Skycatcher death - LSA Rule failure

[ave8rr]

Interesting reading.....

 

http://airfactsjournal.com/2014/04/skycatchers-death-proves-lsa-rule-failure

 

 

[bexrbetter]

This is the bullshit mindset right here ...

 

That does not mean LSAs are bad airplanes. I’ve flown three of the most popular models (the Skycatcher, Legend Cub and Van’s RV-12) and they are very likable: fun, affordable to operate and well made. The RV-12, for example, offers a faster cruise speed and lower fuel burn than a new Cessna 172–all for $250,000 less.

 

 

 

Some critics argue that, while the airplanes themselves aren’t bad, the prices are. True, the $75,000 LSA never happened (who promised it would anyway?) but these airplanes are still 50-80% less expensive than new Skyhawks and Archers. That $150,000 Skycatcher may sound crazy, but compared to a $400,000 Skyhawk, it’s quite a savings.

 

 

What are these idiotic prices they are talking for a 2 seat aircraft?

 

 

 

Oh hang on, it's only $150K not $400K - well awesome, who's got $150K???? I love the way magazine guys just rattle off prices.

 

 

 

Realistically if you look through the second hand market you can see that $30 - $60K price range is where most people live and probably a struggle there for many as well.

 

 

 

... and BTW, I believe LSA is going not so bad in Europe.

 

 

 

[rgmwa]

Seems to me that the Skycatcher's death probably says more about Cessna than the failure of the LSA rules. In fact, most of his article is about explaining why LSA's are really not so bad despite their relatively high price, and might even be quite good for the GA industry in the long run. Affordability is certainly a factor in flying generally, but let's say you could buy a good new aircraft for the price of the average new car, would it attract a replacement generation of amateur pilots into aviation? I'm not so sure that it would. Post-war civil aviation development and cheap airfares have turned flying into a boring taxi trip for most young people, and with about as much appeal, particularly in view of the significant amount of study, practice, time and commitment it takes to learn to fly let alone own an aircraft. There are many exceptions to the rule of course, but I think that's where the real problem is and LSA's won't solve that.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[facthunter]

Think you are right rgmwa. Gratification without much effort seems to be it. Challenges seem to be more "on the brink of death" adrenalin rush stuff, rather than a challenge to master a skill and understand an environment (Eg the AIR) LSA's have never made a lot of sense to me as many of the parameters are arbitrary. I believe Cessna expected the weight to increase.

 

Re cost. Where it is labour intensive and a quality aspect is paramount you will experience high costs. Mass production gives a product at minimum cost and max value. Ie Tens of thousands not hundreds. Self build is the only way of beating this and most don't have the skills or motivation.

 

Digital fun is almost taking over the "real" experience. Most things can be an adventure unless you are so turned off that you don't notice what is happening around you. Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Discussion of LSA on this forum seems to bring out innate prejudices very quickly. I love flying my LSA but I keep reading the advertisements for sub $50,000 Archers and Cherokees. I would own and run one if they were not so darned expensive to run. The LSA costs me less to run, by any measure including depreciation, than my car, per kilometre.

 

A four seater would be great - I could take the grand kids - but it would be a financial burden. As for building - I restore cars and motorbikes as a hobby and enjoy it. I like bringing things back from the brink. I would restore a plane, but feel no urge to build one. I respect people who do.

 

I think there are lots of individual views about our hobby, all valid. We shouldn't hang s..t on any segment.

 

 

[facthunter]

I hope you don't think I'm hanging sh!t on any segment, because that certainly is not my intention. LSA has conditions that you have to accept that are very restrictive ( to some) similar to GA , which are avoidable by going other ways. Some of this involves extra cost. Facts are not prejudices. There are many people wiser than I am who see EXP GA as a better alternative to LSA. Self building repair and maintenance is educative , Justifies getting involved (for some) and MAKES IT CHEAPER. by a mile. If you do it well it is even SAFER. YOU have the control of the standard..

 

Buying a GA plane, is the easy part. Living with the ongoing costs is the reality . It can be multiples of the purchase price within years.

 

Aviation for most people is NOT cheap. Aviation RAAus style can be. That is the point I'm trying to make. Nev

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I think there are lots of individual views about our hobby, all valid. We shouldn't hang s..t on any segment.

I'm just making a point that LSA are unaffordable to most, and for that unaffordability you get very little IMO.

 

Seems to me that the Skycather's death probably says more about Cessna than the failure of the LSA rules.

Just another American company gets badly burnt in China, they join a very long list of prestigious "Top 500" Corporate names.

 

 

[frank marriott]

RA v GA cost: I can do a 100hrly/annual for under $100 (including plugs, oil, filter) on my LSA - compare that with paying for same on a VH aircraft - That's without other 25/50hr services - That is the difference between me owning and operating my own plane OR just hiring whatever is available when I want one (which would be much less flying)

 

Seat numbers - I would now spend more time flying with a spare seat in my 2 seater then with a pax - and enjoy it more doing what I want when I want - spent enough time looking after pax in CHTR to want worry about them now - only occasionally close friends/family.

 

This is just another view of recreational flying - Everyone has different expectations - I can do anything that I want to do in a SE aircraft in my LSA as what I could in a VH aircraft. (No longer interested in night or IFR in SE aeroplanes)

 

 

[Downunder]

I didn't mind the high purchase cost of my LSA because I get extremely low running costs and 600 kg mtow weight, which means full fuel with two "full size"people.

 

I went on a cross country with my mate in a GA aircraft (he's trying to convert me to GA/Ppl). 4 hours there and back at 30 lph of avgas at about 10 knots faster than my lsa........Doing the figures, I won't be going over to GA any time soon....lol

 

 

[sfGnome]

My vast(??!!) experience of the younger folk is that they're all different. (Amazing, really). My younger son is simply not interested in coming aloft. My daughter came up once to keep me happy. My older son was keen, but after a bout of airsickness his keenness diminished somewhat. Just about to give up on the lot of 'em, when recently I took my son in law up. "Wow. Awesome! This is amazing. My dad is going to be soooo jealous". Looks like I finally found one with the nascent bug... :)

 

 

[rgmwa]

I'm building an LSA (RV-12), but as an AB(E) Amateur Built Experimental (VH reg). That way I can do my own maintenance and sign of the annuals. I can't see much point in building E-LSA in Australia, as you can't then sign off the annuals (but you can do the maintenance), nor can you make modifications unless you get the manufacturer's approval. That makes owning one not much different to a normal GA aircraft. It's better in the US, where E-LSA makes more sense, but our rules are different. There also seems to be confusion sometimes between LSA, E-LSA and S-LSA. LSA refers to the defined performance parameters that the aircraft has to comply with - 600kg MTOW, fixed pitch prop, two seats, limits on stall speed, simple to operate, etc. E-LSA and S-LSA are the two registration systems - E if you build it (19 reg if RAA), or S if it's factory built (24). As for the LSA performance limitations, I don't see that these are onerous for the kind of flying I'm likely to be doing. Mostly local flights solo or sometimes with a passenger, 2-3 hour cross countries and the occasional long (interstate) flight. If I owned a Cessna, I wouldn't be doing anything different (or get there any faster), except that it would cost me a lot more to operate and maintain. The Cessna would handle turbulence better and carry more load, but my aircraft will be new, better equipped, and I don't have to worry about SIDS.

 

rgmwa.

 

 

[jetjr]

The 600kg MTOW is now there for everyone BUT the aircraft must be approved for it and still meet stall speed limitations.

 

Aside from use as training and being able to fly over "built up areas" having LSA doesnt make much sense to me right now except that its often the only way to buy a factory built example.

 

The CTA/built up areas thing doesnt make much sense either as exemptions are available and homebuilt VH exp are able to access??

 

Building yourself under VH experimental makes much more sense

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I didn't mind the high purchase cost of my LSA because I get extremely low running costs and 600 kg mtow weight, which means full fuel with two "full size"people.

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I am genuinely trying to learn when I ask you what has being an LSA got to do with low running costs?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I think the low cost applies to all high-end RA aircraft when compared to the same performance from GA aircraft. If you also want a factory built aircraft, then LSA covers most of the field. Lower performance RA aircraft might also be low cost, but not low cost per kilometre for two people doing longer trips at best speed.

 

 

[jetjr]

Bex many incorrectly see LSA as certified aircraft like bigger GA types at obviously way less cost

 

Sort of true, they are factory built and to a standard but not the same level of regulation and testing as Cessna etc

 

In that light they are far cheaper to run that GA types but thats not comparing with closer RAA cousins

 

 

[frank marriott]

LSA Rule Failure:

 

I fail to see the relevance of such a statement

 

If someone has an accident then in some cases there may be grounds to argue about the level of training needed to fly the particular type/performance aircraft - Non it's registration type.

 

Everywhere I go I see more LSA then other registration types of RAA aircraft. Remember it is a choice - no one HAS to buy a LSA - just many choose to do so.

 

I fail to see extra cost to administer LSA. They either comply or not and the compliance is dictated by the manufacturer not RAA. The mess occurred by some non complying aircraft being registered - not the rules themselves. More work/time would be involved in ensuring a particular aircraft complies with the relevant rules then one that comes with a SCOA issued by the manufacturer (obviously the manufacturer must meet the relevant qualifications).

 

For those who only believe in "rag and tube" this is not a division but a choice, you are free to choose which type you choose to buy/build/fly.

 

As to referring to it as a home for GA drivers with medical problems - they have to comply with the same medical requirements as any other RAA driver - this view tends to suggest that all medical requirements should be raised, I don't see any evidence to support such a view.

 

Remember it should not be a "them and us" situation, just more options for pilots of all choices to to enjoy their love of flying in the particular performance range that suits them.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Be careful about statement like "600 Kg is now there for all". For those for whom this is not obvious, the MTOW of the aircraft is what it was certified for by the manufacturer, for LSA; or what it was certificated to, for a certificated aircraft. It's NOT the category limit.

 

The problems I see - or perhaps, forsee - with LSA are these:

 

Firstly, it's a recipe for "regulation by litigation". A Type Certificate issued by a national Airworthiness Authority is, to some degree, protection for the manufacturer against product liability litigation in regard to design fault. LSA certification by the manufacturer is a much more porous umbrella. LSA aircraft have not really been around long enough for the manufacturers (except the likes of Cessna, who appear to have seen the light) to be sufficiently wealthy to be attractive targets for litigation, but in the fullness of time . . .

 

Secondly, modifications to LSA aircraft can only be approved by the manufacturer. Almost any repair is a modification. So when the manufacturer goes belly-up, a damaged LSA aircraft cannot be repaired without dropping to experimental status. That means the insurance situation for these aircraft has a big question mark hanging over it; and the re-sale value is likely to be low.

 

Thirdly, there are too many LSA manufacturers for the market. That means there is inevitably going to be a shake-out. Add this to the first two considerations, and you can see where it's headed.

 

All this being the case, building an LSA kit as an experimental aircraft makes a great deal of sense. Buying one as a factory built, well . . .

 

 

[rgmwa]

The US rules are interesting. In order to sell LSA kits for you to build as E-LSA aircraft, the kit manufacturer has to design, test (to ASTM standards) and manufacture at least one production LSA aircraft, which becomes an S-LSA. Your kit can be built either as a normal EAB (amateur built experimental) or as an E-LSA. If you choose to go the E-LSA route, your aircraft must conform in every respect to the original S-LSA plans and specifications. In other words, your aircraft must be an exact copy of the original with no deviations of any kind allowed unless authorised by the kit manufacturer. If you do that, then in the US, your homebuilt pride and joy will have the kit manufacturer inscribed as the builder of your aircraft on the data plate, not you.

 

However, once you have got your E-LSA aircraft inspected and the airworthiness certificate in your pocket, you may make whatever changes you like to your plane, like any other experimental aircraft. Now, where does that leave the kit manufacturer legally? I don't think anyone knows at this stage. In Australia, CASA doesn't accept the notion that you can put your ACME kit together, and then claim that your E-LSA was built by the ACME Aircraft Co. Their quite reasonable view is "you built it, so it's your name on all the paperwork, and you take full responsibility for it". Nor will they accept you making unauthorised changes to it.

 

That's why almost no US manufacturers are willing to allow their kits to be built and registered as E-LSA. Vans is an exception, and they have also recently started commercial production of their RV-12 S-LSA through a partnership arrangement with another company, with Van's inspectors overseeing all parts of the production process.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Yenn]

If yopu build ELSA then the builder is you, not the person who built the original kit. You can modify the kit any way you like and it really is just another Experimental, but based on an LSA. If you are approved you can do all the maintenance on it.

 

 

[eightyknots]

Some critics argue that, while the airplanes themselves aren’t bad, the prices are. True, the $75,000 LSA never happened (who promised it would anyway?)

I know of at least one for $59.950: http://www.x-airlsa.com/

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I know of at least one for $59.950: http://www.x-airlsa.com/

Lovely looking thing, I wonder how many think it's too "Ultralite" looking though?

 

 

[eightyknots]

No doubt about it. It really looks ultralight: it has Dacron sailcloth stretched over tubes and it has a "grown up weedhopper" appearance. However, they seem to immensely popular in Europe where hundreds have been sold.

 

 

[djpacro]

Probably only didn't sell becsuse of the price.

and the useful load.

[geoffreywh]

and the crosswind capability is very very low. I believe that Tyabb wants to sell them and go with Foxbats