PDA

View Full Version : LSA Ground Adjust vs "Electrically Adjustable"



QuiQuog
04-25-2013, 11:50 AM
Ive been looking through a lot of threads regarding ground adjustable IVO props and it seems that someone usually brings up in-flight adjusable options, which frequently brings up questions of LSA compatability and "Electrically Adjustable" workarounds. The comments are usually scattered and in old threads. I couldn't find a thred that was specifically devoted to it though, so I thought I would make one to consolodate the latest word from the great thinkers here.

The workarounds usually include either the controller accessible only from outside the cockpit, or within the cockpit but placarded against in flight use. While some say that it should be acceptable to have a control accessible through the oil access door, others say that it still not technically a ground adjust prop, maybe because one could easily wire a control into the cockpit. Still, others say that you should be able to wire it directly into the cockpit as long as long as it's use is prohibited in flight by a placard, similar to what Cub does with a 18ohp motor.

Is there a consensus on whether any of this is acceptable, or is there a precedent set by manufacturers or builders that is accepted by the FAA? Are people doing it and getting away with it? Are people doing it and getting caught, having their planes recertified by the FAA? Is it okay, not okay?

cap01
04-26-2013, 04:43 PM
probably the way to get the most correct answer is to get ahold of a dar or your mido office and see what they have to say about what will comply with light sport .

QuiQuog
04-30-2013, 01:23 PM
Well, it's not that I'm wanting one. I'm not even building, I just think it's an interesting topic. The LSA rule says fixed pitch or ground adjustable, but what is or isn't considered ground adjustable? Do they mean that the plane needs to be on the ground when being adjusted? Or do they mean that the person adjusting needs to be on the ground? Or do they mean that the plane and person need to be on the ground with a stopped prop, manually adjusting it? (I sound like Gandalf talking to Bilbo. Good morning!)

I'm sure that the spirit of the rule is that they want to reduce the complexity of the aircraft operated by sport pilots, not allowing an in-flight adjustable prop by restricting them to manually adjustable props at best. And if that's the case, then a slick lawyer could argue that the rule doesn't exclude a prop that's controlled like an in-flight adjustable prop, it only says that the prop must be adjusted on the ground.

On the other hand, maybe the FAA doesn't really care if it's an electrically controlled prop as long as it can only be adjusted on the ground. Because really, they don't exclude anything in particular, and they don't have any explaination for ground adjustable.

War Eagle
04-30-2013, 03:30 PM
Some interesting thoughts on this subject!

Another one that might be worth considering is the insurance carrier. If there ever is a claim will their definition of what an LSA Ground adjust vs Electrically Adjustable (just not in flight) get you a "denied insurance" claim.

Jetdoc737
05-01-2013, 01:38 PM
I am pretty sure the reason props arent allowed to be adjustable is that they might allow the plane / prob combo to exceed the Light sport speed range.

War Eagle
05-01-2013, 06:15 PM
Personally, I haven't heard what the rational is. I have always thought it was to avoid adding complexity to the LSA platform. My thinking was the same for the retractable gear and higher speed restrictions, etc... All these things add complexity into a minimal training certificate.

QuiQuog
05-06-2013, 12:00 PM
Well, they can be adjustable, just not in flight adjustable. You can ground adjust a prop to maximize speed as well, so it's not a performance consideration.

It's probably a complexity thing, but it's not so complex as to warrant a blanket restriction. Especially when there can be a safety benefit to the ability to adjust in flight. Say, you take off from a field that would benefit from some extra climb to get over an obstacle, then later in the flight, after fighting unexpected headwinds, you're racing sunset or ominous weather to get home, where some extra speed on that trip would have increased the safety margins.

Some sort of complex craft rating for the light sport category would be interesting. But that would start to blur the line between light sport pilots and "real" pilots. Something the FAA probably wants to avoid. A blurry line between the two would open too many questions about the relevance of the 3rd class medical. That's a whole different topic though.

jtpitkin06
05-23-2013, 12:11 PM
I'm wondering why you think a "workaround" is necessary, at all?

In the US the FAA has many levels of licenses to operate aircraft from weed whackers to heavy haulers. If one wishes to fly with minimum training and no medical certificate then light sport is for you. All the FAA asks is that you abide by the rules. The rule of controllable prop is pretty simple. LSA allows fixed pitch or ground adjustable only. Nothing in the rules say you can have hidden switches, secret wires, or controls with a only a placard preventing use in flight.

If you really need an in flight controllable prop then upgrade your license to recreational pilot or higher.

"But I don't have a medical!" , you say. Have we got a deal for you. It's called light sport. You get to fly simple light weight aircraft with wheels or floats in the daytime and no medical is required. No controllable prop, no retracts but you can still fly and have a ball.


So why not go with the flow? It wasn't too long ago when you busted your physical, you were done flying. Lets not give the FAA an excuse to take away LSA from the many pilots who are happy flying in LSA compliant aircraft.

And that prop? All props are ground adjustable. You unbolt it and put on a new one with a different pitch.

John Pitkin
Greenville, Texas

Geowitz
05-24-2013, 06:23 PM
"Why not go with the flow"

Perhaps going with the flow only perpetuates the flow and one day we'll end up down the creek without a paddle.

akflyer
07-09-2013, 08:55 AM
I see nothing in the rules that says you cant... and yes, I am the one that brought up the 180 HP cub being LSA and placarded for only using XX RPM for flight operations under LSA.. Other than a few of the arguments I have seen on here, that is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever seen. If the 180 ponies are there, what pilot is going to be a good enough boy scout to not throw the hammer forwards when he is taking off and climbing out.... If its good enough for the CC, it should be no different than having the switch inside the cockpit and easily accessible and just putting a placard on it for ground use only. I see NO difference.

Kinda like an airframe that everyone and there brother knows is good for 2000+ gross, yet having a 1320 sticker on it. Do you seriously think that the pilots are gonna limit the load to 1320 knowing they can safely take all the stuff they want in one trip versus 2 or 3?? Some may be able to lie to us, but can you look in the mirror and lie to yourself and say that you would never ever load above 1320 or just have to push that throttle to the stop just to "see what she will do"... I dont think there is an honest pilot amongst the whole certified lot of us that can honestly say they would never push that throttle to the stop!

SkyPirate
07-09-2013, 07:27 PM
What i have heard, and it's getting the same slow motion hum that light sport licensing did, is the possibility of non commercial private pilots elimination of a medical certificate, i have even called and asked oklahoma's office if there was any meat to this,.. The response i got was indirect and more toward the unspoken back burner topic,.. Which didnt answer my question at all but it was not denied either,... So who knows