Skycatcher to be certified in Primary category

zaitcev · Post by **zaitcev** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:07 pm

http://www.avweb.com/news/airventure/EA ... 019-1.html
By Mary Brady

The airplane will be transitioned out of the LSA category and into the Primary category. This will make it easier to export the Skycatcher to Europe, company officials said, and U.S. pilots will still have the option to operate the airplane with a sport pilot certificate. // Cessna is working with the FAA on a Skycatcher primary category designation, which includes the issuance of a Type Certificate and Production Certificate. The joint Cessna/FAA team worked with EASA rules to allow the Skycatcher to be accepted into Europe through a simpler validation effort following FAA approval, Cessna said.

But no word on Lycoming engine.

c162pilot · Post by **c162pilot** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:27 pm

What does this mean? I assume they could raise the Max Gross Weight but that would mean it could not qualify for Sport Pilots. I wonder if Cessna thinks the AOPA/FAA proposal on flying without a 3rd class medical will pass and this will make a higher gross weight 162 more attractive. Seems like max stall speed is 61 Kts and max gross for Primary Category is 2,700 LBS.

zaitcev · Post by **zaitcev** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:53 pm

There's no raised gross weight. It's exactly the same airplane, just has some paperwork made out. So it's going to be the same as ACA 7EC Champ: a Part 21 certificated airplane that an SP can fly legally.

dstclair · Post by **dstclair** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:18 pm

Many things Cessna could do. They will need to keep a 162 that has 600kg MTOW so they can export to Europe in the analogous EASA class but they could also have another model that has a higher gross weight in the states. Basically, they could have 162LSA and 162STD models with the appropriate paperwork.

Of course, an SP can only fly in 1320lb MTOW aircraft.

BTW an SP will not be able to do preventive maintenance on an aircraft that does not have an S-LSA certification.

Daidalos · Post by **Daidalos** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:51 pm

There are other differences. if ou are an owner. You will not be able to perform your own maintenance with an LSRM ticket.

Also electronics must be certified. For example Dynons could not be used. I don't know if the Garmins they use are certified.

But it will make the cost of ownership higher.

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:07 am

If I understand this correctly, a primary category aircraft comes with a Standard (white) airworthiness certificate. An LSA gets a Special (pink) one. This is far more than just a difference in color. The SkyCatcher would then become a Sport Pilot eligible certified aircraft, and not eligible for LSA maintenance rules. In other words, owner maintenance with a repairman's certificate would be out. Annual inspections by an LSRM would be disallowed (Standard airworthiness certificate means condition inspections require an IA).

Yes, Sport Pilots could still fly them (just as they can fly certain Cubs, Champs, Ercoupes, Luscombes, Taylorcrafts, etc.), but the 162 would be a certified aircraft. That means price would go up, maintenance costs would go up, and sales would go down. BIG mistake on Cessna's part, IMHO.

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:10 am

zaitcev wrote: it's going to be the same as ACA 7EC Champ: a Part 21 certificated airplane that an SP can fly legally.

Fly, yes. Maintain and inspect, no.

zaitcev · Post by **zaitcev** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:55 am

drseti wrote:That means price would go up, maintenance costs would go up, and sales would go down. BIG mistake on Cessna's part, IMHO.

The impact is mitigated by a few factors.

#1: Skycatcher has no appeal to individual owners: it's too heavy, too expensive. SPs aren't going to buy anyway, so who cares if they cannot maintain them? 162 is primarily sold to Cessna schools, who already have A&Ps on staff to run 152s and 172s.
#2: Many owners hire A&Ps to do their maintenance and eat the skyrocketing costs, you'd wonder why.
#4: OK, so Cessna loses the small sliver of individual purchasers in the U.S., but it opens the market in Europe. May be a good trade for them.

So it remains to be seen if it's a BIG mistake or even a mistake at all. I am not a marketing stragetist to predict how it turns out.

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:39 am

You raise some good points, Pete. I was considering this from the perspective of Cessna selling the 162 to folks like us. Silly me!

BTW, what happened to point #3?

jnmeade · Post by **jnmeade** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:51 am

drseti wrote: Annual inspections by an LSRM would be disallowed (Standard airworthiness certificate means condition inspections require an IA).

.

It would become an annual inspection, not a condition inspection, right? I bet the Cessna Dealers love this.

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:54 am

jnmeade wrote:It would become an annual inspection, not a condition inspection, right?

The FAA does not use the term "annual inspection," and makes no distinction between the procedures for an annual or a 100 hour inspection. The FARs say that all aircraft must have had a "condition inspection within the preceding 12 calendar months", and those in commercial service must have a "condition inspection within the previous 100 hours of operation." So, they're all condition inspections.

jnmeade · Post by **jnmeade** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:03 am

drseti wrote:
jnmeade wrote:It would become an annual inspection, not a condition inspection, right?
The FAA does not use the term "annual inspection," and makes no distinction between the procedures for an annual or a 100 hour inspection. The FARs say that all aircraft must have had a "condition inspection within the preceding 12 calendar months", and those in commercial service must have a "condition inspection within the previous 100 hours of operation." So, they're all condition inspections.

For a standard certified airplane?

zaitcev · Post by **zaitcev** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:20 am

drseti wrote:BTW, what happened to point #3?

A baseless speculation about 1-owner schools like yours was there, but then I figured you know it better than I could. If you were a Commerical rated pilot and then had your medical expired, then you could still perform preventive maintenance, right? Just not the general maintenance. Not sure if it's acceptable for a school, where 100-hour inspections come pretty often.

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:31 am

zaitcev wrote:If you were a Commerical rated pilot and then had your medical expired, then you could still perform preventive maintenance, right? Just not the general maintenance.

True. But, if the plane has a Special airworthiness certificate that says "operating as light sport", then you can do all the maintenance and inspections with an LSRM certificate (which is a whole lot cheaper and easier to get than an A&P/IA). And this is completely independent of whether you hold a pilot's license, medical certificate, etc.

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:34 am

jnmeade wrote:For a standard certified airplane?

The inspection requirements are independent of the type of airworthiness certificate held. Whether certified, experimental, or S-LSA, the same condition inspection rules and terminology would apply. The only thing that differs is who can perform that condition inspection. See my LSA Maintenance Matrix at http://avsport.org/pwrpoint/matrix.pdf.