Part 23 rewrite and LSA's

Constructive topics of interest related to aviation that do not match the other section descriptions below (as long as it is somewhat related to aviation, flying, learning to fly, sport pilot, light sport aircraft, etc.). Please, advertisements for Viagra will be promptly deleted!"

Moderator: drseti

User avatar
foresterpoole
Posts: 307
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:28 pm
Location: Alexandria, LA

Part 23 rewrite and LSA's

Post by foresterpoole »

OK, here is a general topic that came up when I was talking with a bunch of friends this week: With the Part 23 rewrite and Medical Reform, are we seeing the death nails in the LSA coffin? Ready, set, start the argument!
Ed
pjdavis
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:56 pm
Location: Freeland, MD

Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's

Post by pjdavis »

I have read many opinions on this. As a student pilot flying a little luxury machine and reading watching this forum is guess we all have are thoughts. Ed and I are both students with hopes of one day owning our own airplanes. I read the view that seems to be a popular one....having a PPl gives you many options on older model airplanes at sub six figure prices. Many late model LSA's are quite pricey. I began this endeavour with the thought of building my own airplane. 5 years ago I began the process of building a replica 65 Shelby Cobra from a bare frame up. Every nut and bolt, wire, body work, 2 stage paint, etc was done by me. So I feel very confident that I can build a good kit airplane. But in reality the money, nice options and time required is a big undertaking....especially with 3 recently hyperactive ruptured discs. Which at this point makes building one a vague option for me as don't feel I would save much money. My problem is when I switched from PPL to SP I began flying a Bristell NG5. That is like shopping for a new car in a moderate price range and test driving a new Porsche first! Everything else is....you know. But this could help the LSA market adjust in price. Recent example - the Arion Lightning. Their SLSA was $119.000. Now I see they are offering it complete with decent equipment at $100,000.00. So maybe that is something other manufacturers will take note of.

My kids are adults now, I am single, so I don't see taking family trips in my airplane - so a 2 seater works for me. But the biggest draw i see to an LSA is 5 gph! a Rotax with a 2000 hour life span! Seems fairly cheap compared to a 172.

Just thoughts from a wet behind the ears student. Guys like Eyeflygps have much more wisdom than I do! So let's see where the discussion leads.

I will be at Sebring next week as I am going to South Florida Monday for my father's 89th B-Day. I from so while there I will be at the expo Wednesday & thursday.

PJ
pjdavis
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:56 pm
Location: Freeland, MD

Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's

Post by pjdavis »

1
roger lee
Posts: 807
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 11:47 am
Location: Tucson, Az. Ryan Airfield (KRYN)

Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's

Post by roger lee »

No. Most aren't into the LSA market just because of their medical. Some are because that can't pass one and some are because they don't want to mess with it. Then there are many other reasons to be in LSA. many LSA pilots still have their private.
Many experts think it will only be a small group that may go the other way.
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
LSRM-A, Rotax Instructor & Rotax IRC
(520) 574-1080 (Home) Try Home First.
(520) 349-7056 (Cell)
acensor
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: ASHLAND, OR 97520

Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's

Post by acensor »

Don't know about "death" of LSA and light sport...... but it has to hurt the LSA market.

I personally know some older private pilots who were considering selling their standard category aircraft and purchasing an LSA, and held off waiting to see if the less onerous revised medical standard (BasicMed) went through. Now that they can fly under the more-liberal-than-Sport-Pilot BasicMed rules in their existing aircraft they are not shopping for an LSA.

I don't know that there are any statistics available, but I don't see how it can be denied that a major part of the market for LSA's was/is driven by private pilots wanting to minimize dealing with the every two years conventional aeromedical exam.

I am fairly confident that prices on used LSAs will decrease (less buyers) as we approach and pass May 2017 decrease further and the purchase of new LSAs go down.


My four cents (the dollar was recently devalued....two cents doesn't cut it :wink: )
This message sent with 100% post-consumer recycled electrons
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's

Post by MrMorden »

Part 23 is not LSA rules, and the FAA still does not allow certified airplane companies to just approve changes like they do with ASTM-compliant LSA manufacturers.

Some of the market is tied to medical issues. If you read the new PBOR2 rules, many guys that were hoping for relief (especially cardiac patients) are still going to be required to get an SI to fly under the new rules, which doesn't help them at all. Some can't pass the SI process, and some are afraid to try. After all, if your SI is denied now you can't even fly Sport Pilot. I think the LSA market will remain healthy for a while.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
3Dreaming
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's

Post by 3Dreaming »

I see the possibility for some wonderful improvements to LSA (Light Sport Aircraft, not sport pilots) with the part 23 rewrite. I think many of the new LSA with airworthiness certificates in the light sport category can stand on their own merit. They are great little airplanes for private individuals who want a new airplane to fly, but don't want to drop $300,000 plus.

With the part 23 rewrite I would expect to see a few of these designs to seek certification under the new rules. This would make the airplanes more marketable. There are many commercial operations that are not allowed for a SLSA, but are allowed under standard category. Having around 5,000 hours flying pipeline patrol I think they would make a wonderful patrol airplane. Some of the designs like the CT make a wonderful aerial photography platform. They could be used for some of the operations that drones are being used for. Just because they re-certify under part 23 doesn't mean that they are no longer LSA, as long as they don't excede any of the requirements of the CFR 1.1 definition.

While no longer LSA I also see the possibility for some of the SLSA designs making the move to part 23 with increased gross weights. I see this as being advantageous for airplanes that are over built and are lacking in useful load, like the CTLSi and Tecnam P2008. For a private pilot these airplanes would be much more attractive with a 180-200 pound increase in useful load.

Without have read the rules as they apply to gyroplanes it may offer manufacturers a way to now offer a completed turnkey product for gyroplane LSA.
MackAttack
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:22 pm

Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's

Post by MackAttack »

I agree - I think you will see some LSA companies (Tecnam, Cubcrafters) who make "heavy" LSAs will go ahead and use the consensus standards to certify these aircraft under the new Part 23 rules, which will not only provide a significant useful load increase, but will also allow them to add constant-speed propellers and avoid the 120 knot speed limit. Many of them (such as the Bristell, Tecnam P2008 and Astore) can easily hit or even exceed 130 knots if they had a CS prop. When you combine that with the low operating costs, fuel economy and low prices (relative to 4-5 place standard category certified aircraft), I see a pretty vibrant market continuing for these aircraft even if they wind up having Part 23 siblings.

I am one of those "medical-challenged" light sport pilots with a PPL who could probably get a medical or an SI but just don't (yet) want the hassle of going through it, when combined with a risk of being denied...

Just my two cents - it will be an interesting few years however!
Helen
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:00 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's

Post by Helen »

Nope, but it will be changing. As soon as the dust has settled on medical reform AOPA and EAA plan a joint petition to raise the LSA gross weight to 1700 which would include C152s and many of the traditional 2 place trainers.

BTW, don't know if anyone else noticed, but one of the executive orders that Trump signed on Friday was to halt any new regulations finalized in the last 60 days until they could be reviewed by his people. I presume that will include bot the part 23 rewrite and medical reform.

Helen
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Helen Woods
Chesapeake Sport Pilot
Quality Flight Training, Rentals, and Service
Factory Authorized RV-12 Training and Service Center
http://www.chesapeakesportpilot.com
acensor
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: ASHLAND, OR 97520

Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's

Post by acensor »

Helen,
as best I can read it the order Trump signed doesn't cancel, just DELAYS for 60 days, recently instituted executive orders.
Sounds like if they don't read and attempt to reverse any particular order it would then automatically continue.
And anyhow BasicMed, as you know, isn't scheduled to go live until May 1st so 60 day delay would mean nothing.
The medical reform was passed strongly bipartisanly... including sponsorship by some die-hard rather extreme (my personal opinion) republicans of Trump-like affinities. Given that, and given that the reform arguably is flavored in the direction of less, not more, government restriction, and that the Trumpists would have things they consider far hotter targets, I'd be very surprised if they pounced on it.
OTOH.... whatever you think of him, not many would describe Trump of being highly consistent or predictable :roll: ...so 'tis something to note and watch for. :?
This message sent with 100% post-consumer recycled electrons
acensor
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: ASHLAND, OR 97520

Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's

Post by acensor »

Even if the sport pilot rule for legal-to-fly under sport pilot rules the MTOW was raised to 1700 lbs, wouldn't the 152 be still locked out?

AFAIK to fly any aircraft under sport pilot certificate or sport pilot rules with a PP certificate it has to OFFICIALLY stall at 45mph or less, but the 172 officially stalls at 48mph.
This message sent with 100% post-consumer recycled electrons
User avatar
Warmi
Posts: 1230
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Frankfort, IL

Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's

Post by Warmi »

I think allowing safety equipment like BRS ( up to a certain weight, off course ) , to be excluded from the 1320 total limit, would be a reasonable step that would not required changes to any other regulations.
Flying Sting S4 ( N184WA ) out of Illinois
3Dreaming
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's

Post by 3Dreaming »

eyeflygps wrote:If the definition of LSA was changed, it would probably have to include several things including MTOW and stall speeds. Then, if you want a Sport Pilot to be able to fly one, you would have to change the Sport Pilot privileges and limitations to match. I really think the FAA has done all they need to do or should do with the PBORII. If people want to fly something that exceeds the limitations of LSA, go get a medical and a Private.
If they changed the definition of a LSA there would be no need to change the Sport Pilot limitations, because it simply says, "If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft".

I think a better way of approaching change for those wanting to include aircraft with a higher gross weight is to change the sport pilot limitations instead of changing the LSA definition.

They could add something like this, Additional sport pilot limitations: A sport pilot may fly a aircraft with a gross weight of up to 1700 pounds that otherwise meets the definition of a light sport aircraft, by complying with the requirements of basicMed.
User avatar
MrMorden
Posts: 2184
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's

Post by MrMorden »

Warmi wrote:I think allowing safety equipment like BRS ( up to a certain weight, off course ) , to be excluded from the 1320 total limit, would be a reasonable step that would not required changes to any other regulations.
FAA's stance on that is that that weight allowance is "already baked in." The original LSA rules called for max gross weights of ~1150, then ~1250. The final rule at 1320lb was set there for two reasons:

1) It matches a 600kg (1323lb) microlight class that exists in Europe and Canada.

2) EAA petitioned for a parachute exemption like the Part 103 rules have, but they cleverly said "we'd rather have is as just a weight increase than an exemption." So that allows LSA without BRS to make use of the weight as they see fit.

I agree the LSA limit is pretty low and should be higher, but I also understand the history of how we got here and what a huge victory it was to get to 1320lb from 254lb in Part 103.
Andy Walker
Athens, GA
Sport Pilot ASEL, LSRI
2007 Flight Design CTSW E-LSA
User avatar
Warmi
Posts: 1230
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Frankfort, IL

Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's

Post by Warmi »

On interesting thing about LSA weight limits, I wasn't aware of, is the fact that in addition to a gross weight ( 1320 lbs ), there is also a maximum empty weight limit for SLSA.

I was inquiring about BRS equipped Arion Lighting and was told that due to that LSA max empty limit, they cannot install BRS on the LSA version and the way to solve it would be have them factory build E-LSA, identical to the LSA version, but equipped with BRS - to me this sounds just like six of one, half a dozen of the other type of difference - waste of everybody's time due to overly bureaucratic rules.

Anyway, on a related note - is it true that if one is flying E-LSA , it is required to ident as experimental when talking to a tower ?
Flying Sting S4 ( N184WA ) out of Illinois
Post Reply