LSA to get a weight/speed increase

[fly_tornado]

Sat, Oct 06, 2018

 

LSA Shakeup! EAA Confirms Major Changes to LSA Weight/Speed Criteria

 

Out Of Right Field, EAA Confirms Massive LSA Reg Change For January NPRM

 

The first hints of an interesting rumor caught us a little off guard, but EAA's Jack Pelton has confirmed that massive changes are coming soon to an LSA near you.

 

 

The details are still sketchy, and a few text messages have confirmed the basics, but the initial reports indicate that the maximum weight criteria for a Light Sport Aircraft will be increased in a January NPRM following cooperative efforts by EAA and the FAA--who are starting to look like they really want GA to succeed, after all.

 

We don't know a lot... but we do know (via EAA) that the max weight limit will skyrocket to 3600 pounds (nearly triple what we were saddled with a few years back), and that some form of maximum speed limit (as yet to be defined) will be increased to somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 mph (the text says, specifically, 'mph' but we're seeking clarification between mph and kts...).

 

If that wasn't enough to shake things up, we've also had basic corroboration that an announcement of some sort of renewal of the ADS-B rebate program that expired in February is in the offing...

 

We're awaiting callbacks from some of the major players in this and will fill you in as soon as we have more detail.

 

 

[facthunter]

The LSA formula was always going to be an interim thing. It was an ill conceived stop gap . A non answer to an improperly considered non problem. Surprised it took so long. All the Hoo Haa for a few Lbs extra AUW... I'm sorry for all the people caught by this move. They are stuck in it. most likely. To my mind the original 762 Kgs suggested by the CASA of the day was on the ball for two seaters, but higher is not likely to be a problem of itself.. Nev

 

 

[poteroo]

We need to be very aware of the US 'rules' with LSA type aircraft where, besides the 1320lbs/600kg MTOW, they also have 120 KIAS as the upper limit. For some inexplicable reason, (one of omission by mistake IMHO), CASA didn't include any upper speed limit for LSA - just the 45KIAS stall speed. If there is going to be such a massive lift in both MTOW, and the max allowable TAS in the US is about to be lifted too - good for them. But, the last thing we want is for CASA to 'benevolently' give us the US version. That is a real worry - do we need such high limits on LSA? Why not just remove the numbers and instal 'VH-' on the aircraft? That's where this is heading. Then we won't need any RAA, or RPC - it will all be CASA and an RPL/PPL.

 

 

[facthunter]

So what was all the effort and hope for over all those years? I actually predicted this outcome about 8 years ago and was told I was panicking or something. the signs were all there. Nev

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Why not just remove the numbers and instal 'VH-' on the aircraft? That's where this is heading.

The GA industry is dying because of the regulatory costs created by CASA. Of course we can "just remove the numbers and instal 'VH-" and then bear the costs associated with a VH airplane and the costs associated with the pilots licenses. That was the whole point of LSA and ultralights; to give more people a chance to fly. These changes (IMO) are designed to accomodate some of the very light GA aircraft into the recreational category. That is where GA started, but steadily over the generations, the bureaucrats in the regulatory bodies have generated endless paper chases under the cover of "safety". The major result of all the credentialism and certification regimes has been to push GA flying out of reach of most average income earners.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's a good way to go broke. Always was actually, unless you flew a VP or such. I dared hope that we had something special ONCE. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

cscotthenry. What are the costs associated with GA?

 

I fly both GA and RAAus and am considering changing one plane from RAAus to GA rego. That would lower my costs, except for the initial cost of the changeover.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Cost for GA and RA seem about the same to me if you use a LAME. If you maintain your RAA membership as well there is no saving going GA.

 

 

[Camel]

Cost for GA and RA seem about the same to me if you use a LAME. If you maintain your RAA membership as well there is no saving going GA.

The fact that RAA is owner maintenance is the major advantage in my opinion, flying school cost is much lower because there is no need for AOC, chief pilots and most schools have a L 2 on the team, I owned a C172 and the introduction of sids was the reason for selling and the maintenance costs, parts, labour and paperwork BS was escalating ! A lot of charges were for just filling out logbook ! I would consider a VH homebuilt but the resale is not usually good because a lot of LAMEs are not keen to work on homebuilds, I wouldn't want to if it appeared rough either !

 

 

[fly_tornado]

a 3600Lb E-LSA like a Cessna 172 would be a fantastic option for a lot of people

 

 

[Thruster88]

A 2300lb VH-XXX Cessna 172 is a fantastic option now.

 

 

[facthunter]

Depends on what you want to do with it. If you are carrying any luggage it's effectively a 3 seater. Nev

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Yenn:

 

As I understand it, everything that goes into a GA plane (apart from experimentals) has to have some sort of certification somewhere along the line. That adds costs from manufacture to maintenance to spare parts.

 

A simple example is the difference between a Rotax 912S and a 912ULS. There is a significant difference in price of the two engines which is mostly down to all the extra certifications in the 912S.

 

Want to put a new airspeed indicator or altimeter in a GA plane as far as I know they have to be TSO. Not so much in an RAA plane.

 

As others have said, in RAA you can maintain your own plane. Can you do this with a non-experimental GA aircraft?

 

And so on it goes.

 

 

[ave8rr]

If and when RAAus get CTA then the aircraft will require all the instrument inspections including transponder by a Avionics LAME. Not Cheap.

 

 

[facthunter]

As I've said before. Be careful what you wish for.. You might just get it (together with all the BS that goes with it.) Nev

 

 

[cscotthendry]

Will we be able to opt out of CTA?

 

 

[Thruster88]

Will we be able to opt out of CTA?

Yes, if you don't do the training you won't have the endorsement.

 

 

[M61A1]

If and when RAAus get CTA then the aircraft will require all the instrument inspections including transponder by a Avionics LAME. Not Cheap.

The current rules already require that. Note the rules are different for aircraft that are allowed CTA access.

From the tech manual:

 

SECTION 12.4

 

INSTRUMENT & TRANSPONDER CHECKS

 

1 AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN CONTROLLED AIRSPACE (CTA) – CLASS C, D, E,

 

1.1 Aircraft that are currently legally permitted to fly in Controlled Airspace (CTA) as detailed in provisions of CAO 95.10, 95.32 or 95.55, must have their instruments maintained in accordance with the provisions of CAO 100.5. The checks are only available through a LAME with specialised calibrated equipment and appropriate licence ratings.

 

3 TRANSPONDERS

 

3.1 All transponders must be maintained in accordance with CAO 100.5. Mode S transponders require an ICAO 24 bit aircraft address allocated by the CASA Aircraft Register at [email protected] The request must include the registration number, manufacturer, model and serial number of the aircraft and the name of the registration holder. The code will be provided in a return email.

 

 

[facthunter]

Are the electrical systems required to do the load capacity requirements the GA ones are? I would be surprised if there's any concessions in this area. If you had just gone for transit rights and procedures it would have required a serviceable RADIO .. Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

Poteroo

 

If removing the max speed numbers is helping someone/anyone, how about removing that Anti safety "wing loading" number for 95-10 aircraft !,

 

Haveing a good strong aircraft must out-way (6+ 6-G) having a flimsy aircraft that only just holds together on climb out.

 

I have worked out how to beat the beaurocrates, but not to any advantage to aviation.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Are the electrical systems required to do the load capacity requirements the GA ones are? I would be surprised if there's any concessions in this area. If you had just gone for transit rights and procedures it would have required a serviceable RADIO .. Nev

At present there is no differentiation between transit access and complete access to CTA and I would have to suggest there should not be.

The requirement for a transponder as well would not be waived ( nor should it) for entry/transit of CTA.

 

 

[440032]

ATC can approve a flight with no transponder any time they like. But, they no like...........

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Well, yeah they “can” approve a flight without a radio too but that doesn’t mean they will. And it’s not that you can rely on it being available.

 

Nev’s post seemed to indicate a transit version of CTA entry would only (normally ) require a radio.

 

 

[M61A1]

Are the electrical systems required to do the load capacity requirements the GA ones are? I would be surprised if there's any concessions in this area. If you had just gone for transit rights and procedures it would have required a serviceable RADIO .. Nev

Most RA pilots use airfields that already require the use of a serviceable radio...no change there.

 

 

[facthunter]

That's what I'm alluding to.. Nothing extra needed. You hold till you get cleared and report having crossed if required. If the radio doesn't work you don't get cleared Transiting a zone is nothing like flying in CTA. The transponder just gives positive identification and altitude sometimes. That's not critical if the level is say coastal at 500 and you aren't using critical vertical separation .Nev