light sport IFR

[MrMorden]

Having waded thru 8 pasted of this I'm surprised at the level of interest and energy demonstrated, give the issue is probably irrelevant to 99+% of forum members. Hope this same amount of energy is demonstrated when the FAA issues the medical rule proposal.

The medical issue is irrelevant to those who want to attain and/or remain as sport pilots. And to those able to pass the 3rd class medical.

Many Sport Pilots are Sport Pilots because they could not become PPs. And it only doesn't matter to those who can (currently) pass a 3rd class medical if they intend to never age and never get sick.

This issue affects almost all recreational pilots, eventually.

[MovingOn]

.......

[drseti]

This issue affects almost all recreational pilots, eventually.

I'm inclined to agree. We all, whether Private, Commercial, or Airline Transport Pilots, are just one FAA medical away from becoming ex-pilots -- or one skipped medical exam away from becoming, effectively, Sport Pilots. Your choice. I think most, if generally healthy, would choose the latter.

[MovingOn]

.......

[drseti]

And now that each of us has had his or her say, dear friends, I suggest we get back to the original topic. (Thanks, all, for your participation, patience, and restraint.)

[CTLSi]

......

[drseti]

It's unfair and arbitrary that LSA aircraft cannot be used just the same as a used Cessna 172 for such use and training.

As far as use is concerned, yes, it does seem arbitrary. As for training, there are no restrictions. As a CFII, I routinely give instrument training in an LSA. I just have to do it in VMC, and can't actually file an IFR flight plan. But, remember, there is no training requirement for either of those; one can (and often does) get an instrument rating without ever having seen the inside of a cloud. (The inside of a hood is considered close enough.) And the student can simulate filing IFR just by preparing a flight plan, and flying it with me playing the role of ATC.

[3Dreaming]

I'd like to see the ASTM lift their dumb ban on IFR for LSA... And since the FAA hasn't followed up with a like ban... the ASTM has taken on the unenviable position of hindering the light sport mission. After all, does a pair of extra seats suddenly create an IMC beast?

Flight Design only put their limit of 'no flight into IMC' in order to not run afoul of ASTM. If ASTM lifted their ban, then FD could remove that limit.

It's unfair and arbitrary that LSA aircraft cannot be used just the same as a used Cessna 172 for such use and training.

There were a couple accident/incidents with LSA being flown in IMC. If the ASTM didn't take action the ban would have come from the FAA. Flying IFR is not what the FAA intended when they created sport pilot and light sport aircraft.

[3Dreaming]

It's unfair and arbitrary that LSA aircraft cannot be used just the same as a used Cessna 172 for such use and training.

As far as use is concerned, yes, it does seem arbitrary. As for training, there are no restrictions. As a CFII, I routinely give instrument training in an LSA. I just have to do it in VMC, and can't actually file an IFR flight plan. But, remember, there is no training requirement for either of those; one can (and often does) get an instrument rating without ever having seen the inside of a cloud. (The inside of a hood is considered close enough.) And the student can simulate filing IFR just by preparing a flight plan, and flying it with me playing the role of ATC.

All of the flight training can be done under visual flight rules except the required 250nm cross country. For it you must file a flight plan with ATC and make the cross country under instrument flight rules.

[drseti]

Tom, I guess you're referring to 61.65(d)(2)(ii), which says:

(ii) Instrument flight training on cross country flight procedures, including one cross country flight in an airplane with an authorized instructor, that is performed under instrument flight rules, when a flight plan has been filed with an air traffic control facility, and that involves—

Now, i'm not necessarily advocating this, but "when a flight plan has been filed" doesn't say anything about it being an IFR flight plan. One could file a VFR flight plan. There is no stated requirement that the flight plan even be activated - merely filed. So, it boils down to what is meant by "performed under instrument flight rules."

The purpose of that requirement is to ensure that the student has experience and familiarity with those rules. If one interprets that as adhering to all the procedures that would be followed under an IFR flight plan, does ATC even need to be involved in the process? Cannot the student and instructor simulate the IFR procedures, without actually filing IFR or accepting an IFR clearance, and all the while maintaining VFR?

[dstclair]

The Sting is now certified for VFR/VMC or IFR/VMC flight conditions only. Special IFR IMC operation may be issued by the factory on an airframe by airframe basis with appropriate limitations, restrictions and documentation.

Flight conditions for an S-LSA depend heavily on the operating limitations. The above are for my Sting S3 which clearly state that I'm certified for IFR operations in VMC conditions. Of course, I have to satisfy 91.205 as well and be appropriately rated/current.

Also note that there is a path for IMC as well.

[CTLSi]

......

[dstclair]

No path for IMC unless Sting wants to defy the ASTM.

ASTM ban on IMC only applies to those S-LSA manufactured after circa 2010 which does not impact my particular plane.

[MovingOn]

.......

[drseti]

I have no doubt whatever that was the intent, MO. But, is it stated explicitly?