Things are looking up for Light-Sport Aircraft, rather fantastically so in my admittedly biased opinion.
While this space is usually dedicated to cool new airplanes — not boring government policy reviews…yawn! — this column will provide some rays of light to an industry approaching its 15th birthday (in September 2019). I think some of this may surprise you.
LAMA, the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association (kind of a General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) for the light aircraft sector) and its partner, USUA, the U.S. Ultralight Association, have been heads-down working on improving the opportunities for LSA.
Core-Four-Plus-One
In June 2018, a series of many meetings that began in 2014 came to an early but very promising point. Here is what I think this means for the Light-Sport Aircraft manufacturing industry and those who own and operate LSA.
LAMA took a long list of suggestions about the then-10-year-old industry and reduced it to four initiatives. We were wisely counseled that too long a list would go nowhere.
On the tightest of budgets, we have been pursuing these objectives for four and a half years. The four core goals are:
- Encouraging the FAA to allow special Light-Sport Aircraft to perform aerial work (beyond flight instruction and towing);
- Introducing the safety benefits (and performance gains) that come with adjustable propellers controlled solely by a single lever;
- Urging the FAA to permit electric propulsion and instruction in aircraft designed for such motors; and
- Solving the longstanding problem that requires modern gyroplanes to be built only as kits (with the attendant problem that no commercial training is possible).
After many meetings with high-level FAA executives and project managers, we are pleased to report that ALL these objectives and one more — increasing the gross weight of LSA — are included in the FAA’s present actions regarding rule making.
Note that gross weight will probably be determined by a new system other than a fixed-weight number, but the exact formula is pending while FAA officials finalize the regulation plans.
To repeat, ALL these objectives are on FAA’s list for inclusion in eventual rule making.
“Eventual” is a key word, however…
Work Far from Done
In 2018, neither aircraft manufacturers nor pilots can take advantage of these new opportunities. While the future appears to hold great promise, LAMA and USUA have sought a faster solution.
The changes should broaden the appeal of LSA, leading to not only more sales but a higher value for the aircraft you buy.
We are proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish on the skinniest of budgets, but we did not fly solo.
We also sought, and received, support for our initiatives from big organizations such as GAMA, the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). While these giants of aviation first serve their own members, LAMA is 100% focused on light aircraft.
Rulemaking will consume at least three years and it could be even longer before such rules go into force, assuming no changes of present course.
Three to five years is a long time to wait for change for an industry that’s not even 15 years old.
So, following a direct request from top FAA executives, we submitted a comprehensive business case for a program that we hope will allow manufacturers, dealers, owners, operators, and pilots to exercise the core-four-plus-one privileges much sooner.
The program we proposed is an evaluation and data-gathering period that will give the FAA precisely what managers and executives say they need — “more data” — in order to get approval to change current regulations.
LAMA’s plan will help the industry and pilots, but it will also help the FAA.
Allowing the industry and pilots to gain new opportunities under controlled circumstances can give everyone privileges in the near(er) term while generating valuable data for FAA to use in justifying regulation change.
LAMA and USUA are pleased to supply such a great outlook, but caution that it took more than four years of hard work to get to this point and, as a much-revered author once wrote, “Anything can happen. Nothing has to happen.”
Nonetheless, we pledge to keep moving forward toward these goals.
A very big thank you must go to those helping LAMA and USUA pursue these goals. Multiple trips to Washington, D.C., cost real money and we are grateful for the help from LAMA founder Larry Burke, Rotax Aircraft Engines in Austria, and its U.S. distributor. Each supplied generous funds used solely for travel expenses. Other companies also financially assisted this on-going effort.
William Crowl says
I like the idea of limiting max payload, max stall speed, min flight load (greater than -1 / +3 G for example), and min pilot medical qualification (Driver’s license – no “BasicMed”).
One of the problems with current UL and LSA regulations is that they try to reverse engineer a solution based on the current state of the art of aircraft design existing at the time of regulatory implementation.
Approaching the problem from the maximum acceptable mission capability side opens up the opportunity for innovation and cost control rather than stifling it.
I’m not supportive of an LSA aircraft definition with more than two seat capability. If Part 23 doesn’t work or needs expansion then fix that instead, don’t ruin LSA, it’s not nearly as bad as it is being hyped to be.
I also think there is quite a lot that the aviation community is missing in this. That nose sticking under the edge of the LSA tent? That is Google, Uber, Terrafugia, IKON, et al with their “automation” vision of the future for LSA because they view it as a cheap exploit opportunity. The inability of these companies to “make weight” under the current LSA rules with their new designs is what is driving this, not the opportunity to drive up the resale price on 40 year old Cessna 150’s.
Be careful what you wish for, you might get it…
Len blair says
Having bought a 162 LSA for my wife , we soon found the plane required more skill to fly than our 182 or Aztec . Proof , the insurance on the 182 with the same hull value is a whopping 3 times less than the 162 . Don’t forget the 182 does a170 mph , is complex , a four seater and high performance . I think that pretty well sums it up .
I have had high time commercial & military jet pilots who have flown most everything give it a spin on a windy day and needed saving . On a gust windy say 20 to 24 Knot day their eyes get real big on landing and that’s with an assist. True the medical accidents for older pilots in LSA is lower than GA normal categories but far away too many accidents in the handling areas . Recently , I saw the accident ratio per hundred thousand hours for a 162 to be 22 plus and if correct for a 182 less than 2 . So why do we force pilots into unforgiving aircraft bound by weight and performance figures ?..? I would put my bets on which one had the “best accident ratio” , but I guess that’s too rational.
PS , my wife now flys the 182 period .
Len
Rod Beck says
WHAT\WHO was the LSA originally designed/produced for “older” aviiators with possible medical issues OR those who want to keep flying and trade “down” thier Bonanza or other high fixed cost bird for the LSA birds! But what about the “yonger” want-a-b pilot: shorter time to license AND for 60/65% of the cost of a private ticket – poor or frankly, NOT marketed to the right demographic – 18- 55???? (A life time customer?)
Jim Macklin says
Increase the GW so that endurance is 4 hours with a 450 pound payload, Actual GW could be any number. The USA does not have to mimic EU rules, or do we?
Jim Macklin, ATP CFI ASMEIL ASES says
I’m a 70+ ATP ASMEL SES , CFI ASMEI. Not sure if I can qualify for NY medical. LSAbut even is a sport pilot can’t fly IFR, it would sure be nice if the LSA could. IFR is supposed to be safer, so why not?
I’d like to be able to spin the Carbon Cub, etc but it seems everybody is afraid to approve the airplane for spins because a sport pilot doesn’t know how.
Sarah A says
And this is how the Basic Medical got taken way past the simple gains we wanted and was turned into one that was overly burdened with restrictions and requirements. Let’s NOT start in with the GOLD PLATING on this and take the gains we can get without make it into something the FAA will not accept with similar suc restrictions and limitations added onto LSA. Many of us cannot get in the air without LSA as it is so don’t kill the good thing we have going with it.
Ed Fogle says
What about increasing the allowable max gross weight to a reasonable number? A manufacturer’s rep at Oshkosh told me that was coming but it’s not on this list.
Sarah A says
That is an add on to the list i.e. Core Four PLUS ONE. I agree it should be a CORE item as it is very important but at least it made it as an add on. However as stated:
“Note that gross weight will probably be determined by a new system other than a fixed-weight number, but the exact formula is pending while FAA officials finalize the regulation plans.”
That leaves a lot to be considered. Just what do they mean by this “New System”, what are the variables that go into the equation, how much increase can we expect? That creates a lot more questions than answers so they need to step up and give us some idea as to what they mean given that this is the only issue that most of us are really concerned about.
Dan Johnson says
Ed & Sarah: As Sarah noted, gross weight IS included in FAA’s eventual plan. It was not part of LAMA’s original four but was welcomed, hence the “Core Four Plus One.” As to the gross weight formula, this is still in development so stating the current thinking is not useful. What we know is that it will not be a fixed number as now (1,320 or 1,430 pounds, for land or seaplane LSA), but higher total weight is coming. A change of this import demands time to be carefully considered. The whole point of LAMA’s original request was to improve the original 2004 regulation. That work ushered in many good ideas but few plans are perfect from the outset. Please be patient while FAA and industry work toward better solutions. For the record, LAMA originally suggested many more tweaks and changes but zeroed in the four listed as the top requests from industry and pilots.
GBigs says
The only elements that really matter are useful load and speed. Your list contains nothing of any real impact unless these planes are allowed to carry more and go faster.
Sarah A says
How about at least letting the stall speed limit to allow for the use of flaps like the rest of the world does. The restriction of meeting 45 kts without flaps really drives the wing area requirement beyond reason. That goes to the potential for GW increase since it would drive the required wing area even higher. That currently drives wing area up to around 120 sq ft at the current GW limit and that is way too much as it takes away from weight available for other areas of structure or fuel or occupants. They will never be able to pull in something like a C150 without some relief there. We do not want to ask for too much and get rejected but the two areas of the regs are very much entwined. Just look at what happened to Basic Med when they started adding on so much more capability and the restrictions got piled on in response.
Larry says
The FAA … making simple stuff hard (and time consuming) since 1958 !
Sarah is correct … skip the “new system” and just increase the darned MGTOW already. By the time they figure it out … more pilots will go away. Higher weights will allow making LSA’s out of something more substantial than crepe’ paper.
The only thing that’d make all this blather better is if the ‘Administrator’ says he can’t discuss any of it in advance of Regulations because it’d be an “ex parte” communication.
Bradley says
Great!