LSA?

[Spriteah]

What actually is LSA?

 

I see lots of jabs as LSA then others as J160 ect.

 

Can someone give me a quick explanation please.....

 

Jim

 

 

[WestCoast]

Jim.....not a quick explanation, but here is a good place to start:-

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2006/apr/64-65.pdf

 

Regards

 

Dave

 

 

[bushpilot]

Dave - That's a real succinct description of the rules; thanks for putting it up...

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

 

 

[Spriteah]

Thanks for that info

 

Very helpful.

 

 

[lambadaman]

Jim,

 

Are you refering to the early Jabiru LSA55 aircraft?

 

These aircraft are not Light Sport Aircraft, refered to in the above article.

 

They are factory built and certified by RAAus, NOT the Manufacturer.

 

They are normally registered with a 55-_ _ _ _ number.

 

The main dfference is these aircraft do not need the Manufacturer to be active to continue their comercial operation.

 

Hope this helps?

 

Gerry....

 

 

[Ross]

Hi Jim

 

I have sympathy with your dilemma over the description of the Jab aircaft. Most people talking of Jabs on the forum do not differentiate between the models and they vary from something like 470 Kg MTOW with a 1600 cc motor cruising at about 80 knots to 600 Kg MTOW with the 3300 cc 6 cyl motor cruising at 120 knots or thereabouts.

 

Generally speaking they come in two versions for each model.

 

The Certified factory built ones generally have C attached after the model name so a J160C is a factory built certified plane with the 4 cyl 2200 cc motor. The certified one can probably be registered as RAA or GA.

 

The J160 is the kit built version of almost the same plane but there may be slight differences in some of the equipment but essentially the same a/c with the 4 cyl 2200 cc motor. The uncertified Kit can only be registered RAA .

 

The kit version of the J160 came out early 2004 I think and I have kit #14 in the J160 model. Kit versions cannot be hired or used for training generally. Kit versions can be maintained by their builders who are granted L1 status as owner kit builders.

 

The certified version of it, J160C came out later in 2005 which can be used for hire or instructional flights if maintained by a L2 or LAME.

 

The model numbers have nothing to do with the engine size although sometimes part of the model number has some meaning like the number of seats,

 

For details of most of the Jab models see their website for their specifications as well as drawings & options.

 

http://www.jabiru.net.au/

 

Regards

 

 

[hihosland]

Ross did say

 

"The J160 is the kit built version of almost the same plane but there may be slight differences in some of the equipment but essentially the same a/c with the 4 cyl 2200 cc motor. The uncertified Kit can only be registered RAA"

 

.

 

Can this aircraft not be registered as VH EXPERIMENTAL?

 

Davidh

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

Can anyone clarify the E-LSA limitation about flying over built up area's?

 

Does this mean your choice of airfields is limited, for example you couldn't fly into Bankstown for maintenance?

 

Thanks. Mal

 

 

[Ross]

Hi Davidh

 

You are probably correct but I do not know enough to say anything definite on that subject - I did not know whether we were/are still waiting on the new regulations to be sorted out on that subject.

 

This may not be pertinent but I was under the impression that an RAAust pilot could not fly an experimental VH-registered A/C unless they hold a GA license but could fly the same A/C if registered with RAAust.

 

We are also waiting on the new manuals to be published by RAAust which is what I originally used as my bible in regard to RAAust flying. Now I am getting more confused.

 

On the subject of Engines, Jabiru had put a notice on their website some time ago to say that their engine was an "approved type" (I foreget the exact wordage) so that will have some bearing on where that a/c could be flown legally in Oz (and also in the USA).

 

Regards

 

 

[hihosland]

Ross said,

 

'''This may not be pertinent but I was under the impression that an RAAust pilot could not fly an experimental VH-registered A/C unless they hold a GA license but could fly the same A/C if registered with RAAust.''''

 

Yep!! As I understand it an RAAus certified pilot cannot legally fly any VH registered aircraft be they LSA, VH-Experimental or a 747 unless they also hold the appropriately endorsed PPL.

 

Some aircraft because their all up weight, stall speed etc fit certain parameters can be registered as either VH or RAA but not both.

 

Re engines. As near as I can figure an 'approved' engine is allowed to fly into controlled airspace and over built up areas. A 'certified' certified engine can be used in a 'certified' aircraft and thus used in commercial operations. e.g. the 80 hp Rotax 912UL is an approved engine while the 80hp 912ULA is a 'certified' engine. I'm standing by ready to take correction on this.

 

Davidh

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Re engines. As near as I can figure an 'approved' engine is allowed to fly into controlled airspace and over built up areas. A 'certified' certified engine can be used in a 'certified' aircraft and thus used in commercial operations. e.g. the 80 hp Rotax 912UL is an approved engine while the 80hp 912ULA is a 'certified' engine. I'm standing by ready to take correction on this.

Davidh

Pretty much yes David, and a 'certified' engine is not required for operations in 95.55, but an approved one is.

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

I'd be grateful for some firsthand advice if there is anyone on this forum currently operating under E-LSA provisions.

 

From my reading of the regs there are two operational differences between S-LSA and E-LSA; they being that E-LSA cant fly at night or over built up areas.

 

The part I'm curious about is how "built up areas" is defined and how it is applied in practice (if at all).

 

Mal

 

 

[TechMan]

Mal,

 

Operations under RA-Aus are daylight VMC only, no matter what category aircraft you fly.

 

With regard to built up areas, the definition is listed in CAO95.55:

 

(i) in the case of an aeroplane to which this section applies by virtue of

 

paragraph 1.3, 1.4 , 1.6 or 1.8 (snip - this is for certificated aircraft and Special LSA) — the aeroplane must not be flown over a

 

built-up area at a height:

 

(i) from which it cannot glide clear of all dwellings, buildings and

 

persons within the built-up area; and

 

(ii) that is lower than 1 000 feet above ground level;

 

(ia) in the case of an aeroplane to which this section applies by virtue of

 

paragraph 1.2 , 1.5 or 1.9 (snip - this is for ABAA, amateur built and ELSA) — the aeroplane must not be flown over a

 

built-up area except as authorised under paragraph 5.1A;

 

5.1A CASA, or an authorised person for the purposes of subregulation 262AP (5) of

 

the Regulations, may authorise an aeroplane referred to in subparagraph

 

5.1 (ia) to be operated over a built-up area subject to the conditions and

 

limitations that CASA or the authorised person considers necessary in the

 

interests of the safety of other airspace users or of persons on the ground or

 

water.

 

5.1 (ia) in the case of an aeroplane to which this section applies by virtue of

 

paragraph 1.2 , 1.5 or 1.9 — the aeroplane must not be flown over a

 

built-up area except as authorised under paragraph 5.1A;

 

This means that amateur built aircraft (including ELSA) cannot fly over a built up area without prior permission from CASA or an Authorised person.

 

Chris

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

Thanks for explaining that Chris. I guess that raises the question, is it normal for those in the ELSA category to receive permission to fly over built up areas?

 

This seems an important issue for anyone considering purchasing an ELSA or an SLSA that is at risk of reverting to ELSA.

 

 

[vk3auu]

My understanding is that you could register a 95.10 as VH if you wished so to do. As such, it would then need to be maintained by a LAME and you would also need to be have a PPL or better. I presume the usual restrictions would apply as to where you could fly depending on whether the engine was approved or with what other additional avionics it was equipped.

 

David

 

David

 

 

[Guest keanlim]

I am also confused. I understand that RA-Aus registered aircraft can only fly VFR. But jabiru has a J230D with night package. Which I am assuming can fly at least a Night VFR? www.jabiru.net.au in the for sale section. Isn't Jabiru J230D a LSA?

 

 

[Guest brentc]

No need to get confused. An LSA aircraft can be registered as GA or RAA. The NVFR one that you speak of is GA registered in LSA and requires a PPL or higher at the helm.

 

At first it does seem a little strange that an LSA aircraft can be RAA or registered, however it must be remembered that LSA was pretty much implemented into Australia to benefit GA operators by reducing costs and complexity.

 

 

[Guest keanlim]

Thanks for the explaination. Since LSA aircraft can be registered VH and certified for Night VFR, does it also mean then that if adequately equipped, the same LSA aircraft can also fly or at least used for IFR training?

 

 

[Guest brentc]

Good question and don't take this as a definitive answer, however I do remember reading that LSA are VFR only. NVFR is of course still VFR so slips through the cracks I guess. Personally I think that allowing NVFR is a safety concern. You're talking about aircraft with a lesser certification non-certified engines, versus your GA full rego aircraft with certified gear.

 

 

[Guest keanlim]

Thanks for your answer. Your are right NVFR is also VFR (but at night). The reason for me asking about IFR is just my cheapskate way of trying to do my IFR training (when I eventually do that) as much as possible in a more modern and low running cost (as well as low capital cost) training aircraft.

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

Brent, you seem to have your head around these issues, perhaps you could help with an issue that I still don't quite get, despite the best efforts of others.

 

The part that is still bugging me is flying over built up areas. SLSA doesn't have this restriction, ELSA does. This restriction could render an ELSA aircraft useless if you want to actually go somewhere in it.

 

We're clear that an ELSA cannot fly over built up areas without authorisation from CASA or an authorised person.

 

Here's a hypothetical with two options that both have the same result;

 

1. I am considering brand X LSA to use for travel. It comes in a 90% complete kit. SLSA is not available in this situation which means it has to be registered ELSA.

 

2. I am considering brand Y LSA. It's a factory built and can be registered SLSA so it has no restriction over built up areas. Two years later the importer pulls the pin and without a certification representative, my SLSA automatically reverts to ELSA. All of a sudden I cannot fly over built up areas.

 

So my question is, whats the likelihood of obtaining the authorisation for an ELSA to fly over built up areas? Is it routine or is it too early to know?

 

I'm left with the distinct impression that ELSA category aircraft are not the way to go if I want to fly anywhere other than around my paddock. And even SLSA aircraft carry a significant risk of loosing their usefulness because it's seems too easy to fall outside the SLSA requirements through no fault of my own.

 

It all seems to hinge on being able to obtain this elusive authorisation, which seems to have no certainty of being granted.

 

Am I right in concluding that a better alternative to LSA is to go the old fashioned way with 95.10/radio/transponder/PPL and I'm free go wherever I want? Or does the built up area restriction apply here also?

 

Thanks

 

Mal

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Am I right in concluding that a better alternative to LSA is to go the old fashioned way with 95.10/radio/transponder/PPL and I'm free go wherever I want? Or does the built up area restriction apply here also?

I'm sure Brent will answer more thoroughly but 95.10 aren't allowed over "towns or cities". Factory built eg 95.55 and 95.32 are allowed over built up areas (above 1000' and provided able to glide clear).

 

John

 

PS the transponder & PPL are only required if it is also controlled airspace

 

 

[TechMan]

Brent, you seem to have your head around these issues, perhaps you could help with an issue that I still don't quite get, despite the best efforts of others.The part that is still bugging me is flying over built up areas. SLSA doesn't have this restriction, ELSA does. This restriction could render an ELSA aircraft useless if you want to actually go somewhere in it.

 

We're clear that an ELSA cannot fly over built up areas without authorisation from CASA or an authorised person.

 

Here's a hypothetical with two options that both have the same result;

 

1. I am considering brand X LSA to use for travel. It comes in a 90% complete kit. SLSA is not available in this situation which means it has to be registered ELSA.

Mal, as a side issue, you cannot register brand X ELSA in Australia unless there is an SLSA version of the aircraft.

 

See AC21-42:

 

6.8 Manufacturing kit built LSA

 

6.8.1 An LSA kit is not required to follow the 51 percent rule as required for other

 

experimental kit aircraft. However, before a kit built LSA can be accepted for an

 

experimental certificate, the manufacturer will need to produce a production aircraft issued

 

with a Special Certificate of Airworthiness in the LSA category of the same make and

 

model. (Refer to CASR 21.191(j)(iii))

 

2. I am considering brand Y LSA. It's a factory built and can be registered SLSA so it has no restriction over built up areas. Two years later the importer pulls the pin and without a certification representative, my SLSA automatically reverts to ELSA. All of a sudden I cannot fly over built up areas. So my question is, whats the likelihood of obtaining the authorisation for an ELSA to fly over built up areas? Is it routine or is it too early to know?

 

I'm left with the distinct impression that ELSA category aircraft are not the way to go if I want to fly anywhere other than around my paddock. And even SLSA aircraft carry a significant risk of loosing their usefulness because it's seems too easy to fall outside the SLSA requirements through no fault of my own.

 

It all seems to hinge on being able to obtain this elusive authorisation, which seems to have no certainty of being granted.

 

Am I right in concluding that a better alternative to LSA is to go the old fashioned way with 95.10/radio/transponder/PPL and I'm free go wherever I want? Or does the built up area restriction apply here also?

 

Thanks

 

Mal

You are correct in your assumptions Mal. That is one of the 'features' of LSA. (Microsoft always have features and not Bugs)

 

Flight conditions are listed in CAO95.55.

 

Whether you fly LSA or normal factory built/amateur built, the limitations are the same, as the Order defines the limitations based on the category of aircraft.

 

Chris

 

 

[Ultralights]

just a quick question regarding the flight over built up areas, its it restricted over built up areas as defined in the VNC and VTC? the yellow shaded areas..

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

Thanks Chris and John. It's becoming clearer for me thanks to your help.

 

It seems I complicated it for myself by trying to match a mission profile that ultralight regs are not intended for.

 

I now think that even though I'll build an ultralight category aircraft, I might be better off going VH experimental. This will probably offer the path of least resistance to continuing the type of flying I currently do in the 182.

 

Mal