Weight Increase for LSA

dstclair · Post by **dstclair** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:09 am

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/We ... 054-1.html

Interesting development. But like the waiver on the 3rd class medical for flying with Recreational Pilot privileges, this could take years (if it happens at all).

RyanShort1 · Post by **RyanShort1** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:42 pm

I don't know. If there's enough political will for the change it could happen. For one I'm thinking Icon would certainly benefit from something like this.

Ryan

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:31 pm

I was at Hightower's talk last night, and I think AvWeb has stretched his remarks somewhat -- I'd call their writeup wishful thinking. Regardless of EAA's position (or FAA's reaction to it), I can tell you that there are over a hundred LSA manufacturers who would fight to the death any proposal to raise the LSA weight limit above 1320, after having committed all of their resources (and in some cases beyond) to developing, producing, and marketing planes within that limitation. Such a revision would spell the end of the LSA industry, IMHO.

zaitcev · Post by **zaitcev** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:18 pm

What about LSA manufacturers like Jabiru who design for the world market of 750 kg and then file corners down to 600 kg? There is also Champ and the like, which clearly is stuffed under the 600 kg with some tension. The 600 kg is the Euro thing, but even those guys have models in 750 kg class.

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:27 pm

zaitcev wrote:There is also Champ and the like, which clearly is stuffed under the 600 kg with some tension.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that, Pete. The Champ I started in (a 1946 7AC) had a max gross weight of 1220#, which fit very easily into the existing LSA limit (no tension there at all).

Jack Tyler · Post by **Jack Tyler** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:36 am

Pete, I think the A to your Q is that, while there are models from Brazil and Oz which are built to larger gross weight standards, they don't have a predominant presence in the largest 1320# GW marketplace (the USA). I don't know about it destroying the LSA industry here...but I agree with Paul that any such fundamental change in the 'rules everyone came to play by' would be strongly resisted because of it being viewed as both unfair and destructive.

And FWIW even in Australia, where Jabirus are built, most microlights are flown to a gross weight limit under 1320# and the owners were in 2011 hoping it would be increased to our (USA's) GW limit. So we actually have it pretty good here already, which is something I'm sure the FAA is aware of.

dstclair · Post by **dstclair** » Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:46 pm

Update from EAA and AOPA: http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/LS ... 063-1.html

interesting points:

The exemption proposal for the 3rd class medical is delayed until the new FAA administrator is selected
The potential weight increase may be a bone thrown to the LSA manufacturers to compensate for blind-siding them on the above proposal
Weight increase may be only for specific installed safety equipment like a chute

I do think the weight increase would be a good thing for the industry as a whole. Several could increase MTOW today without design change since the 1320lbs is a paper limitation, not a design constraint. I would see them fighting tooth and nail if the increase was not tied to safety equipment and brought in aircraft like the 150/152.

Still looks like years away.

Doss79 · Post by **Doss79** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:41 pm

I think you're setting yourself up for failure if you only cater to a very specific set of rules in the aviation marketplace. If I'm a business owner and I want to manufacture light sport aircraft for the next 20-50 years or so, you have to realize that there are going to be some game changers along the way, specifically things like weight increases. A good business adapts to the changing market and the fluid set of rules. Piper developed several variants of the Cub over the years. Why can't today's LSA makers adapt and refine their aircraft like other companies have done in the past?

I don't see how the weight increase would hurt the manufacturers--it will allow them to possibly sell even more aircraft since you can fit more "stuff" (that includes fatter people) into the aircraft and make it more practical--maybe, just maybe, some of those 100k planes would be worthwhile after all. Due to recent studies, we already know that the lack of a medical has no bearing on safety. It's the same, perhaps even safer, than a pilot that flies WITH a medical. There are also people that just can't afford to buy $50k+ aircraft and the 8-10k or so cost it takes to get a PPL...not to mention the crazy cost of insurance, fuel and maintenance. You want to get more people flying? First, you got to bring the prices down on the main tool--the airplane. Increasing the weight limit at least starts on the right foot. After all, it's the most requested addendum to the light sport rule! I am optimistic and believe that the FAA will allow this increase in the near future. There's no other way to get people flying. Sorry, but the Boy Scouts/Eagles problem WILL be a failure. Girl Scout cookies are a better sell.

zaitcev · Post by **zaitcev** » Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:23 pm

Doss79 wrote:I don't see how the weight increase would hurt the manufacturers

The weight increase that included the 150/152 would hurt the manufacturers because it would allow those airplanes to compete for the money of new SPs. We are talking airplanes that sell for $17k versus those that sell for $100k. Obviously the sales of $100k airplanes are going to take a hit.

However, I do not see the weight increase to 750kg as a negative, for 3 reasons.

1. It may be bad for some manufacturers, but it's very good for aviation and pilots.

2. While some sellers may be driven out of business, the European manufacturers can continue to serve the 600kg market in Europe.

3. The effect on the manufacturers is going to be cushioned by the market stratification. I personally met a guy who plopped a deposit for Icon A5.

In my opinion, the hurt this would put on weaker manufacturers is well offset by the good.

RyanShort1 · Post by **RyanShort1** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:26 am

I wonder why the FAA couldn't allow for a weight increase for LSA aircraft manufactured after say 2011... kind of like aircraft manufactured before certain dates don't have to have lights or shoulder harnesses, etc...
That would make waaaay too much sense.

Ryan

Doss79 · Post by **Doss79** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:13 am

zaitcev wrote: The weight increase that included the 150/152 would hurt the manufacturers because it would allow those airplanes to compete for the money of new SPs.

But, we already have competition with older/cheaper aircraft with the Luscombe, Cub, Taylorcraft, etc.

Jack Tyler · Post by **Jack Tyler** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:35 am

In an immature industry that is, at the moment, terribly oversupplied with product choices, it seems unreasonable to make (or not make) decisions because they might have a negative impact on some LSA manufacturers. If there is a basis for a regulatory change in a weight increase - and such a change were made - wouldn't this be a typical example of how the marketplace changes over time and weaker businesses find they are unable to accommodate those changes? Isn't this kind of 'shakeout' an example of what many of us have been predicting here for quite some time?

We're having this discussion as tho' the FAA has a responsibility for insuring we get the kind of a/c products we desire, as tho' that's part of their job. The FAA does not have, as part of its mission, to facilitate the business success of one or more segments of the industry. At best, it could be argued the FAA should not create regulatory barriers that lie outside their charter. (FAA Mission Statement: "Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.") I'm oversimplifying but isn't it historically fair to state the FAA approved, with the advice of user groups like the EAA and various industry groups, both LSA weight limits and SP non-aviation medical requirements that they jointly believed were sufficiently safe? Does the industry now petition the FAA to increase the weight limit because it would sell more LSA's?

A business case for increasing weight limits, it seems to me, isn't going to resonate with the FAA, especially when some in the industry (e.g. a portion of LSA mfgrs.) will argue against that change with their own business case. On what basis, given the FAA audience that must be persuaded, can the weight change be successfully argued?

"I wonder why the FAA couldn't allow for a weight increase for LSA aircraft manufactured after say 2011... "
I don't know about 'could'...but if we want to consider 'should', this strikes me as the classic case of the govt. being asked to manage a private industry by imposing an arbitrary rule that it hopes will have only positive consequences. We are having this argument with ourselves nationally right now (and have for many decades), trying to draw a line between what appropriate govt. subsidies and regulatory facilitation should exist for the greater good of the nation and where govt. intervention is counterproductive or inappropriate. It's very hard to argue that an industry that's only manages to sell 400 small a/c a year is deserving of such a specialized rule. Beware the rule of unintended consequences.

RyanShort1 · Post by **RyanShort1** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 9:18 am

Jack Tyler wrote:"I wonder why the FAA couldn't allow for a weight increase for LSA aircraft manufactured after say 2011... "
I don't know about 'could'...but if we want to consider 'should', this strikes me as the classic case of the govt. being asked to manage a private industry by imposing an arbitrary rule that it hopes will have only positive consequences. We are having this argument with ourselves nationally right now (and have for many decades), trying to draw a line between what appropriate govt. subsidies and regulatory facilitation should exist for the greater good of the nation and where govt. intervention is counterproductive or inappropriate. It's very hard to argue that an industry that's only manages to sell 400 small a/c a year is deserving of such a specialized rule. Beware the rule of unintended consequences.

Oh, of course. I'm just saying that within the FAR's themselves there is precedent that would allow for instance Cessna to keep the 150 out of the LSA eligible market, and yet allow new build aircraft of say 100 lbs more weight and better structure to be developed under modified LSA rules.

Ryan

rsteele · Post by **rsteele** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:08 am

Does it really follow that a change in the LSA rule and the SP rule follow one another? It makes sense on the surface, but remember the LSA rule is a basically the ASTM standards, not really tied to the FAA. And the SP rule is an FAA entity.

Does anybody know if the 600kg limit is built into the ASTM standard, or are S-LSA's built to that number to comply with the SP rule?

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:18 am

The ASTM consensus standard does indeed specify 600 kg, but the FARs say 1320 pounds for the Light Sport category, in all classes except seaplane (note that the two figures are not precisely equal!). So, even if the ASTM standard were changed, the FAA would still have to act to relax the limit.