"Since original Certification..." Editorial

[84KF]

One reason (out of many) for the confusion in regards to aircraft eligible for use under Sport Pilot privileges is that from day one the true concept was corrupted by the very people many depend on to provide accurate information. Well known aviation writers from many organizations and\or publications, not grasping what they had been presented with, immediately imposed their own interpretations and proclaimed them to be fact. Their statements are based on figurative (abstract, imaginative, or symbolic) reading of text instead of the actual desired literal meanings. (being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word)
In other words, it's not what the FAA says that matters to them...it's what they feel, or think that is correct. These flawed concepts have now been paraphrased by others and published countless times.

A case in point: “Since original certification....”. Why was this statement included in the Final Rule?

§*1.1***General definitions.
“Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:”
Title 14: Aeronautics and SpacePART 1—DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Again....., Why was this statement included in the Final Rule?
It was not included in the original NPRM.
Well, because questions were brought up regarding the modification of Type Certificated aircraft in order to meet the original FAR 1.1 definition of LSA (a general term used, meaning any aircraft that is sport pilot eligible, not to be confused with or inclusive of ELSA and SLSA category aircraft)

As stated in the Final Rule.....
The words, ‘‘since its original
certification has continued to meet the
following’’ are added to the introductory
text of § 1.1. The reasons for this are
discussed in the section titled
‘‘Modification of Type-Certificated
Aircraft to Meet the Light-Sport Aircraft
Definition.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations Pg.44801

Modifications of Aircraft To Meet the
Light-Sport Aircraft Definition
Some commenters stated that aircraft
with quite high payload and
performance characteristics that far
exceed the stated definition of lightsport
aircraft could be modified to meet
the definition of light-sport aircraft. The
FAA has revised the definition of lightsport
aircraft in the rule to prevent these
modifications. The FAA notes that these
types of modified aircraft are outside the
stated purpose of the proposal.
Pg 44792 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

But...., according to a writer and “expert” from a well known experimental aviation publication, we are led to believe, through his own “interpretation” .....

“This verbiage clearly says that an aircraft must meet all the criteria called out in the definition of an LSA at the time of its original certification AND CONTINUOUSLY thereafter. One of the items it must meet is a maximum takeoff weight of 1320 lbs (1430 lbs for seaplanes). Since it must meet this requirement continuously since it's original certification, it can NEVER have been operated at a maximum takeoff weight of anything greater than the weight called out in the LSA definition. If it operates at a maximum takeoff weight greater than that called out in the definition EVEN ONE TIME, it no longer meets the definition and is not eligible for operation by sport pilots forever thereafter.”http://www.sportpilot.org/questions/....asp?faqid=415

Bull****. That statement is both a total fabrication and a distortion of the intent of the inclusion of the wording by the FAA

Read the entire posting from the above link to see the original question and reply post in it's entirety. Then...read it again. (It IS Kitfox related)
I hope my point is being presented clearly here.... The FAA states something for a specific reason, that being clarification on the issue of “modification of Type Certificated aircraft”, yet the words get twisted and published to represent a different intent.

This is just one example of how the aviation community has been subjected to misinformation and why we have the confusion that exists to this day when attempting to understand the actual privileges the FAA has bestowed us.

The Final Rule ( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/sport_rule.pdf ) is the most thought out and wonderfully worded document I have ever came across in all my years as a professional in aviation. It covers all bases and leaves no stone unturned. It says what it says...and will give explanations for situations that need clarification.

As always, comments or questions are welcome and encouraged.

[wildirishtime]

It's been a long time since this post - where are we at with this subject now? Mr McBean any feedback or experience with the FAA giving anyone a hard time?

[84KF]

I did not repost this......, Some one else did, although it is an excellent editorial if you ask me.

[t j]

My opinion is that the only place you will find documentation of any take off weight for an experimental aircraft is in the aircraft log book where the completion of the phase one testing is documented with the gross weight when the V speeds were determined.

I loaded and tested mine to 1050 because that was what Skystar published as a maximum gross weight for a classic 4 with the 503 rotax.

It would be interesting to hear what otheres have entered.

[84KF]

"......the only place you will find documentation of any take off weight for an experimental aircraft is in the aircraft log book where the completion of the phase one testing is documented with the gross weight when the V speeds were determined."

That may be true for a more recent aircraft..., but my Operating Limitations do not require such information to be included in the logs. Only the statement "I certify that this aircraft is controllable through its normal range of speeds and throughout all maneuvers to be executed; and the aircrafthas no hazardous operating characteristics or design features."

(To all) Feel free to attempt to find any reference to any weight (limitation or anything else) in the paperwork for N84KF in the attached pdf documents. Also, any requirement in the documents or any FAR to enter in the logs such information at any time.

[t j]

I'll take your word for it.

[wildirishtime]

Steve/Tom/All: Lets not make this a ****ing match, I think we all have lots to gain by understanding this better.... having never filed for airworthiness on a build (I've only restored planes never done one from scratch) I do not know what all paperwork is/was submitted with my Kitfox 5. Steve: does your logbook have a 'tested through xxx lbs' entry? Do you have a dataplate showing max gross?

On a related note, if max gross weight was NOT supplied to the FAA, and if it is NOT in a logbook, is it only in the builder-or-owner-developed weight and balance and no where else?

~Wild

[Dorsal]

I was required to supply a weight and balance sheet to the FAA showing operational envelope and max weight. I have no knowledge if this is common or generally required.

[wildirishtime]

Dorsal did they keep a copy of it, or just want you to demonstrate you had it?

[84KF]

" Steve: does your logbook have a 'tested through xxx lbs' entry?"

No..., why would it? This was mentioned and explaind in the previous post.

"Do you have a dataplate showing max gross?"

Again, no..., and it is not required by the FARs.


"I do not know what all paperwork is/was submitted with my Kitfox 5."

You can get them from the FAA here.
http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certific...craft_records/