PILOT SPIN
Pilot Zone => Pilot Zone => Topic started by: Anthony on October 11, 2018, 05:50:49 AM
-
If this is true, this is GREAT news.
A high-ranking FAA source has confirmed that the FAA plans to almost triple the maximum weight for most light sport aircraft to 3600 pounds in rulemaking that will be introduced in January. The source confirmed the scant details of a Facebook post written by AOPA Senior VP of Media and Outreach Tom Haines from the AOPA Regional Fly-In at Carbondale, Illinois. “Great news out of AOPA: your freedom to fly Fly-in at Carbondale,” Haines wrote. “In January the FAA will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking increasing max weight for a light sport airplane from 1320 lbs to 3600 lbs
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/LSA-Weight-Limit-Increasing-To-3600-Pounds-231639-1.html?ET=avweb:e4165:312855a:&st=email
-
So what does that mean exactly?
-
So what does that mean exactly?
Again, I don't know if this is real, just speculation, or merely a proposal. If it WERE true, it would open up most of the GA fleet, at least single engine, to those that don't have an FAA Medical.
-
It's a bad idea.
Opens up Sport Pilots to fly much heavier planes, with more seats and more speed - which is counter to the whole concept.
'Gimp
-
It's a bad idea.
Opens up Sport Pilots to fly much heavier planes, with more seats and more speed - which is counter to the whole concept.
'Gimp
You are the fist person I have heard to take that position.
But then I respect your opinion more than most.
-
I read this a few days ago, and the cynic in me is wondering why the FAA is doing this? The LSA plan goes along with the Sport Pilot cert. Anyone who is operating an LSA in the future and has no medical will be operating as a 'Sport pilot'? And do the limitations of SP then apply? and what further limitations on SP are coming, if any?
All new LSA planes that are GA built will qualify under the current S-LSA, and I'm betting will still require the annual inspection by a cert IA. I seriously doubt the FAA will allow owner maint on S-LSA. The E-LSA group will likely be the big winners as they can now design and build kits with greater weight, features, seats, and performance.
-
This is years off. Just think, Sport Pilots could climb into 182s and even some 210s and head off into the skies. Lots of unanswered questions though. How do you keep a SP from loading five people into a 210 and heading out? How abou the current stall speed limitation? What about fixed gear and speed limitation? still day VFR only?
-
EAA is pushing it, and AOPA is taking credit for it.
The Sport Pilot concept was to give medically questionable pilots an ability to fly simple, light, day VFR sportplanes with 2 seats - it was also intended to overcome the issue with fat ultralights which were at best marginally safe.
Now they want to let them fly much heavier planes with potentially more seats, etc., I just think it's a bad idea. Not that there is a substantial difference anymore on the medical front specifically with new Class III, but there are also some training and operational limitation differences between Sport Pilot and PPL and on.
I might just be the aviation equivalent of Clint Eastwood telling the kids to get off my lawn but I do feel pretty strongly this may be a mistake.
'Gimp
-
I'd like to see those with at least a Private be able to operate heavier, faster aircraft without a Medical.
-
Poeple abuse the regs now, and the change in the LSA regs will not affect those who don't follow current regs. I'm not against removing some LSA regs, on the contrary I think it's a good things. The SP rules brought plenty of new people into the mix. but I would like to see a graduated process rather than just turning a SP out on a Sat, and they can take 3 people in a 4 place plane for a 1000 mile trip in sketchy weather. I'd like to see some distance limitations and pax limitations for the first 200 hours or something. Also, when operating as a SP in a bigger LSA I would endorse restrictions on class B for the first 100 hours or similar.
-
It's a bad idea.
Opens up Sport Pilots to fly much heavier planes, with more seats and more speed - which is counter to the whole concept.
'Gimp
The only flight operations that sports pilots aren't trained on are basic instrument maneuvers and night operations. Otherwise they are trained in the same areas of operation - only the minimum amount of time differs (e.g. 3 hrs vs 2 hrs cross-country, etc.) None of those training differences seem in any way connected to the number of seats or speed of the aircraft.
Private pilots have been training in small 2 seat planes for decades and routinely get checked out in bigger planes, so I'm unclear why sports pilots are somehow considered incapable of or would be more dangerous doing the same.
As to the "whole concept" - well, it is an open secret that EAA and others have been trying to get the third class medical for private pilots replaced with something less onerous for decades (onerous for those sent to FAA Aeromedical hell.) This LSA weight increase appears to be another attack along those lines because sport aircraft was a compromise, not the original goal.
-
The only flight operations that sports pilots aren't trained on are basic instrument maneuvers and night operations. Otherwise they are trained in the same areas of operation - only the minimum amount of time differs (e.g. 3 hrs vs 2 hrs cross-country, etc.) None of those training differences seem in any way connected to the number of seats or speed of the aircraft.
Private pilots have been training in small 2 seat planes for decades and routinely get checked out in bigger planes, so I'm unclear why sports pilots are somehow considered incapable of or would be more dangerous doing the same.
As to the "whole concept" - well, it is an open secret that EAA and others have been trying to get the third class medical for private pilots replaced with something less onerous for decades (onerous for those sent to FAA Aeromedical hell.) This LSA weight increase appears to be another attack along those lines because sport aircraft was a compromise, not the original goal.
1 - Basic instrument and night training is HUGE in terms of actually preparing a pilot for those types of operations whether intentional or inadvertant. Allowing less prepared pilots to fly heavier planes with more seats is increasing risk within the system and to the uninvolved public on the ground.
2 - Sport Pilots are currently not allowed to fly heavier planes with more than 2 seats, by regulation they are incapable of/prevented from moving up the chain, this was deliberate, see reason 1 - if a person wants to fly bigger/faster/more utility planes they should get the PPL
3 - Sport Pilot and the LSA reg's were coordinated and made/make sense, together, as currently embodied
BasicMed already does most of what EAA and AOPA have wanted for Private Pilots, I just see this as a further watering down/reduction of standards - as an Aviation Safety professional I think this is a bad idea.
'Gimp
-
EAA is pushing it, and AOPA is taking credit for it.
The Sport Pilot concept was to give medically questionable pilots an ability to fly simple, light, day VFR sportplanes with 2 seats - it was also intended to overcome the issue with fat ultralights which were at best marginally safe.
Now they want to let them fly much heavier planes with potentially more seats, etc., I just think it's a bad idea. Not that there is a substantial difference anymore on the medical front specifically with new Class III, but there are also some training and operational limitation differences between Sport Pilot and PPL and on.
I might just be the aviation equivalent of Clint Eastwood telling the kids to get off my lawn but I do feel pretty strongly this may be a mistake.
'Gimp
I hear you, but I think the 1,320# gross weight limit was ridiculous. As a 265 pounder, LSAs are a nonstarter for me. Plus, with that light weight, most people say they are a handful to land vs something heavier.
I understand the concept of kinetic energy, and a higher weight implies higher energy if you run into something, but a higher weight seems like a logical step. Perhaps they can limit a LSP to only one pax, regardless of the number of seats in an aircraft.
-
1 - Basic instrument and night training is HUGE in terms of actually preparing a pilot for those types of operations whether intentional or inadvertant. Allowing less prepared pilots to fly heavier planes with more seats is increasing risk within the system and to the uninvolved public on the ground.
Sorry, I'm unable to see any connection between your first sentence and second sentence. Why would heavier aircraft or more seats cause their pilot to get drawn toward IMC or inadvertent night flights than existing LSA? Stats seem to show LSA pilots have fewer inadvertent VFR into IMC accidents than private pilots, and there is no a priori or a posteriori reason to see why that would change merely with a weight or seat count change.
2 - Sport Pilots are currently not allowed to fly heavier planes with more than 2 seats, by regulation they are incapable of/prevented from moving up the chain, this was deliberate, see reason 1 - if a person wants to fly bigger/faster/more utility planes they should get the PPL
There are LSA (RV-12, CTLS, Sonex, etc.) that fly as fast and sometimes faster than heavier more common aircraft with more seats (e.g. C-172, C-152, PA-28, etc.) So speed isn't the issue. As to heavier - well, ironically the average sport pilot is getting trained in aircraft that are harder to control than what the average private pilot gets trained in (see video below on this aspect) because they have lighter wing loading.
3 - Sport Pilot and the LSA reg's were coordinated and made/make sense, together, as currently embodied
BasicMed already does most of what EAA and AOPA have wanted for Private Pilots, I just see this as a further watering down/reduction of standards - as an Aviation Safety professional I think this is a bad idea.
'Gimp
Sorry, not swayed by any argument that leans on the appeal to authority fallacy.
There IS a stronger correlation between the light wing loading of LSA and accident rate than between private/sport certificate and accident rate. A lot of LSA aircraft are being flown by private and ATP pilots, NOT sport pilots. In the video below, AvWeb found that a whopping 61% of the pilots involved in LSA accidents had private (36%) or ATP (25%) certificates and the accident pilots averaged 2458 hours! So much for sport pilots being the danger!
Further: "Tecnam’s Shannon Yeager observes that one reason for the higher accident rates is that all LSAs have low wing loading and pilots stepping down from heavier legacy airplanes can be slow to adapt." http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/50_8/safety/LSA-Accident-Review-Nothing-to-Celebrate_7228-1.html (http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/50_8/safety/LSA-Accident-Review-Nothing-to-Celebrate_7228-1.html)
-
I don't have time right now to expound on this Jim but you are actually proving My point not yours with the elements you are quoting and this is where my background in Aviation Safety matters.
There are easily definable reasons why the accident rates are what they are and it can be legitimately argued that the causality is not wing loading (design) but inadequate training and the diminished piloting ability of guys stepping 'down' to LSA's after flying heavier planes presumably due to actual or impending loss of their medical (human factors) - similarly it could be argued that the fact many LSA's stem from previously experimental designs which simply don't fly/behave the same as their heavier certified brethren - they are more maneuverable/sportier, but that again can be shown to ultimately circle back to training and pilotage (human factors) vs design.
I'll try to get back to this later but understand that the human being is ALWAYS the least reliable element in any system, making that less stringent logically CANNOT result in better performance/more safety.
'Gimp
-
I'm kinda with Acro on this, although I don't have any statistical stuff to back it up. Piloting an aircraft is one of those uniquely independent mastery things that require many different skills. And skills are developed through training and experience. I've flown with PPL who have similar hours, but all their time has been spent droning along in a spam can at 150 mile trips, back and forth.
Back on point about the LSA though I'm not against the increased weight, faster, and more seats - I just think that it should be a graduated approach where the first few hundred hours is spent in limited exposure environment. I can look back and say with confidence that the day after I got my PPL ticket I was NOT safe to toss 5 people in a Cher-6, and go blasting off from Chino airport to Tallahassee FL while VFR at night. Although it would be perfectly legal for me to do that - it would not be remotely safe. I'm hoping there's a middle ground on the LSA deal that can work for everyone.