Sport Pilot Talk

dstclair · Joined: 06 Mar 2008 Posts: 212 Location: Allen, TX

http://aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=d2e62bbf-2c80-4def-a4c7-4b92d756b7a0

Hard to say if this is good or bad thing. We don't want manufacturers not following the standards but also don't want the overhead of the FAA on the industry. Hopefully this isn't a trend.

jake · Joined: 25 Oct 2009 Posts: 80 Location: minnesota

I have seen alot of the LSAs but have not seen a storch. Cant be too many out there.
I agree with Dave, hope the FAA does not get too heavy handed but I have seen a few things on some LSAs that are questionable in my opinion.

Looks to me like LAMA is not doing much and the FAA has decided to step in as they said they would if we didnt do a good job within. LAMA is made up of many LSA manufacturer and industry representatives and this is not really the right group to critique the rest of their competition.

Jake

Jim Stewart · Joined: 12 Oct 2006 Posts: 259

I wonder if there may be some Cessna politics behind this. The 162 is just ramping up and you can bet that Cessna has dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's with their compliance. They might have subtly asked the FAA to level the playing field. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

FastEddieB · Joined: 07 Jan 2009 Posts: 207 Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Its not clear to me from the language in the article what this would mean to any currently certified Storch's out there.

It uses the word "rescind" and "grounded", but does not say current airworthiness certificates are revoked, that I can see.

This may not bode well. My 3i Sky Arrow is a wonderful, fun little plane, but the manufacturer is on the ropes and not currently producing aircraft. I don't see how they could hope to pass any audit.

My impression was that converting my plane to Experimental, which I did almost two years ago, made me immune from some of this stuff. It was one of a few reasons I did so. I thought as soon as I was Experimental, I became more like a homebuilt, since I could from that point on make changes that would remove my plane from compliance anyway.

As you guys get clarification, please let me know. Having entire fleets grounded if and when their manufacturers fail becomes a huge Sword of Damocles over the entire Light Sport Arena.

Jack Tyler · Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:15 am Post subject:

The ANN 'news' strikes me as an attempt to make a consistent, unfolding event - one that's hardly 'late breaking' news - sound like it's published by a cutting edge GA website with crack reporters. (Isn't this often how bloggers & small website owners operate, trying to attract readership that justify ads that generate revenue?) But this 'news' is just an unfolding, previously announced series of steps by the FAA to follow-up on specific LSA manufacturing facilities, quality systems and other ASTM standards issues that the industry itself chooses to ignore.

For those who haven't, I again recommend you read the full 2010 FAA report summarizing their findings after surveying a mix of 30 domestic LSA manufacturers. As AvWeb summarized it: "The FAA team found that most of the 30 LSA facilities they visited couldn't fully support their assertion that their aircraft meet industry consensus standards. "

The nicely organized, full report is here:
http://www.avweb.com/pdf/lsama-final-report_2010-04-14.pdf
An 'Exec Summary' which self-appointed LSA publicity flack & LAMA President Dan Johnson has subsequently pulled from his SPLOG list, can be found here:
http://www.bydanjohnson.com/index.cfm?b=6&m=4&i=10

You would think that those who have the greatest vested interest should care the most about the safety of LSA a/c, their pilots & passengers, and that they would be first in line to improve & protect the rep of their own industry. Instead, the tendency is for LSA promoters and 'journalists' to talk darkly about the heavy hand of the FAA instead of smelling the coffee. E.g. here's the lead-in sentence in what Dan Johnson wrote which replaced his original Exec Summary of the 2010 FAA LSA Review:
"Recent government actions cast a shadow over the freedom enjoyed by the LSA community."

This shadow is in reality being cast by a number relatively small LSA manufacturers, presumably in the EU as well as the USA, and by the LSA industry as a whole. And in the absence of adequate industry self-governance, the LSA-authorizing aviation entity in the U.S. -the court of last resort - chooses to step in. It's too bad this 'shadow' wasn't being cast before multiple Zodiac 601 crews were killed and the design was more fully reviewed and beefed up.

There are some great LSA a/c out there. Why wouldn't their manufacturers and dealers want the clean up their own house?

roger lee · Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:21 am Post subject: Cleaning their own house

Hi Jack,

It's all driven by money on the Mfg end. They want to produce a product at the lowest price, but maximize product. They are in it to turn a dollar. The only one that would want to do it out of the goodness of their heart was someone doing it for free. It cost money to change designs and sometimes big money. It cost money for the initial research and approvals.

I'm with you and believe they should do everything on their own initiative to help the owners, but that isn't how many companies work.

dstclair · Joined: 06 Mar 2008 Posts: 212 Location: Allen, TX

As Jack stated this isn't really a new action but results of an in depth audit of a subset of the LSA manufacturers performed over a year ago. I don't believe the companies that produce products that adhere to multiple government standards will be significantly affected. Several companies have designs that meet standards in Europe, UK, Australia and South Africa. This typically means that they have a repeatable process that produces substantially the same conforming product each time. If they only produced one-offs, then it would be difficult to be profitable.

The Storch looks like a small operation and was probably unable to produce documentation that gave assurance that all of the produced products adhered to the standard. I'm sure there are several other smaller players with the same challenges. The FAA loves to see mounds of paperwork that support standards/regs. Not necessarily a bad thing.

One of the areas of the report that needed improvement across the industry was in the area of Safety Alerts. IMHO several manufacturers have established good processes. Case in point: my S3 has a GRS ballistic chute and two years ago the manufacturer (Galaxy) determined that a handful of chutes were not appropriately sign-off by their internal QA. this was discovered during their own internal audit. It also didn't mean QA was not performed, just that specific serial numbers did not have the appropriate paperwork. Some of the chutes ended up in Stings. TL-Ultralight and SportAir tied the serial numbers to planes and owners. SB was put on the website, email and phone call to owners for notification. Replacement was at no cost (other than travel) and the new chutes have a longer life. SportAir actually mounted my chute on a trailer, pulled it down a taxiway and fired the rocket off. There's a video on the SportAir website.

Point of the example is the complete traceability from component, to specific aircraft to owner. I'm confident that the larger players in this space have similar processes in place.

Jack Tyler · Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:20 pm Post subject:

Excellent example, Dave.

Dave's example is a perfect illustration of why 'paperwork' matters, why the FAA - or any auditing process, internal or external - focuses on it, and it also illustrates how it serves the manufacturer's interests as well as the customer's. Well-documented manufacturing processes, with appropriate levels of documented QC, allow for cost-effective problem-fixing by the manufacturer when needed...and every manufactured product is going to have some level of failure, most especially labor intensive (aka: 'man-made') products like aircraft.

Roger, you kinda lost me. I'm not sure how your point - news flash: manufacturers are profit-motivated - relates to mine, but of course you are correct. OTOH that reality should fuel the industry's profit-motivated 'good builders' to hold accountable the 'weak ones'. There are long-standing, well regarded Quality Assessment companies that know how to select & train a broad-based audit team and design a clean audit system. Why wouldn't the Flight Design, Vans, Tecnam, Remos, Cessna and other more successful (and manufacturing-wise, more respectable) U.S. distributors and manufacturers band together, establish a credible, independent LSA 'Audit to Standards' process, and propose it as 'the QA norm' for all LSA mfgrs? No doubt expense is one reason...but it seems pretty clear that they would be (or at least, would have been) far better off to create their own audit system rather than leave the FAA, after all it's hints that things were too loose and self-policing wasn't happening, to decide for them what makes sense. I suspect another reason this didn't - and won't - happen is that these companies are in reality quite small, their few senior managers are unfamiliar with the practices in larger and/or more high-tech operations, and/or they simply felt they could ignore 'best manufacturing practices' and wing it.

I don't for a minute think the solution is LAMA, which from everything I read is a self-appointed, small cadre of individuals who in most cases represent discrete products and services and has no inherent skill sets or previous experience in standards auditing or process engineering. (This is why their announced intent is to hire Embry Riddle to conduct the audits themselves). LAMA's own industry has shunned its proposal to date. Perhaps now some LSA mfgrs. are thinking 'better the devil you know...'

On the flip side, watching this fledgling industry emerge and shape-shift as it deals with the various economic, marketplace and regulatory factors really is a pretty interesting drama. And in the end, the 'better' products are going to survive - and as the economy adjusts over the next 3-5 years, possibly thrive - for the same financial incentive that Roger mentioned earlier. People like to fly, old a/c are only getting older, and LSA a/c are some of the most affordable a/c to be flown. Here's a cheery fact: There used to be pilots who's sole job was to ferry manufactured a/c from a manufacturing site to dealers all across the country. Full-time company jobs, too. Perhaps some day...

RyanShort1 · Joined: 17 Aug 2010 Posts: 101 Location: San Antonio, TX

IF this is a trend being started, its not good.

I for one did not even know about that little Storch LSA. That's actually a neat looking bird. Maybe they'll get their act together and meet the FAA's requirements. I'd be interested in flying on of those.

Ryan

seastar · Joined: 27 Oct 2008 Posts: 63

One of the reasons I bought a Cubcrafters Carbon Cub was they are built in a factory alongside FAA certificated models .
Cubcrafters uses the same FAA approved QA system for all of their airplanes.
I just received a "safety alert" from Cubcrafters about a minor issue so I know the system is working.
The Carbon Cub is probably the most expensive LSA (I paid over $210, 000 for mine) and that is reflected in the QA standards and the fact it is built in the USA.
I think I got more than my moneys worth.
Bill