Sport Pilot Talk

From the current April 5th issue of General Aviation News
Dan Johnson interview with Randy Schlitter
Page 16.

"Regarding his vision for the news S-21 Outbound, Randy Schlitter said, “The FAA is planning to remove the gross weight limitation on Light-Sport Aircraft. Provided the airframe has the beef and power to go to a higher gross you will see the Sport class of planes become much more useful. The Outbound is ready either way, with the empty weight at or under other SLSAs using the Titan engine …we see this as a win-win.”



I don’t like to start the rumor mill but both these guys could be “in the know” for rule making and industry trends. I don’t have any other data but
it was an interesting remark to read. It did not seem to be wishing or guessing.

Cub flyer wrote:From the current April 5th issue of General Aviation News
Dan Johnson interview with Randy Schlitter
Page 16.

"Regarding his vision for the news S-21 Outbound, Randy Schlitter said, “The FAA is planning to remove the gross weight limitation on Light-Sport Aircraft. Provided the airframe has the beef and power to go to a higher gross you will see the Sport class of planes become much more useful. The Outbound is ready either way, with the empty weight at or under other SLSAs using the Titan engine …we see this as a win-win.”

I don’t like to start the rumor mill but both these guys could be “in the know” for rule making and industry trends. I don’t have any other data but it was an interesting remark to read. It did not seem to be wishing or guessing.

If that's the case, the Sling 2 would fit into that nicely.
Regardless of registration E-LSA or E-AB, it's design weight is engineered for a max TOGW of 1540 lbs.
That extra 220 lbs. capacity, as an E-LSA, is beneficial over the E-AB in many ways.

That would be lovely , altought it would mean that the current breed of LSAs would drop in value quite significantly.

I always figured that both , the gross weight and the cruise speed limit , were artificial limitations and if FAA kept the stall speed limit and # of passengers , it would naturally constrain LSAs to a relatively slow and light range , while still allowing manufacturers to compete by emphasizing different trade offs without being artificially constrained by overly rigid limits.

A few thoughts:

It would be a big boost to making GA planes more affordable and safer. You could use existing LSA industry certification rules to create something the size of a Cessna 150 or even a 172 that would cost a lot less, with a lot newer tech.

So let's add to this fantasy by saying remove 3rd class medical requirement from Rec Pilot, remove the range, number of passengers, and BCD air space restrictions. Sport Pilots could convert and essentially would end up with a lot more choices. You could more easily train get more hours by renting the more available Skyhawks and 150's that are at every airport, and then hop into the new super LSA's when they get more plentiful.

This makes sense. A huge boost to GA, making it in reach more so to the average Joe, a boost to aircraft design and industry.

Which means it isn't true and is just wishful thinking.

Now, back to reality............

Wm.Ince wrote: If that's the case, the Sling 2 would fit into that nicely.
Regardless of registration E-LSA or E-AB, it's design weight is engineered for a max TOGW of 1540 lbs.
That extra 220 lbs. capacity, as a E-LSA, is beneficial over the E-AB in many ways.

I heard the same that the FAA is planning to increase the MGW for LSAs to match what other countries are doing on a call with The Aircraft Factory folks. Of course, they were trying to sell me an aircraft....

hook_dupin wrote:

Wm.Ince wrote: If that's the case, the Sling 2 would fit into that nicely.
Regardless of registration E-LSA or E-AB, it's design weight is engineered for a max TOGW of 1540 lbs.
That extra 220 lbs. capacity, as a E-LSA, is beneficial over the E-AB in many ways.

I heard the same that the FAA is planning to increase the MGW for LSAs to match what other countries are doing on a call with The Aircraft Factory folks. Of course, they were trying to sell me an aircraft....

And what other countries are doing ? I thought in Europe it was even lower ( although without speed limits)...

More info from Dan Johnson...

I figured adding Randy’s would captivate some attention. This has been mentioned by several aviation industry leaders but I wouldn’t get too excited, just yet anyway. FAA has bluntly said LSA regulation change won’t happen soon. At the same time, they’ve been quite receptive to ideas presented by LAMA and USUA as the organizations try to widen the scope of the original regulation. Changes will likely appears in increments. However, three companies have already gotten weight waivers and one more has an application pending. The agency has proven open to hearing about good ideas and is working with the above-mentioned groups to help at least some of these happen. (Fingers crossed!) –Dan Johnson

Warmi wrote: And what other countries are doing ? I thought in Europe it was even lower ( although without speed limits)...

EASA also has a CS-VLA category that goes up to 700kg (~1540#). I think TAF people told me they are pursuing a MGW waiver as well.

Wm.Ince wrote:

Cub flyer wrote:From the current April 5th issue of General Aviation News
Dan Johnson interview with Randy Schlitter
Page 16.

"Regarding his vision for the news S-21 Outbound, Randy Schlitter said, “The FAA is planning to remove the gross weight limitation on Light-Sport Aircraft. Provided the airframe has the beef and power to go to a higher gross you will see the Sport class of planes become much more useful. The Outbound is ready either way, with the empty weight at or under other SLSAs using the Titan engine …we see this as a win-win.”

I don’t like to start the rumor mill but both these guys could be “in the know” for rule making and industry trends. I don’t have any other data but it was an interesting remark to read. It did not seem to be wishing or guessing.

If that's the case, the Sling 2 would fit into that nicely.
Regardless of registration E-LSA or E-AB, it's design weight is engineered for a max TOGW of 1540 lbs.
That extra 220 lbs. capacity, as an E-LSA, is beneficial over the E-AB in many ways.

Yeah Baby!!!

This would be good news for greater adoption of the Sport Pilot’s certificate. I think there are a few aircraft built to accommodate higher gross weight that have been reduced to fit within the LSA category. (The aforementioned Sling 2 for one). If this ever comes to fruition, it will be interesting to see what other aircraft companies will allow for a greater MTOW.

RTK wrote:This would be good news for greater adoption of the Sport Pilot’s certificate. I think there are a few aircraft built to accommodate higher gross weight that have been reduced to fit within the LSA category. (The aforementioned Sling 2 for one). If this ever comes to fruition, it will be interesting to see what other aircraft companies will allow for a greater MTOW.

Spot on. As long as we're all being optimistic / thinking about "what if", how about simply taking the MTOW of SLSA and ELSA to 2600 lbs, and be allowed to have up to 4 seats? Why? MTOW of a Skyhawk is 2550 lbs. With that one change Sport Pilots could train and build hours on planes that would be rentable / available just about anywhere. More hours = safer flying. How big / heavy and expensive would LSA's become? I don't know. The market would decide the optimal mix of size, capacity, and cost. Whatever it would be I predict there would be more LSA's coming on line.

WDD wrote:. . . how about simply taking the MTOW of SLSA and ELSA to 2600 lbs, and be allowed to have up to 4 seats? Why? MTOW of a Skyhawk is 2550 lbs. With that one change Sport Pilots could train and build hours on planes that would be rentable / available just about anywhere. More hours = safer flying. How big / heavy and expensive would LSA's become? I don't know. The market would decide the optimal mix of size, capacity, and cost. Whatever it would be I predict there would be more LSA's coming on line.

I consider that idea a giant leap, which would never meet approval.
Think baby steps. That has a much better chance.

Go big or go home !

For now I’d hope to just keep all the SP airplane requirements the same but eliminate all mention of gross weight requirements.

Simple change to the existing rule.

I’d like to see the SP have the same owner FAR 43 appendix A, Paragraph C
Preventative maintenance list as the Private pilot owners as well as AC43-12

https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safet ... aintenance

It seems dumb that a Private pilot with no maintenance training can perform these tasks on their King Air 200 or TBM but
a Sport Pilot owner can’t change oil on their J-3 or LSA

I should have said Light Sport airplane requirements to remove all motion of gross weight also

Watch they don’t change the Light Sport airplane requirements but the sport pilot pilots remain at current limit.