Skycatcher to be certified in Primary category

[dstclair]

If you were a Commercial 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.

I don't know if this is correct. A pilot is required to have a current medical to exercise PP (and above) privileges. So is one exercising this privilege when performing preventive maintenance? If so, then the medical is required.

Practically, a medical has no bearing on safety of performing preventive maintenance but practicality and regs don't always align.

[drseti]

is one exercising this privilege when performing preventive maintenance?

A good question, Dave, which I don't think I'd choose to ask the FAA, unless I was prepared to receive an answer I didn't want to hear.

practicality and regs don't always align.

Amen!

[c162pilot]

To answer the question on avionics, currently the C162 uses the SL40 and Garmin GTX 327 Mode C transponder which are TSO, however the PFD / MFD is the G300 a derivative of the G3X which is not TSO. It would appear that Cessna has 3 options, switch to steam gauges, install the G500 or get Garmin to TSO the G300. The same would be true of the TruTrak Autopilot.

So to my mind this switch to Primary category only has value if the gross weight is increased so that the aircraft could be more useful to a wider group of pilots. However this would only apply to new manufacture planes. However with higher gross weight it is no longer Sport Pilot eligible or meet the European 600KG weight limit. Seems like a catch 22 to me.

I did notice a specification in Europe issued by EASA for CS-VLA that permits a 750KG max gross weight. Not sure which countries have signed up for this specification versus their own VLA specs.

http://www.easa.europa.eu/agency-measur ... mbined.pdf

CS-VLA 1 Applicability
This airworthiness code is applicable to
aeroplanes with a single engine (spark- or
compression-ignition) having not more than two
seats, with a Maximum Certificated Take-off
Weight of not more than 750 kg and a stalling
speed in the landing configuration of not more
than 83 km/h (45 knots)(CAS), to be approved
for day-VFR only. (See AMC VLA 1).
CS-VLA 3 Aeroplane categories
This CS-VLA applies to aeroplanes intended
for non-aerobatic operation only. Non-aerobatic
operation includes -
(a) Any manoeuvre incident to normal
flying;
(b) Stalls (except whip stalls); and
(c) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns,
in which the angle of bank is not more than 60°

[dstclair]

A good question, Dave, which I don't think I'd choose to ask the FAA, unless I was prepared to receive an answer I didn't want to hear.

Our particular segment of the industry suffered quite a bit the last time some unsuspecting soul asked for clarification. Don't think it would be wise to bark up the same tree again

[theskunk]

Dan Johnson's post on this indicated that the Cessna might be heading for a heavier MTOW... my recalling indicates that this would clear it completely from operation by a sport pilot.

If that is the case, could a current, existing skycatcher get an STC for the heavier payload?

The other thing that I've noticed, is that a skycatcher, at 1300ish, doesn't really climb all that well as it is, and I don't see it doing well with a higher weight than it already has... if anything i prefer to fly it solo with full fuel, and have about 100lbs to spare...

[jnmeade]

For an existing LSA to become standard certificated would mean it needs TSO'd components, does it not?
Cessna would probably have to take in an inspect each LSA to verify that it met all std cert standards. Would this be feasible or likely?

[Jack Tyler]

Just one marketing observation: It presents no impact to Cessna sales of Skycatchers if their 'primary category Skycatcher' has a MTOW increase and therefore can no longer be flown by SP's. The reason is that they can choose to continue manufacturing the S-LSA version to the extent there is demand. An alternative way to position the announcement is to note that Cessna is introducing a new primary category a/c that is priced much lower than their existing products, and which in addition might be more aligned with their European or International sales. Given that, there's no downside to this plan except to the extent there is a lack of sales potential in the new market segment. The administrative, design and manufacturing workload to create this 'new primary a/c' would be minimal. And as we all know, if this increases total Skycatcher sales it would help the pricing of the product, since most of the content in both models would be the same. (FWIW this strikes me as a classic example of GE marketing management where something novel and with minimal risk is attempted. Just the kind of thing we'd expect from the GE senior management that were chosen to run Cessna).

OTOH the announcement this week that Cessna is now offering a diesel-powered 182 truly seems groundbreaking to me. Not that there is much sales potential (@ $.5M a copy). Given the limited focus on this among European manufacturers (see the recent Aviation Consumer article on this topic), IMO it's encouraging to see an American GA manufacturer who's willing to compete in this segment.

Of course, all of the above is immaterial to we mere (financial) mortals...

[drseti]

they can choose to continue manufacturing the S-LSA version to the extent there is demand.

I certainly hope they continue to make an S-LSA. I hope there is ongoing demand. I am not optimistic about either.

[jnmeade]

Our particular segment of the industry suffered quite a bit the last time some unsuspecting soul asked for clarification. Don't think it would be wise to bark up the same tree again

Like to clarify that for us dummies?

[jnmeade]

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.

Such a matrix is hard to write so that everyone reads it as you intended, but to me it would be useful to update it in a couple of regards.

The matrix seems to apply to non-standard certificated airplanes, so I don't feel like it addresses my inquiry.

Do you have the reg cite for maintenance standards? I'll look around when I get time, as well.

[theskunk]

Candidly, I'm more concerned about what flight schools will choose to do. If they start getting the non-LSA, and non-sport pilot compliant version, then it kinda gives the flight school their replacement 152, which i know of 3 in my area have been wanting, but actively refuse to do anything related to sport pilot training in them. (including dual in a larger aircraft).

My concern is that I thought we had finally started getting a decent rental/flight school market in the Raleigh, NC area, and this could be a game changer for the schools left that haven't bought in.

[zaitcev]

According to James Lawrence, Primary category contains this language:

A primary category aircraft is of simple design and is intended exclusively for pleasure and personal use. // Although a primary category aircraft may be available for rental and flight instruction under certain conditions, the carrying of persons or property for hire is prohibited.

I don't have relevant Part (and it's not Part 21, which governs manufacturing of spares and replacements).

I think Cessna will continue making S-LSA Skycatcher. If increased gross weight ever happens, it's going to be C-165 in Normal, not Primary category.

{Update: The "certain conditions" turned out to be being "maintained by FAA-certified mechanic or appropriately rated repair station", according to AC 21-37. So, instruct away. Thanks to c162pilot for the reference.}

[deltafox]

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/blog/20 ... no-longer/

Found this link provided some interesting background information. FYI, I had my PiperSport up to 10,500' with passenger and 2 hours of fuel (+reserve).

[dstclair]

”The joint Cessna/FAA team included requirements from EASA CS-LSA into the program which will allow the Skycatcher to be accepted into Europe through a simpler validation effort, following FAA approval.”

This means that, at least initially, the 162 will remain at 600kg MTOW. Of course, Cessna could very well put out a C-165 (as mentioned above) that has a higher MTOW for the US market (and may fit other international types). That will very much depend on the market which for Cessna are the larger flight schools. The current leadership has proven their goals are solely profitability and do not necessarily encompass aviation initiatives unless that supports growing the business.

I would guess the 162 will end up way north of $150K after the certification process.

I would think for smaller flight schools, the Pipistrel Alpha would be very interesting at their $85K price tag. The US-made Allegro has a similar price point as well.

[bryancobb]

I would bet, that a buyer could order a newly minted Skycatcher, with EITHER color Airworthiness Certificate.

If Cessna gets a PC and gets the TC, nothing says EVERY 162 they build MUST be built that way.

Ford built Mustangs for export to Europe and they were different.

Cessna could build all export 162's under the PC and not affect the SLSA ones???