Six seats, under 6000lb, day/night VFR on driver's license?

[N918KT]

If this bill passes, do you think we will see a drop in used AND new SLSA prices? If demand drops, do the prices of SLSA drop as well?

[FlyingForFun]

Delete

[drseti]

You're probably right, FFF. Demand is driven as much by operating costs as it is by purchase price.

[Jack Tyler]

"This would be a great thing, and as I see it would in no way harm the LSA movement."

Following the EAA/AOPA joint proposal to the FAA, there was much discussion here and elsewhere on this point. What passes for the LSA industry's representative organization - LAMA - claimed they hadn't been consulted and were very worried about its potential impact. Individual LSA manufacturers said they had been stabbed in the back. My impression is that it wasn't until the FAA showed it was ignoring the proposal that most of that anxiety lessened.

"If this bill passes, do you think we will see a drop in used AND new SLSA prices? If demand drops, do the prices of SLSA drop as well?"
"Not enough to make much difference."
"You're probably right, FFF. Demand is driven as much by operating costs as it is by purchase price."

Two different issues: Will new LSA prices drop? Most LSA manufacturers and importers (tho' not all) have shown they must keep prices about where they are to have a viable business. The economy of numbers - meaning the small number of LSA sales across almost the entire LSA marketplace - simply doesn't support high profits. If demand drops, any pricing elasticity they have will be further reduced. Will used LSA prices drop? They would likely follow demand. Just look at what happened to the housing industry and existing home sales once demand dried up. Owners of used a/c make selling decisions based on personal, financial and lifestyle circumstances where as mfgrs. are forced to make them on a narrower cost basis.

Will LSA demand drop? Absolutely, IMO. This was reflected in much of the dialogue here shortly after the EAA/AOPA submission. Among the reasons expressed at the time were far better payload capability of almost all Part 23 a/c, the resulting greater utility of the a/c, and the far lower purchase cost of the large used Part 23 a/c marketplace. Two other factors that will influence that drop in demand is the continuing reluctance of many flights schools to embrace the SP curriculum and the lack of LSA rental a/c outside the large population centers, both of these affecting the entryway pipeline for potential student pilots, both with and without Class III medical concerns.

I see little behavior among American consumers that suggests a low purchase price today will be ignored because longer term ownership costs will be higher. That might be the rational approach but since when does that dominate the decision for acquisition of luxury goods and the use of discretionary income? And as was mentioned here many times, higher operating costs can be funded for a long time by an acquisition cost that is tens of thousands of dollars less.

Here's the question we might want to be kicking around: Which interests will NOT be served by the passage of this bill? I can identify many groups - beyond the aviation industry as a whole - that will support it, for reasons of political ideology, for fiscal and public policy reasons, and even due to the general disrespect for the FAA. The general public has no dog in the fight because it doesn't impact commercial aviation. But who's interests will be injured by this change? Seems to me even the trial lawyers - the tort attorneys - will not oppose it.

Does anyone else here think that perhaps the FAA's Flight Surgeon shot the FAA in the foot WRT this bill? Even the AME organization has criticized the apnea-related mandate. I'm betting the FAA regrets this perceived 'overreach' right now...

[FastEddieB]

You're probably right, FFF. Demand is driven as much by operating costs as it is by purchase price.

Agreed.

I might be tempted to sell my Sky Arrow and get something like this:

http://www.barnstormers.com/listing_ima ... abbb9850fa


Then again, needing an A&P to accomplish or sign off on every little repair, the increased fuel consumption and the cost of annuals would weigh heavily in my decision.

Then again, its listed at $49,900. The difference between that and a new Sky Arrow or CTLSi (about $50k or $110k respectively) could pay for many, many years of increased operating costs.

Now if that Tiger could be certified Experimental...

[MrMorden]

I think the LSAs can still compete well in the two seat VFR space. Many of them have bigger useful loads than similar certified airplanes, especially once you factor in that you need less fuel to go the same distance.

For example, a Grumman Yankee with full fuel often has a payload of under 300 pounds, some are under 250. And the Yankee only goes about 300-380nm on that fuel load. My CTSW with full fuel load still has 380lb payload, and a range of 750nm or more. If I offload fuel to match the Yankee's range, I now have 480lb payload, two beefy adults and 80lb (!) of baggage. The Yankee will cost a lot less than even a used CTSW, but at a significant loss of capability. Both airplane cruise at 115 knots.

The LSAs will continue to be cheaper than part 23 airplanes, even if the proposed certification changes are made, which will help make them more competitive in the two seat space. A base model Diamond DA-20 is $190k, and fully loaded is $250k. A decked out CTLSi is around $160-180k.

The Sport Pilot certificate, on the other hand, would probably cease to exist except for legacy SPs who never want to do more than the SP ticket allows.

[David]

Maybe there is a new build in my future. Hmmmm, Santa I want a RV14 for Christmas

[MrMorden]

Maybe there is a new build in my future. Hmmmm, Santa I want a RV14 for Christmas

What is the max speed on an RV-14? I'm sure it's not over 250 knots, but it's probably pretty fast!

[drseti]

Many of them have bigger useful loads than similar certified airplanes, especially once you factor in that you need less fuel to go the same distance.

That is indeed an important consideration. FAA certification standards (which apply to SLSA) require a minimum useful load of 190 pounds times the number of seats, plus the weight of fuel for one hour of flight at maximum continuous power. So, in a typical LSA, that's (190 x 2) + (6 x 6) = 416 pounds. Given 1320 max gross, the empty weight then cannot exceed 904 pounds. This, in turn, sets an upper limit on how much equipment you can squeeze into the panel.

Now, my old Beechcraft was certified at up to 6 seats. So, its minimum useful load under those same rules would have been (190 x 6) + (6 x 12) = 1212#. Its max gross weight was only 2750, leaving 1538# for empty weight. But, after I over-equipped it with all that fancy avionics, it weighed in at 1690 empty! And yet, it was still legal (but only because it was built before that minimum useful load rule went into effect). Under current rules, that 6-place airplane would either be very equipment-limited, or would have to have been certified with a higher maximum gross weight.

The Sport Pilot certificate, on the other hand, would probably cease to exist except for legacy SPs who never want to do more than the SP ticket allows.

That only holds if the FAA allows folks to obtain a PPL without a medical. I would expect that what ultimately passes (if anything) will only apply to PPs who are already licensed, and let their medical lapse. That demographic will remain a prime candidate for LSAs.

(Edited once to correct a math error)

[MrMorden]

That only holds if the FAA allows folks to obtain a PPL without a medical. I would expect that what ultimately passes (if anything) will only apply to PPs who are already licensed, and let their medical lapse. That demographic will remain a prime candidate for LSAs.

(Edited once to correct a math error)

That makes little sense to me. If you don't need a medical to make any of the flights required to obtain a PPL, why would they require a medical just for training? Seems to make more sense if they only require a medical once you decide to make a flight or fly an aircraft that requires one.

Under the proposal a student pilot could complete the entire course of study with all flights and never need a medical, unless the Congress drops the ball.

[Merlinspop]

Maybe there is a new build in my future. Hmmmm, Santa I want a RV14 for Christmas

What is the max speed on an RV-14? I'm sure it's not over 250 knots, but it's probably pretty fast!

Mr. Google says:
Speed - Light Weight
Top Speed 205 mph
Cruise [75% @ 8000 ft] 195 mph
Cruise [55% @ 8000 ft] 172 mph
Stall Speed 56 mph

Speed - Gross Weight
Top Speed 203 mph
Cruise [75% @ 8000 ft] 193 mph
Cruise [55% @ 8000 ft] 169 mph
Stall Speed 56 mph

Not that that matters... Just pull the throttle back such that you don't fly faster than 250kts (indicated, I would guess).

[Merlinspop]

That only holds if the FAA allows folks to obtain a PPL without a medical. I would expect that what ultimately passes (if anything) will only apply to PPs who are already licensed, and let their medical lapse. That demographic will remain a prime candidate for LSAs.

(Edited once to correct a math error)

That makes little sense to me. If you don't need a medical to make any of the flights required to obtain a PPL, why would they require a medical just for training? Seems to make more sense if they only require a medical once you decide to make a flight or fly an aircraft that requires one.

Under the proposal a student pilot could complete the entire course of study with all flights and never need a medical, unless the Congress drops the ball.

The bits and pieces of the bill that I've seen never specifies any level of license. It just says "individual" (sneaky... I like that!). So, conceivably, the individual can also be a student pilot.

[drseti]

That makes little sense to me.

What, Andy, you're expecting the FAA to make sense?


I'm just pointing out that allowing PPLs to fly without a medical is one thing. Revising the certification rules to allow one to become a PPL without a medical is another. It would take specific action by the FAA in this area to make a change. Yes, I hope they will. Do I trust them to cover all the bases? No. Just look at all the inconsistencies that cropped up in the rules when SP was created!

[Dangeruss]

I think the RV14 cruises closer to 160kts.

This could definitely breath new life into the fading general aviation used aircraft inventory. I think there is still a niche for the new light sport aircraft, but the market will become much smaller due to increased segmentation introduced by the huge variety of aircraft that will become available to "Sport Pilots" who no longer have to try to fit their mission into their prescribed aircraft, and can even greatly expand their overall flight mission.

--Nevermind, you guys are fast--

Yes, one needs to be a PPL or above to fly these aircraft, which means the pilot must have been able to pass a third class medical at some point. For those who aren't already PPL, or can't pass a third class for whatever reason, LSA will remain a viable option.

It looks to me as if the requirement to pass a class 3 medical for VFR <6000lbs and <250kts is going to be completely eliminated. Has anyone read anything that contradicts this?

[Merlinspop]

I think the RV14 cruises closer to 160kts.

Matches what I found (above, once converted to MPH).