Flight Design "Safety Box" & possible LSA Implications

[IFlyRC]

I came across this article and I thought I'd share. (http://www.aviationpros.com/press_relea ... evelopment)

It sounds like they're making the technology available to anyone. Maybe we'll see some LSAs with a "safety box" in the near future.

EDIT: Sorry this might've been better in the safety section.

[CTLSi]

......

[drseti]

Many of those guys still don't have a BRS yet, or never will.

You are implying that any aircraft without BRS is somehow inferior. Segments of the marketplace might argue this. In fact, have you ever considered that the reason "those guys still don't have a BRS yet" might be that their particular customers don't want one?

[CTLSi]

......

[drseti]

Why are cars not made like that anymore?

Oh, that's an easy one. It's because our evil, over-reaching government deprived our citizens of personal choice and individual liberty, by mandating federal safety standards.

[FastEddieB]

Remember Volvo?

Remember SAAB?

Anyway, I suppose if you eschew seatbelts and helmets you probably need to be in a cage.

[IFlyRC]

I like the idea of roll-over protection. The Astore has some bracing for the canopy, but I'm not sure how much of a difference that might make. It seems like the LSA category would be a prime candidate for implementing any safety advancements relatively quickly.

[FastEddieB]

I like the idea of roll-over protection...It seems like the LSA category would be a prime candidate for implementing any safety advancements relatively quickly.

I think weight is a hurdle - but one that FD has overcome nicely.

I just assume if I ever "roll over" my Sky Arrow I'm toast. Karen in the back has some pretty good structure around her - me not so much.



But so it goes - the view is worth the modicum of risk it entails - for me, anyway.

[Wm.Ince]

. . . "I think weight is a hurdle - but one that FD has overcome nicely." . . .

I have to slightly disagree, Eddie. The CTSW and CTLS passed over that hurdle, but IMHO, I think the CTLSi is too heavy for light sport. If all I wanted to carry was 20 gallons of fuel, I would have bought an RV-12.

Fuel injection and BRS recovery are good, but there is a penalty for having both or them. Weight.

[drseti]

So, the question is: will the marketplace accept the tradeoff of payload for safety? I guess we'll just have to weight and see.

[FastEddieB]

. . . "I think weight is a hurdle - but one that FD has overcome nicely." . . .

I have to slightly disagree, Eddie. The CTSW and CTLS passed over that hurdle, but IMHO, I think the CTLSi is too heavy for light sport. If all I wanted to carry was 20 gallons of fuel, I would have bought an RV-12.

Fuel injection and BRS recovery are good, but there is a penalty for having both or them. Weight.

William,

I think my thinking is colored by owning a plane that weighed* about 860 empty without a chute, and with no "cage" that I can see. That makes FD's E/W numbers, though inexorably climbing with each new doodad, look pretty decent by comparison.


*Past tense because it's a tad lighter with its new lithium iron battery.

[dstclair]

The Sting has always had a the cockpit enclosed by a roll cage.

[sandpiper]

So, the question is: will the marketplace accept the tradeoff of payload for safety? I guess we'll just have to weight and see.

You have many talents!!

[sandpiper]

So, the question is: will the marketplace accept the tradeoff of payload for safety? I guess we'll just have to weight and see.

Yellow was not the best highlight color.

[CTLSi]

......