers all bases and leaves no stone unturned. It says what it says...and will give explanations for situations that need clarification.

As always, comments or questions are welcome and encouraged.

wildirishtime
01-18-2012, 01:30 AM
It's been a long time since this post - where are we at with this subject now? Mr McBean any feedback or experience with the FAA giving anyone a hard time?

84KF
01-18-2012, 08:39 AM
I did not repost this......, Some one else did, although it is an excellent editorial if you ask me.

t j
01-18-2012, 08:51 AM
My opinion is that the only place you will find documentation of any take off weight for an experimental aircraft is in the aircraft log book where the completion of the phase one testing is documented with the gross weight when the V speeds were determined.

I loaded and tested mine to 1050 because that was what Skystar published as a maximum gross weight for a classic 4 with the 503 rotax.

It would be interesting to hear what otheres have entered.

84KF
01-18-2012, 09:36 AM
"......the only place you will find documentation of any take off weight for an experimental aircraft is in the aircraft log book where the completion of the phase one testing is documented with the gross weight when the V speeds were determined."

That may be true for a more recent aircraft..., but my Operating Limitations do not require such information to be included in the logs. Only the statement "I certify that this aircraft is controllable through its normal range of speeds and throughout all maneuvers to be executed; and the aircrafthas no hazardous operating characteristics or design features."

(To all) Feel free to attempt to find any reference to any weight (limitation or anything else) in the paperwork for N84KF in the attached pdf documents. Also, any requirement in the documents or any FAR to enter in the logs such information at any time.

t j
01-18-2012, 10:05 AM
I'll take your word for it.

wildirishtime
01-18-2012, 11:05 AM
Steve/Tom/All: Lets not make this a ****ing match, I think we all have lots to gain by understanding this better.... having never filed for airworthiness on a build (I've only restored planes never done one from scratch) I do not know what all paperwork is/was submitted with my Kitfox 5. Steve: does your logbook have a 'tested through xxx lbs' entry? Do you have a dataplate showing max gross?

On a related note, if max gross weight was NOT supplied to the FAA, and if it is NOT in a logbook, is it only in the builder-or-owner-developed weight and balance and no where else?

~Wild

Dorsal
01-18-2012, 11:31 AM
I was required to supply a weight and balance sheet to the FAA showing operational envelope and max weight. I have no knowledge if this is common or generally required.

wildirishtime
01-18-2012, 11:37 AM
Dorsal did they keep a copy of it, or just want you to demonstrate you had it?

84KF
01-18-2012, 11:41 AM
" Steve: does your logbook have a 'tested through xxx lbs' entry?"

No..., why would it? This was mentioned and explaind in the previous post.

"Do you have a dataplate showing max gross?"

Again, no..., and it is not required by the FARs.


"I do not know what all paperwork is/was submitted with my Kitfox 5."

You can get them from the FAA here.
http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/aircraft_certification/aircraft_registry/copies_aircraft_records/

wildirishtime
01-18-2012, 11:45 AM
Just verifying Steve. I have my paperwork on order at this time they are very slow.

If your logbook DID have an entry in there saying 'tested to max gross 1400lbs' for example..... am I correct that would no longer be considered a Light Sport capable aircraft due to the fact it's exceeded weight at least once 'since original certification'?

Dorsal
01-18-2012, 01:55 PM
Dorsal did they keep a copy of it, or just want you to demonstrate you had it?

Yes, it was sent in with the rest of my paperwork.

This is the wording they wanted in my Logbook

“I certify that the prescribed flight test hours have been completed and the aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of speeds and throughout all maneuvers to be executed, has no hazardous operating characteristics or design features, and is safe for operation. The following aircraft operating data has been demonstrated during the flight testing: speeds Vso ______, Vx ______, and Vy ______, and the weight ______ and CG location ______ at which they were obtained.”

I do not believe this inherently limits the max weight of the aircraft but as I stated before that was also submitted. I did my testing at 1400 but listed max at 1550. Again this is just what I was asked to do.

wildirishtime
01-18-2012, 04:19 PM
I do not believe this inherently limits the max weight of the aircraft but as I stated before that was also submitted. I did my testing at 1400 but listed max at 1550.

It may not LIMIT your max weight, but does this statement in your logbook not prevent you from Light Sport operations since it clearly was, at least once, flown in excess of 1320?


Steve etc: The Light Sport Aviation Branch told me, and I quote, "The definition itself prevents any aircraft from being modified to meet the definition because it states "since original certification". It doesn't matter why it doesn't meet the definition on or any day after the original paperwork was hung, it can not be operated as a light sport aircraft." :confused:

In Steve's case, he has never defined a set weight in his logbook or elsewhere, however Dorsal has (maybe not at his own doing but still has). Seems Steve can shimmy around a gross weight question regarding Light Sport, but Dorsal can not (without risk). Am I right?

~Wild

Dorsal
01-18-2012, 06:26 PM
[QUOTE=wildirishtime;21106]It may not LIMIT your max weight, but does this statement in your logbook not prevent you from Light Sport operations since it clearly was, at least once, flown in excess of 1320?

Yes I believe you are correct but LSA was not an objective for me.

mr bill
01-19-2012, 08:28 AM
Was the aircraft "modified" after certification, or just flown over gross weight? I don't think having just flown over certified gross weight would take an aircraft out of LSA permanently.

Bill

wildirishtime
01-19-2012, 12:32 PM
Was the aircraft "modified"

....if your aircraft logbook says it was tested to '1400' for example, we all know it takes no modification of the airframe to fly at 1320...... so therefor does the FAA consider it a 'modification' to 'modify' your weight and balance paperwork and the logbook to show 1320 on the paperwork instead (thus making it Light Sport compliant?) I understand them not wanting physical modifications.... that could get dangerous depending on the plane (can you make a C180 Light Sport compliant by removing things?? hmmmmm).

mr bill
01-19-2012, 01:14 PM
Having read read the documents a little while ago, the FAA is very clear that an airframe certified to a higher gross weight may not be modified to be re-certified as LSA. A log book entry saying it was tested to 1400 lbs does not in itself take an airplane out of LSA. Having tested to a higher weight does not necessitate changing your weight and balance paperwork. It is really nothing more than flying over the lower gross weight.

DBVZ
01-19-2012, 01:15 PM
....if your aircraft logbook says it was tested to '1400' for example, we all know it takes no modification of the airframe to fly at 1320...... so therefor does the FAA consider it a 'modification' to 'modify' your weight and balance paperwork and the logbook to show 1320 on the paperwork instead (thus making it Light Sport compliant?) I understand them not wanting physical modifications.... that could get dangerous depending on the plane (can you make a C180 Light Sport compliant by removing things?? hmmmmm).
Continuously means continuously. Operated means operated. By the rules, if it was operated at over 1320 for ASEL it is not LSA and never can be made LSA in the future. I don't believe "operated" means you created a new W&B and got the max gross changed by the FAA. It means operated with the intent to fly. You do not record the gross weight of each flight so some may be hard to prove; but where that IS recorded, one flight over 1320 is all it takes IMHO. A difficult situation, for something like a Kitfox V with a design max gross of 1550 that the data plate may say is max 1320 or blank, with the W&B done for testing showing max gross of 1320. Obviously the plane could easily have been flown at over 1320 many times, but who would know? I have seen these on Barnstormers as LSA legal. Are they really? Just because they did not change the official W&B, if it was regularly flown "over gross", does a Kitfox V stay LSA legal? Doubt it.

Same with operated with an air adjust prop. Fit it on and ground run, perhaps is ok; but operated with the intent to fly, and it is no longer LSA. Most things may not show up in the paperwork anywhere, but a logbook entry to add a CS prop is pretty hard to explain away. I have heard of people installing an electric adjustable prop with the control switch under the cowl instead of in the cabin, and calling it a ground adjust prop; but that is right at the edge of acceptability.

wildirishtime
01-19-2012, 01:24 PM
ohh boy so many opinions and even my quote from the Sport Pilot branch got no comment ;) I know this topic sturs us all up due to it's swiss-cheese writing.... but here's the main question now I guess:

I see how it can be aruged that a flight test does not define max gross weight... but if some builder in 1999 (pre-SportPilot for example) submitted a weight and balance sheet to the FAA in writing that said "The max gross for this aircraft is 1400 lbs" and that made it into his FAA record, then I'd assume they would not allow a modification to that
paperwork and thus not legal to fly as Sport Pilot, ever. Who agrees with this theory?

~Wild

DBVZ
01-19-2012, 01:30 PM
Me. And if the data plate says max gross 1400, the situation is clearer. The data plate can not be changed by the owner without permission. Not sure the original W&B shows up anywhere in the records the FAA keeps.

mr bill
01-19-2012, 01:42 PM
I also agree.

Bill

TahoeTim
03-18-2012, 11:31 AM
This is too bad. What does the weight have to do with safety IF the aircraft meets the stall and top speed requirements?

I am looking hard at a SS but can't see rating it to 1320 and having no more capacity than my Zenith 601. I am considering jumping up to rec pilot if the medical rule change goes through. If it passes, I suspect that many sport pilots will also get a PP medical once and fly under rec pilot.

Again, it's a shame that weight is a factor at all if the low stall speed and top speed rules are met.:confused:

Geowitz
03-18-2012, 11:42 AM
I think the weight consideration is more about potential for damage/harm to others. Since the way it was created no medical is really required you have a potentially higher risk for issues where an incapacitated pilot could cause damage to people or property. The weight limit would theoretically limit that. Not bashing old people, just saying what I think the FAA is thinking. Also, doesn't mean I like the feds or their bureaucracy either.

TahoeTim
03-18-2012, 11:56 AM
Yeah, but we allow old people like me to drive rv's through the mountains with a DL. :D

My current plan is to roll the dice that the new 180 hp - any weight plane - - rec pilot - no medical rule goes through.

Jeez, I could fly a Pitts or Lancair without a medical under that proposal. What's the big deal about a 1500lb plane at 120kts when I could be in a rocket at 12500 lbs?

I am actually shocked about the giant gap between the rules. If it goes through, it will be goodbye to my sport pilot license and a whole new world of planes I can fly...

Geowitz
03-18-2012, 11:58 AM
Can't say I disagree with that!

Av8r3400
03-18-2012, 03:09 PM
Has anyone ever heard why the 1320# (1450 amphib) limit was set? Seems like a number just pulled out of somebodies behind.

I thought that it may have been a European/metric reference (almost 600 kg - 598.75 kg to be exact), but I've never seen reference to that.

Seems to be a number perfect so that most certified 2-seaters won't work...

TahoeTim
03-18-2012, 03:21 PM
There's quite a bit out on the forum as to the theory. Some claim it was designed to knock out existing GA aircraft. But I've always wondered why the engine mfrs didn't lobby for more weight so they could sell more of their existing heavier engines into new planes. I am guessing that most didn't think the sport pilot and LSA rules would result in much more impact than rec pilot did.

I am predicting that the new rec pilot rule will swing it back the other way with guys like me that are happy with day VFR and one passenger will move up to rec pilot to fly less restrictive and cool planes. Any sport pilots out there ever dream of flying a Skybolt, Pitts, Beech, twin, Lancair, etc without needing to maintain a medical? There are thousands of GA planes out there under 180 hp. There are some really sexy experimental under 180 hp.

The used GA plane market is going to get hot and the used LSA classifieds are going to grow if I am right on this one. Most LSAs are too damn small and too damn expensive and most have "exotic" engines or auto conversions.

DBVZ
03-18-2012, 03:27 PM
Has anyone ever heard why the 1320# (1450 amphib) limit was set? Seems like a number just pulled out of somebodies behind.

I have no direct knowledge of why 1320 was selected as the weight, but I have heard this explanation:

1. The primary purpose of LSA and Sport Pilot was to get better control of what were known as "fat ultralight" aircraft. They had no intent to make a lot of currently available certified aircraft LSA legal.

2. The secondary purpose of LSA and Sport Pilot was to support a (then) small struggling industry of new light aircraft constructed of composites and plastics. New aircraft that would cost $120,000 or so, needed a market where they were not in competition with used certified aluminum aircraft like the C-150 and C-152 selling for $20,000 or so.

3. The certified aircraft that fit in the definition of LSA, were essentially an unintended but necessary result of purpose 1 and 2.

4. The above is why I suspect the change to 180 HP for Rec Pilot without a medical, is unlikely to be approved.

jdmcbean
03-18-2012, 06:03 PM
Has anyone ever heard why the 1320# (1450 amphib) limit was set? Seems like a number just pulled out of somebodies behind.


1430 for floats...

Lets not forget that the proposed max gross weight for Light Sport was 1232. When the rule was published with the 1320 max gross it was a suprise to many, the increase was mostly based to allow the use of the heavier "certified" engines like the Lycoming O-235 and the Continental O-200. So we were told.
I think it was to allow for some of the Taylorcraft's, J3's, Aeronca's, etc...

DBVZ
03-18-2012, 06:45 PM
Good catch. I recently saw an ad for a plan on floats with max gross of 1450, and thought....WHY? Perhaps they wrote the paperwork without knowing the right number. Or before the LSA rules were out. Bad in any case.