Light Sport Weight Limit

[dcsfoto]

I was told that the FAA was working hard to announce at Airventure the weight limit will go to 1700 Lbs, well that has changed.

The paperwork is moving around the FAA and it is to remove the weight limit.

The feeling is that if the aircraft meets all other requirements, such as seats,
speeds and fixed pitch prop, weight will take care of its own.

Stand By.

David Kelm
7SS 912iS just certificated

[Av8r3400]

Do you have a source for this? I'd be interested in reading more.

Rumors have been flying around since LS was first proposed of weight increases. No official rule proposal has come of it to date.

[dcsfoto]

Back story:

I am a DAR and am not able to cert my airplane. I have had a close friend that is a DAR wanting to do my inspection. In our talking the LS weight limit came up and I ask about the 1700 Lb . As it goes a high level FAA guy was going to be in town for a meeting with us ( it was the same day as my
knee replacement surgery, I missed the meeting).

This person advised they feel the weight limit is not needed. The speeds
limit the weight as it works. He advised this is in the signature process.
I think they want it done by Airventure. I work with and meet with a lot of
FAA people and this is a hot point now, not a clue why.
I do know the EAA is pushing hard.

this will make a lot of Factory airplanes in the LS class

I have been a DAR 30 years. This could come out tomorrow or 6 yrs from now
The FAA has a lot of hoops to jump though.
David Kelm

[av8rps]

I was initially involved in the creation of the LSA rule. I pushed for 1650 pounds as I knew FBO's / flight training schools needed inexpensive trainers and aircraft like the Cessna 150. But the manufacturers wanted to sell their LSA's as trainers so they pushed to keep the weight lower (probably the single biggest reason Sport Pilot traing has become a dismal failure with FBO's and flight schools in my opinion).

Eventually the FAA moved weight from 1232 to 1320/1430 lbs, and indicated if LSA rule proved itself to be safe they would try to apply the medical benefits to private pilot (which they sort of did recently). When pushed again about raising LSA weights they were somewhat non comittal, justifying that you could now reasonably fly most anything as a private pilot with basic med. While somewhat true, not everyone is a private pilot. And basic med is not as beneficial as the drivers license only requirement enjoyed by light sport pilots.

I've been away from much of that all lately, but am really encouraged to hear the FAA might be working on increasing LSA weight limits once again. They need to do that if they ever want to see LSA traing embraced by the existing traing schools, which would obviously make LSA a more successful program overall. Plus, many flying LSA find themselves flying overgross because of the increasing empty weights that seems to happen to all aircraft as they evolve. Raising the weight would really make sense.

And while they're at it, change the rule to allow in flight adjustable props. When you see the high tech glass panels in many LSA's, comparably operating an in flight adjustable prop is no more difficult to learn than those glass panels. And as LSA continues to evolve, as the aircraft get heavier they need more thrust. Short of bigger heavier higher horsepower engines being used, you can save a lot of empty weight by continuing to use engines like the Rotax 912/914 series. Or better yet, the Rotax 915, which was designed to use an in flight adjustable prop to effectively use the thrust it can make. But then again, every aircraft engine is more efficient with an in flight adjustable pitch prop. Same reason NO ONE builds a single speed automobile.

Ok, enough of my rambling...there's my pitch. :cool:

[dcsfoto]

I have been a DAR 30 yrs. Both MIDO and FSDO, the FAA is doing things that blow my mind. They are looking at what we in the EAB world and giving credit to the MFGs for all of our safe hrs of flying.

There is talk of a STC project putting a large EFIS screen in a small Cessna.



David K
7SS 912 iS

[WWhunter]

Bringing this topical back up to see if anyone has seen or heard more.
I have been on a mission to sell off many of my 'toys' in the past year to enable the buying of a new/newer aircraft. Since I have pretty much narrowed my choices down to 3 different aircraft, the possibility of being able to get an aircraft with more capabilities, mainly haul a decent load 'legally', is a game changer. There are other options out there that I would consider if the light sport weight limit is raised.

Having owned/own several different LS types over the past 10+ years, getting something with a little heavier wing loading and useful load would allow me to use a plane for more than the typical 'joy ride' on a nice day. Most of these LS types are not fun (my opinion) when the winds get much over 10-12 kts.

[magal]

Hi All, super new here and thought to share my thoughts :)

I live in the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles and used to rent a cessna 162 skycatcher from a flight school. I called the other day to reserve the plane to find out they decided to sell it instead of renting it. Looks like they didn't have enough renters to justify the cost of upkeep.
As a Sport Pilot i'm left with 0 options at the moment unless i chose to drive in severe traffic to santa monica airport where i think there are a few LSA left for rent.

The weight change would be amazing. We allow people like me to expand the options and rent a 152 or something similar.
My other option is to buy/build one obviously and that's why i'm here considering a kitfox.

[av8rps]

It would make a lot of sense to remove the weight limits altogether for light sport aircraft, as that would bring a lof of existing aircraft into that category AND would help flight schools and FBO's to offer affordable pilot training. It would also make a lot more aircraft available to buy for Sport Pilot certificate holders.

I hope the FAA is successful in that mission. It would make the whole LSA program more effective, more like it was originally designed to do.

[nyrikki]

It is still in progress but appears that it will not be a simple bump in weight in the existing rules.

Here is a link from a couple of days ago.


Note that gross weight will probably be determined by a new system other than a fixed-weight number, but the exact formula is pending while FAA officials finalize the regulation plans.

To repeat, ALL these objectives are on FAA’s list for inclusion in eventual rule making.

“Eventual” is a key word, however…

https://generalaviationnews.com/2018/09/02/new-opportunities-coming-for-light-sport-aircraft/

I wish the process was faster but it will take a couple of years to know how things shake out.

[WWhunter]

This is a step in the right direction. The downside I see is the guys that are out there shopping for their 'once in a lifetime' purchase of the plane that will be the last one they will/can buy, is again put on hold since the available market of use able Light Sport types is very limited unless you are satisfied with a fantastic plastic type. These lightly constructed aircraft seem to be on the salvage sites with an amazing regularity. The ones that will actually haul two people and fuel are borderline durable.

I currently am flying under Basic Med, which others have said is a stop gap albeit somewhat a farce (in my opinion) as it is so close to a 3rd class medical its almost hilarious. Yes, I am being a bit sarcastic.

Those of us that are retirement age and still have a few years left of flying, just want to be able to take a friend up for a flight and be legal while still being able to actually go someplace other than around the patch a time or two before having to land from fuel starvation!

I wish they would put out the GW figure/math so manufacturers and prospective buyers can at least plan ahead. As it is, by the time the regulation comes out, many of us looking to make that high dollar purchase will have moved on to other pursuits. I am commenting this way due to having heard these rumors for the past year and have delayed purchasing in hopes that I can buy something I can actually use when the day comes that I quit getting the Basic med or 3rd class.

Rant over.

[efwd]

This is encouraging although I sympathize with WWHunter. I chose to move about within the current confines since the second option is to do what some are doing, sitting on the ground. I want my plane to be heavier with fuel to say the least along with the second occupant and camping gear. Mostly, what I liked to see was the in flight adjustable prop! Oh how the wallet is going to shudder if that comes through. I would do it now but if I should step out of the Basic med I don't want to have spent that kind of cash only to have to sell it.

[aviator79]

While I wish Basic Med went a little further, I think it is actually substantially better than the 3rd class medical for pilots worried about their ability to continue getting the 3rd class, and is the best option for pilots who want to fly bigger, faster airplanes. Unless you develop certain mental or cardiac conditions, you never have to report anything to the feds again. You and your doctor get to decide if you're fit to fly, which is as it should be.

I think the issue is that most pilots flying under sport pilot privileges are doing so to avoid medical certification, not because they want to fly sport planes. If you increase the LSA limits to include all the airplanes that 95% of what Private Pilots fly, it's a strong indication that there is no need to segment out a specific type of airplane at all. I hope they raise the limits so that people can do more of the flying they want to do, but I also think it's a misguided approach. Greatly simplifying or eliminating the medical certification required to exercise Private Pilot privileges is the right answer. No stupid click-through training, No anal probe (which I understand many doctors don't actually do before signing the checklist). Just have your family doc check your vision, make sure your limbs are attached, and that you still have some marbles rolling around in your skull every 5 years and call it good.

[nyrikki]

I am new here, and learning a lot reading through posts so thank you everyone for sharing your knowledge. I don't want to be political but basic med is only really useful for the aging existing population and does nothing to help out with new pilots. I wish I had kept my medical up when I couldn't afford to finish my pilots license 20 years ago, but I didn't and I have a condition that isn't related to what is actually banned but because AME's are GP's and the FAA to be honest has bigoted attitudes about some conditions and treatments it would be too risky for me to even try again.

In my situation I am safe to fly with my condition and it wouldn't impact this at all. But AME's tend to be General Practitioners and have no reasonable way to even to make real judgement calls on some of the blacklisted labels.

It is harder for those who are being treated for mental health issues. For the vast majority of sufferers of mild depression and anxiety, for example. Treatment is successful in treating a condition that would still allow them to safely fly airplanes but by avoiding treatment will ruin other portions of their life.

It also most likely causes way more safety issues do allow this unscientific anti-mental health culture to live and produce a world of fear. Even if someone just needs counseling or some life coaching and it doesn't rise to the level of requiring medical treatment they will avoid this. I know several commercial pilots who are even afraid to talk to a counselor.

Up 1 in 10 of the pilots flying the planes you ride in on commercial flights show signs of clinical depression and 1 in 20 has had suicidal thoughts in the past few weeks.

The only way this would change is if the FAA destigmatized mental health issues and actually cared about evidence based decisions by subject matter experts. This applies to medical issues too (which is the camp I am in).

It is a culture issue in the FAA, and that will never change inside the agency without external force so write letters to your representatives and have discussions. Bureaucracy is a necessary evil, but it wont' change from within.

If you care about the future of general aviation and safety in general make your voices heard. Like the ''Pilot's Bill of Rights'' that is the way things will change.

Selfishly an extra ~100lbs of legal weight would allow me to carry safety gear and fuel in a SS7 but I just mailed off a few letters to my representatives too.

I don't think that GA will be on the top of their priorities but public safety is and studies like this and incidents over the past few years should be.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5157081/

As public comments on proposed regulation are not anonymous the people suffering from either medical or minor but treated mental challenges voices won't be heard so consider being a voice for others. Maybe related to a loved one who suffers from social anxiety and up the dream to fly, or in my case a loved one who chose intentional controlled flight into terrain vs risk seeking help for depression.

Us enthusiasts are probably the best driver of change in this case.

[aviator79]

I lost my dad to a mental health condition that was probably treatable, and I work where a diagnosis might get authorization to work revoked. We have mandatory mental health screening annually, but it's not for our benefit, so there is a strong motivation to keep things to yourself.

So I will speak up. Thank you for posting.

[efwd]

Welcome Nyrikki.
That is an interesting read. I work in the medical field and I will tell you that Diagnosis of Depression is rampant. The diagnosis is placed in ones chart anytime someone seeks relief from the pains of divorce, loss of a loved one, loss of ones job etc. etc. etc. . Seriously, who has not lost sleep or quit eating during a time such as those. Diagnosis is placed and so from then on forward I suppose you would have to explain to the FAA that your safe to fly. Of course some healing would need to take place. My point is, Depression is placed in the chart while it may be a temporary state (quit flying) but the recorded condition could be extremely difficult to get through when dealing with the government. Hell, you could be restricted from owning a firearm with that diagnosis on record. Maybe I'm being crazy but it certainly concerns me to see anyone regarding a stressful period of my life. I can see how people just "check out".
Our country is being "***** slapped" with the state of our mental health system since we went nuts with the closing of the psychiatric facilities in the 80's. Seems we may be considering opening some back up. Im in California and if you have been watching the BS that's going on here with the homeless you may understand. Psych is in a terrible position in this country. Patients of mine who are trying to get help while holding down a job, aren't able because, shy of getting oneself admitted for several days, psych help seems to only operate during business hours. Who can miss work frequently enough to talk with someone weekly about their problems. I certainly understand why a pilot would ride it out (or not).
Anyhow, thanks for the article.

[fastfred]

I also agree it seems like they would rather have more fuel with less fuel stops in unfamiliar airports with attendants that over fill under fill or leave the caps loose or back wards. Also the ability to have better equipment , back up alternator, fuel pump and emergency equipment . Now I must run light and watch my waistline.

[aviator79]

I think the problem is not the depression diagnosis itself, but the stigma and havok the diagnosis can wreak in the rest of your life. Maybe I'm naive, but mental health should be treated more like physical health. Nobody is afraid to go to the doctor for a bacterial infection. You get antibiotics, you get better, and you get on with your life. Nobody, a year after the fact, is going to refuse to let you eat at the salad bar because you were ill a year ago. People should not fear getting treatment for mild mental illness associated with stressful life events. Like physical illnesses, these are often treatable, and people should not neglect their mental health for fear of what it could mean for their job, their liberties, or their medical certificate. I guess we're a little off topic though

To Fred's point: Don't lose sight of why the Sport Pilot certificate exists. It is to allow less stringent training and certification requirements for pilots who want to fly simple, light, easy-to-manage airplanes. It was not intended to be a mechanism used to avoid medical certification. I'm not against increasing or removing the weight limit, but when you start to grow the LSA definition to encompass almost every airplane Private Pilots fly, then what's the point? To me it's a strong clue that you're just building an end-run around medical certification, and I think the better approach is to fix medical certification.

[fastfred]

I agree again. Most will all be near that point someday which is why I try to fly every nice day . On the weight issue it would nice to be able to haul food for a camping trip for 2 people. They don't have to worry about us drinking beer because it won't fit. 1320 or 1430 is there that much difference?

[nyrikki]

Warning, novel length post, but as policy maker and industry folks may read this I want to make my stance isn't just about ducking medical rules, but as a result of the one shot lottery and potential for temporary or similar but not risky conditions forcing me into the sport pilot track. I would still self ground when there was a concern.

I was pretty hard on the FAA with my post, which I think is justified in that segment but I do want to give them kudos because the industry lobbying bodies like LAMA weren't asking for a higher gross and that came from the FAA.

While there is an issue with statistics and rare events and these numbers do not cover E-LSA or EAB aircraft it is quite clear that the SuperCub and other S-LSAs that were adapted from too heavy designs with more robust construction have less issues and accidents. Kitfox will not be captured due to E-LSA or EAB.

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/media/2014_SLSA_COS.pdf

Now there are a lot of factors that could cause this like training and usage and to be honest it could be noise it does show that the supercub sized and hotrod engined planes are actually much safer than the lower gross weight designed designs.

If you compare the Cessna 162 with the Carbon Cub numbers, which may be biased due to the Skycatcher being used in training, but also probably relates to safety compromises made by Cessna to meet the gross weight limitations it is pretty clear why the FAA is looking to increase the gross weight.

While not a complete list of accidents, if you go through the skycatcher incidents here you can see how often gear collapse happens.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=C162

Looking through just the Series 7 I can only find one gear collapse which was due to replacement bolts.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist2.php?at=kitfox

Obviously both have a big issue with people in landings and veering to the left from probably a need to use rudder to correct for the p-factor when pilots used flaperon/ailerons which were close to stall. But the lack of structural failures on the kitfox is encouraging.

If you look at front landing gear in heavy weight LSA's like the Bristell which have shocks, steering, and design loads closer to a GA standard it adds ~30 pounds to the airframe.

While the numbers have serious issues, I am sure that the FAA sees that a Carbon Cub, which to be honest is probably almost always flown over gross weight has an accident rate way closer to that of a 172 while the Cessna 162 has a 500% higher rate with structural failures and injuries.

This added with the FAA's apparent interest in encouraging technologies like angle of attack indicators which would be helpful for reducing a lot of these takeoff, spin, and accelerated stall accidents I would expect something more like super cub weights or formula that allow for safe airframe structures and not a general bump up to increase gross to legacy aircraft, although that may happen too.


As there are no STCs for S-LSA I do wonder if there will be an option for existing S-LSA or E-LSA to be bumped up but E-AB and a good DAR seems like it may be likely. Hopefully they will address the S-LSA or E-LSA issues so that those lucky people or those who can afford a carbon cub can avoid breaking the rules.

We may get the European 700kg limit which is 57kg short for a c152 or the formula may limit power in some crazy way. I hope for us mountain area pilots hope they remember this question from the PPL/SP test.


Q:Climb performance depends upon

A: reserve power or thrust

A 172 is a marginal 2 place airplane in my part of the world in the summer even well below supplemental O2 altitude at 2000' AGL 2000' from terrain. A J3-90, LSA legal Champ or a lot S-LSAs aren't even safe solo after 10AM in the summer. If only I could talk my family into moving to Arizona or at least 100 miles to the west to lose 3500'.

What I would do with a bump in gross weight.


Increase power for climb performance at altitude. Mostly to provide an out if the weather changes and I need to divert routes and not purely for STOL performance.
Increase reserve fuel as in places like Wyoming alternate routes can have you fighting with a head wind especially if conditions change in ways that are not forecast.
Add safety based avionics like AOA or XM weather receivers and the needed display systems with redundancy.
2 axis autopilot to allow for reduced workload during some phases of flight and to allow for the use of the level button as a last resort during a loss of spatial awareness potentially due to an unintentional flight into IMC.
2 axis autopilot for the automated recovery from unusual attitudes in an automated fashion as a backup in case of pilot error.
MFD to allow more situational awareness with terrain and traffic as well as weather.
More cargo capacity to carry water, backup communication and first aid supplies to reduce the need to activate more intrusive means of support during a forced landing due to mechanical issue, pilot error, or weather.
Carry additional food and shelter to allow for waiting out weather or other issues sometimes in areas that may require risky trips across mountain passes or risking scud running to an airport with services which can be 100's of miles away in the west.
Avoid the risks involved with solo hand starting of LSA eligible legacy aircraft like the J3 or Champ.
Gain the advantages of ADS-B anti-collision technology which is not available in LSA eligible legacy aircraft like the J3 or Champ
At 6'2" and 180# avoid LSA eligible aircraft like the 8A which frankly suffer from internal dimensions that make them unsafe for me to fly and also have extremely restricted visibility for tall pilots. Also unable to equip with ADS-B due to a lack of electrical.


I am not dismissing the desires or validity of those who wish to fly slightly larger or more complex aircraft without a 3rd class medical, this is just merely how I would exercise a increase in gross weight privileges.

My desire is to fly slow and low and to try to keep search and rescue at their base and ready to respond to more critical needs by being equipped and prepared in the best way possible or to mitigate the urgency of an event by being prepared to invoke a far less resource intensive investigation if an unfortunate incident happens.

I only wish to be for being prepared for the worst case and perhaps sharing the experience with friends or family with a greater safety margin. Sure I would love the ability to fly a SR22t or a Beaver, but I think that the current regs are only ~500# away from allowing far more safe engineering and safety equipment.

Let us not repeat the mistakes by copying number from the 150, which to be honest is also likely over gross weight with a student instructor and fuel but which is also at a design limit that makes it pretty soft and terrifying. Please consider ASTM Light Sport Aircraft Standards and almost a century of increase in knowledge. If the limitations are based on safety goals and engineering best practices it would be much easier for E-AB and LSA manufacturers to help improve the safety.

I am probably preaching to the choir here but gross weight may relate to kinetic energy, but the flight characteristics and energy dissipation matter more. Modern oleo struts and modern higher strength larger diameter tubing for crash cages can do a lot to help with a bad landing. But like EFI or single lever adjustable props they induce weight or go counter to regulations.

I am optimistic that the FAA is interested in working on these areas and the changes will be in the right direction. The complexity of modernizing the AME system is most likely a harder problem and unfortunately a typical GP isn't a super human and will always need to be conservative for medicals.

But outside of pilot error issues the main problem seems to be people trying to produce useful aircraft which are safe. In theory tools like AOA will help out with a significant number of accidents if pilots take the time to understand them but basing the max weight based on factors like the G forces experienced during a poor landing and ensuring those forces are well below the structural limits of the airplane and within safe acceleration speeds for humans would help address the structural issues. Actual hydraulic shocks would reduce airframe and human loads by ~300% and make a bounce back into the air less likely as an example but add ~15lbs or more to a taildraggers main gear and ~30lbs or more to a nosewheel and thus spring gear are far more common. This is ancient knowledge and obvious to anyone has flown a champ and a J3. But the deluxe struts that actually work on the EC champ are also what kick it past the 1320 limit.


Again I apologize for the length of this post, and it is all 100% opinion so take it with pounds and pounds of salt.

[bumsteer]

Just got an email from Avweb.com that states a "high ranking FAA source" has confirmed the FAA plans to almost triple the LSA weight limit to 3600 pounds in rulemaking to be introduced in January.

Rick

[tjentzsch]

I came across this today on reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/9m2p9q/faa_to_increase_light_sport_max_weight_to_3600lb/

[rv9ralph]

Here is a link to the AvWeb announcement: https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/LSA-Weight-Limit-Increasing-To-3600-Pounds-231639-1.html?ET=avweb:e4165:318225a:&st=email

While this is good news and may or may not change much in the Kitfox world, it would be great if they also change the regulation to allow inflight adjustable propellers.

Ralph

[nyrikki]

Just got an email from Avweb.com that states a "high ranking FAA source" has confirmed the FAA plans to almost triple the LSA weight limit to 3600 pounds in rulemaking to be introduced in January.

Rick

Wow, with the note that this is not yet even proposed, may not be the final rule and that people should start lobbying for it; this will be great if it does happen over the next few years.

I would still rather have a Kitfox than a 172, but it would be nice to use the design weight and bring a friend along from time to time.

Here is a link to the source article.


Baker invited Jack Pelton, EAA chairman and CEO, onto the stage. On Jan. 19, 2019, Pelton said, the FAA will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking that seeks to raise the weight limit for light sport aircraft from the current 1,320 pounds to 3,600 pounds. “That will allow you to fly in a 172, have four seats in the airplane, and fly 150 mph,” said Pelton, who also anticipates a rule change that would allow professional builders to construct experimental amateur-built aircraft. (https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/october/07/big-news-from-aopa-carbondale-fly-in)

[hamer]

Interesting to see that they will also allow professional builders to assemble home builts.

[BobRS]

John and Debra McBean need to design a 4-seat KF Plus-Up. I'd buy, build, and fly once the new regulations are enacted.
BobRS
KF 104Y, SS7, Rotax 914
Flying

[Nyfox56]

Hi, what does anyone think that if the LSA weight change is tripled or even doubled for that matter, what would happen to the value of the current light sports out there? Do you think the older smaller ones including the Luscombes and the like and experimentals will plunge in value? Do you think some of the current kit manufacturers would go out or adapt with bigger designs? And do you think the values of the 150s, 170s, 172s and their low wing counterparts will significantly rise?

I've recently been bitten by the Trent Palmer bug and have decided I'd like a folding wing bush plane like Kitfox later models 4 or above or the Highlander. I need to go LSA and need to be able to store in a trailer plus I'm a 6'2 200 pounder and need a decent useful load weight. Should I wait to buy something?

[GuppyWN]

You’re assuming the rules will change sooner rather than later. What if they don’t change? Then you’ve waited X years and still don’t have an airplane.

If you want an airplane, buy an airplane.

[Av8r3400]

Buzz-Kill...

Keep in mind this isn't even an oficial proposal at this point, it's still nothing more than a glorified rumor. There will need to be a lot of water flow under the bridge before this can happen.

As I have stated before, this has been a rumor for ever. At least since LSA was first announced. At this point with Basic Med, there really is little or no reason to make such a broad sweeping change to the rules. The Bureaucracy of the FAA has many more, higher priority, things on their plate.


I will believe it when it happens.

[av8rps]

I do think the FAA needs to make some changes to the light sport rule. Because I was personally involved with the team that created Light Soort, I learned firsthand from them that this was just the starting point, and that there would be changes if the Light Sport Rule proved safe and effective.

So in many ways getting changes we want is up to all of us. We just have to prove we can be safe and responsible. And overall I think we have done a pretty good job with that. But we also need to communicate with them what changes WE want.

The FAA really does want to improve participation into aviation, in spite of what others may think. And the Light Sport Rule makes entry into aviation a lot easier. Unfortunately most FBO's haven't embraced it (for a multitude of reasons, many of which I can appreciate), so I believe the FAA might be trying to make it more widely accepted, so as to bring in some more pilots. Including most of the current heavier and more complex GA light aircraft would certainly do that. Plus it would keep more people flying that otherwise might just give it up.

Our pilot populations are dwindling. At the rate we are going there could come that day when the FAA won't have any of us to regulate ;) So write your comments to both the FAA and to your congressman. Tell them what we want to see with the changes to the rule. It is their job to makes laws (or rule changes) the citizens want. That's how America is supposed to work. Unfortunagely Americans either don't understand that, or they just don't take the time to do so. Or maybe a little of both?

Oh, and on the subject of what will happen to companies like Kitfox if the weights and capabilities for Light Sport get significantly increased? Remember, in the early to mid 80's when Avid and Kitfox were the best selling aircraft in America, there was no Light Sport Rule. Heck, there wasn't even the Recreational Pilot license yet. That all came years later. Yet people bought Avid and Kitfox aircraft as fast as they could make them. So I wouldn't worry much about what changes to the rule will do to our beloved aircraft. There are a lot of reasons people will continue to buy them.

I believe our planes will go down in history much like the J-3 Cub has. The Cub sold for decades and decades before it was even qualified and/or affected by the Light Sport rule. And today the Cub design is still one of the most desired designs in both LSA as well as out of the LSA category. Ironically, so is the Kitfox.

It's hard to kill a great design, regardless of the rules...

[WWhunter]

[QUOTE=GuppyWN;78416 If you want an airplane, buy an airplane.
[/QUOTE]


No better way to say it!! I am lucky in the fact that I have had owned at least two airplanes at a time for the past decade or more. I went the LSA route patiently waiting for the rules to change. Took many years before the Basic Med was signed into law. Many guys sat on the fence waiting for it. All those years they sat on their duffs waiting for it to happen when I was out flying.

As Av8r3400 mentions, this is just proposed, what comes out in the end might not be anywhere close to what is proposed. Look what happened with the Basic Med!! Started out as a basic, use your drivers license as a medical. Ended up being just slightly better than having to get a 3rd class. Still have nearly all the same rules, just shifts the responsibly to your Doc of choice verses an AME.


If you keep waiting around until the rules fit you, you will grow old with many regrets. Just go buy something you can fly now and worry about any financial loss/gain when the time comes. I have met too many older (than me) people that complain about the dreams lost. Don't be one of those!!

[aviator79]

At this point with Basic Med, there really is little or no reason to make such a broad sweeping change to the rules.

I agree with this. The problem is not the light sport weight limit. I assume, based on the very tiny fraction of pilots that hold Light Sport certificates, that the majority of pilots exercising light sport privileges are certified as private pilots or higher, but don't want to get a medical. BasicMed partially fixed this, but it's still pretty onerous, and still requires a 3rd class exam at least once. Medical certification is the problem that Light Sport is mitigating, and it's where the FAA should direct its attention instead of revising the light sport definition.

This won't happen though. It's a much harder sell in Washington to say you want to relax medical certification requirements. It's too easy to paint a picture of little planes raining out of the sky as pilots suffer heart attacks that somehow could have been prevented if they'd seen a government doctor 5 years ago. A mundane change to some airplane definition in 14 CFR 1.1 tends to raise fewer eyebrows. And then there's the fact that after years and years of EAA and AOPA effort, we got BasicMed. I don't think anyone in Washington wants to revisit the topic soon.

[fastfred]

If they are worried about safety the FAA should work on making radio use mandatory. In the past year I have been in 3 instances where no radio was a safety factor , 4 if you count the para backpacker flying around the runway at dark. I couldn't see him until I got below the horizon on final Luckily we have an RC club on the field with a radio and they alerted me to his presence.
But they are worried about 2 hundred extra pounds make no sense.

[av8rps]

Remember, all of the medical related accident statistics pre LSA and Basic Med were of pilots having medical related accidents WITH a FAA Approved physical. That was one of the biggest points used to justify no medical in the LSA rule. Those statistics basically prove that a flight physical doesn't stop many medical related accidents, as we are all ticking time bombs from a medical perspective. You can be fine the day of your physical, and die of a heart attack the next day.

[Av8r3400]

Link (https://generalaviationnews.com/2018/10/29/the-real-story-behind-the-proposed-changes-to-lsa/?fbclid=IwAR05ew2INSaJNODJuuuRqrH4MoNw_XP6EVF9JZEl 2rCo22brLR4ms6I83_o)


Rumor control...

[jrevens]

A dose of reality... thanks Larry. I'd bet that we will see a more realistic weight increase for the category, but it won't happen real quick.

[David47]

That same rumour made its way across the Pacific to Australia as well. Got some people very excited. Then out came the Fireman's hose .... and washed poor ipsy wipsy rumour clean down the toilet .... but it will be very interesting to see how the FAA formulate that weight increase process ....

[rdooley79]

In my brain it stands to reason that the FAA will choose an existing certified airplane, like a Cessna 152 (1670gw) and set that as the number. It's not a whole lot more than the existing limit. The Cessna 152 is a little light airplane and as such should be available to a sport pilot, vfr, fair weather flyer.

[Av8r3400]

The gist of what the article says is that what they are hearing is it will not be a set weight for LSA in the future. It will be a calculation of weight, speed, seating capacity and other factors to determine if a particular airframe qualifies.


Nothing like inserting Government complexity where it isn't needed.