Randy Schlitter quote from General Aviation News

[3Dreaming]

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

Part 61 doesn't specifically limit a sport pilot to only flying a airplane with a gross weight of 1320 pound. In fact in 61 sub part J there is no mention of weight, only that you may fly a light sport aircraft. Unless they rewrite sub part J, a change to the light sport definition to allow heavier weight would automatically allow sport pilots to fly the aircraft.

[3Dreaming]

Back when the light sport aircraft/sport pilot rule was in the discussion phase I thought a simple set of rules would have worked. My thought was a HP limit, say 100 HP, and maximum of 2 seats. No other limits.

[Cub flyer]

Good to know about the Sport Pilot not having a specific weight just the light sport airplane
I have not read Part 61 in a long time so I missed that.

I’d rather not see any HP limits added because HP has no bearing on how easy an airplane is to fly depending on airframe size proportions.
Though it is a almost set as a package with max clean stall speed, max gross weight and max speed. Wing loading and airplane size are almost set by those limits if you are to hit them all. Empty weight is set by the regs for ATSM F2245-09 minimum useful load.

The area not fully explored would be for single place airplane vs 2 place. But marketing drives that.

If it’s a standard cat airplane that meets the sport pilot limitations. The standard cat has no minimum useful load.

Unless there is some major advance in structures design, airfoils or engines the current rules limits kind of define the fixed wing airplane.

Part 23 rewrite would be interesting. Part 23 started out not too bad and a lot of the rules make sense. The trouble is not the rules but the test process and different interpretation between FAA offices. The rule have become so bloated with excess that does not apply to our little airplanes in a lot of ways.

Since so many CAR4A and CAR3 airplane are still flying maybe just go back to those known previously published rules. And the existing AD, SB system. Why mess with what has been proven to work? I don’t mind having parts / designs that are “Certified"within reason and tested with results reviewed by a government entity. Question is who is doing the reviewing and what is their background?

[3Dreaming]

I agree that HP has no bearing on how easy an airplane is to fly. My reasoning is that if you want to carry weight you will need more lift, and will be slower. If you want to go fast you will need to be lighter to get any kind of climb performance. design the airplane based on what performance you want. I think a simple HP limit would have led to more design ingenuity.

I agree that earlier certification standards would be a good choice.

[MrMorden]

As limiting as the currently weight regime is, I've been pretty pleased with the utility and capability of my CTSW and don't feel like I'm missing out much compared to other two seat airplanes. If I only had to choose one or the other, I think I might pick having the capability of getting a night flight endorsement for Sport Pilots over higher weight limits. That's based purely on the issues that I find coming up for me as a pilot; I rarely need more weight to make a flight, but come up against darkness and have to rush home on a fairly regular basis.

Both would be best, of course.