Sport Pilot Talk

This could also impact the maintenance industry. A&P ticket holder would now be able to sign off "annuals" on legacy, certified airplanes fitting the new criteria that today requires an IA endorsement?

There is a lot to consider when you get deeper into the weeds.

Brian
2006 Sportstar

akroguy wrote:This could also impact the maintenance industry. A&P ticket holder would now be able to sign off "annuals" on legacy, certified airplanes fitting the new criteria that today requires an IA endorsement?

There is a lot to consider when you get deeper into the weeds.

Brian
2006 Sportstar

Can they do that now? IDK. If not, then there is no reason to think this is correct. Just because a standard certificated airplane falls within the LSA definition, it is still a standard certificated airplane. The only difference is it can be flown by a Sport Pilot or other pilot exercising Sport Pilot privileges and limitations.

TimTaylor wrote: Can they do that now? IDK. If not, then there is no reason to think this is correct. Just because a standard certificated airplane falls within the LSA definition, it is still a standard certificated airplane. The only difference is it can be flown by a Sport Pilot or other pilot exercising Sport Pilot privileges and limitations.

I agree. An LSA generically is just an airplane whose performance characteristics fall within the LSA definition. That has nothing to do with certification or maintenance; if the airplane is certified under Part 23, forever will that part guide maintenance procedures for the airplane. S-LSA using ASTM guidelines will still use the ASTM standards for maintenance.

Don't confuse the broad performance definition of LSA for the certification standards the airplane's AW cert was issued under.

MrMorden wrote:

TimTaylor wrote: Can they do that now? IDK. If not, then there is no reason to think this is correct. Just because a standard certificated airplane falls within the LSA definition, it is still a standard certificated airplane. The only difference is it can be flown by a Sport Pilot or other pilot exercising Sport Pilot privileges and limitations.

I agree. An LSA generically is just an airplane whose performance characteristics fall within the LSA definition. That has nothing to do with certification or maintenance; if the airplane is certified under Part 23, forever will that part guide maintenance procedures for the airplane. S-LSA using ASTM guidelines will still use the ASTM standards for maintenance.

Don't confuse the broad performance definition of LSA for the certification standards the airplane's AW cert was issued under.

I own and Ercoupe (qualifies as a Light sport A/C, but is a Certified Airplane) as a sport pilot, I legally can't even change my own oil or a light bulb. I do a lot of work on my own plane with fellow PPL friends to sign off on my oil changes and and little things I need to do. It is helpful that I have a A&P IA friend that watches over me on the bigger work as well. I doubt they will change any of this for any aircraft that would meet any new requirement. Unless someone in the FAA understands that a little more hood time and a night flight qualifies as being a mechanic. I did all the work on my plane for my last annual with the exception of building a new shelf for my new ELT I installed... thankfully my IA friend can sign off on things. Okay I didn't clean and gap my plugs, but I had to replace them all anyways since 3 were bad and who knows how old they were.

It may not seem fair that you can't change the oil in your airplane, but a Private Pilot can. That is an example of strange situations that arise when the FAA tries to accommodate us by such things as allowing vintage aircraft that meet LSA limitations to be flown by Sport Pilots. At least you can fly your airplane without a Private certificate.

joey4420 wrote: Unless someone in the FAA understands that a little more hood time and a night flight qualifies as being a mechanic.

Actually, Joey, the FAA believes that a third class medical (plus hood time, night training, and a longer XC) would somehow qualify you to do preventive maintenance.

What is really crazy is a private pilot can do preventive maintenance on any aircraft they own even if they can't fly it. Think rated ASEL, and owning a Lear Jet.

And a different written exam. I assume it's longer and more difficult, but I don't know that. I've never seen a Sport Pilot written exam.

To me personally, having a bit larger, factory build planes , being sold as LSA ( and not as certified or E-AB ) would be the most attractive result of this proposed change.

We are not talking here Cirrus or anything like that but more like Sling 4 or generally, about 1700 lbs planes with Rotax 915is +all other typical LSA amenities like BRS etc ...hmm

joey4420 wrote:
I do a lot of work on my own plane with fellow PPL friends to sign off on my oil changes and and little things I need to do.

That doesn’t sound kosher.

What authorizes a Private Pilot to “sign off” work performed by another on an aircraft he or she does not own?

Part 43 specifically says a PP or above can perform preventive maintenance (a specific list of tasks is provided) on a certified aircraft he or she owns.

I am a firm believer is following all the rules all the time. If you don't like a rule or law, work to get it changed. However, if I was going to cheat, I wouldn't post about it on the internet.

If it is an experimental remember the trunk monkey can do the work during the year just not the annual.

roger lee wrote:If it is an experimental remember the trunk monkey can do the work during the year just not the annual.

Who you callin' a trunk monkey?

This trunk monkey is taking the 16 hour class next April.

roger lee wrote:If it is an experimental remember the trunk monkey can do the work during the year just not the annual.

True, but we were discussing maintenance on an Ercoupe.

Specifically the owner doing the work on it and another Private Pilot "signing it off".

Not legal, right?