Weight penalty for Balistic Parachutes in LSA's, or not!

[c162pilot]

I saw the following on another board and am wondering if it is true:

Below is an answer in response to a question on why many LSA's have balistic parachutes.

"Part of the answer is that there is no weight penalty for adding a BRS. In other words the max gross weight of the LSA limited by regulation does not include safety items."

This is new news to me and was looking for verification.

[cogito]

From FAR 1.1:

Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:

(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than--

(i) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on water; or
(ii) 1,430 pounds (650 kilograms) for an aircraft intended for operation on water.

I have a parachute on my plane, but still have to come in at 1320 lbs. I'd love to be wrong on this one, though.

[drseti]

The only thing I find in the FARs that exempts any LSA from the 1320 pound max gross weight is the increase to 1430 pounds allowed for seaplanes. The folks developing the Terrafugia Transition ("flying car") used that reg as the basis for requesting, and receiving, an authorization for an increase to 1430, on the grounds that, like an amphibian aircraft, theirs was intended to operate in two different environments. They argued that the exemption was required to meet highway safety requirements, not add aviation safety equipment. Terrafugia did ultimately receive an exemption from NHTSA regarding some safety features normally required in automobiles, but no additional concessions from the FAA. Their gross weight increase had nothing whatever to do with the weight of any required aviation safety equipment. I can't find a weight exemption for safety equipment anywhere in the regs. In short, I disbelieve.

[dstclair]

The original draft MTOW was 575kg but many accounts of the process mention that it increased for safety purposes to the present standard of 600kg. This was to take into account chutes, air bag seat belts, etc. The draft is why the Evektor SportStar was designed for 575kg.

Dont think the FAA is going to give us more weight for the same reasons. I'd love to be wrong, though.

[roger lee]

For the Flight Design the BRS is an extra 30 lbs on the empty weight. All chutes on LSA's are counted in the weight.

[Jim Stewart]

I think that someone confused FAR Part 103 ultralights with Light sport. The Part 103 ultralights are allowed safety equipment that doesn't count against their maximum weight:

FAR Part 103 (e) (1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation;

[c162pilot]

Jim, thank you for clarifying, my speculation is this is where the confusion came from.

However this begs the question, what sort of herculean effort would be required to get the FAA to adjust the sport pilot regulations to read the same way. Clearly it is in the best interest of all to be able to add more safety equipment such as AMSafe aviation airbags or BRS chutes. Reduction in injuries would reduce claims and result in lower liability and lower insurance premiums for both the airplane manufacturer and owner.

[drseti]

what sort of herculean effort would be required to get the FAA to adjust the sport pilot regulations to read the same way.

I strongly doubt that will ever happen. Remember, the Part 103 restriction is on empty weight; safety add-ons are considered not to alter that. AFAIK, the FAA puts no gross weight limit on ultralights.

The LSA limit, OTOH, is on gross weight, another matter altogether. So, you can add all the parachutes you want to the empty weight without needing their approval -- the gross weight limit stays at 1320.

But, perhaps I'm just a pessimist...