Kitfox Aircraft Stick and Rudder Stein Air Grove Aircraft TCW Technologies Dynon Avionics AeroLED MGL Avionics Leading Edge Airfoils Desser EarthX Batteries Garmin G3X Touch
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38

Thread: Light Sport Weight Limit

  1. #11
    Senior Member efwd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Yorba Linda, CA
    Posts
    2,817

    Default Re: Light Sport Weight Limit

    This is encouraging although I sympathize with WWHunter. I chose to move about within the current confines since the second option is to do what some are doing, sitting on the ground. I want my plane to be heavier with fuel to say the least along with the second occupant and camping gear. Mostly, what I liked to see was the in flight adjustable prop! Oh how the wallet is going to shudder if that comes through. I would do it now but if I should step out of the Basic med I don't want to have spent that kind of cash only to have to sell it.
    Eddie Forward
    Flying
    SS7, 912iS, Garmin G3X

  2. #12
    Senior Member aviator79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Posts
    913

    Default Re: Light Sport Weight Limit

    While I wish Basic Med went a little further, I think it is actually substantially better than the 3rd class medical for pilots worried about their ability to continue getting the 3rd class, and is the best option for pilots who want to fly bigger, faster airplanes. Unless you develop certain mental or cardiac conditions, you never have to report anything to the feds again. You and your doctor get to decide if you're fit to fly, which is as it should be.

    I think the issue is that most pilots flying under sport pilot privileges are doing so to avoid medical certification, not because they want to fly sport planes. If you increase the LSA limits to include all the airplanes that 95% of what Private Pilots fly, it's a strong indication that there is no need to segment out a specific type of airplane at all. I hope they raise the limits so that people can do more of the flying they want to do, but I also think it's a misguided approach. Greatly simplifying or eliminating the medical certification required to exercise Private Pilot privileges is the right answer. No stupid click-through training, No anal probe (which I understand many doctors don't actually do before signing the checklist). Just have your family doc check your vision, make sure your limbs are attached, and that you still have some marbles rolling around in your skull every 5 years and call it good.
    --Brian
    Flying - S7SS

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    seattle, wa
    Posts
    22

    Default Re: Light Sport Weight Limit

    I am new here, and learning a lot reading through posts so thank you everyone for sharing your knowledge. I don't want to be political but basic med is only really useful for the aging existing population and does nothing to help out with new pilots. I wish I had kept my medical up when I couldn't afford to finish my pilots license 20 years ago, but I didn't and I have a condition that isn't related to what is actually banned but because AME's are GP's and the FAA to be honest has bigoted attitudes about some conditions and treatments it would be too risky for me to even try again.

    In my situation I am safe to fly with my condition and it wouldn't impact this at all. But AME's tend to be General Practitioners and have no reasonable way to even to make real judgement calls on some of the blacklisted labels.

    It is harder for those who are being treated for mental health issues. For the vast majority of sufferers of mild depression and anxiety, for example. Treatment is successful in treating a condition that would still allow them to safely fly airplanes but by avoiding treatment will ruin other portions of their life.

    It also most likely causes way more safety issues do allow this unscientific anti-mental health culture to live and produce a world of fear. Even if someone just needs counseling or some life coaching and it doesn't rise to the level of requiring medical treatment they will avoid this. I know several commercial pilots who are even afraid to talk to a counselor.

    Up 1 in 10 of the pilots flying the planes you ride in on commercial flights show signs of clinical depression and 1 in 20 has had suicidal thoughts in the past few weeks.

    The only way this would change is if the FAA destigmatized mental health issues and actually cared about evidence based decisions by subject matter experts. This applies to medical issues too (which is the camp I am in).

    It is a culture issue in the FAA, and that will never change inside the agency without external force so write letters to your representatives and have discussions. Bureaucracy is a necessary evil, but it wont' change from within.

    If you care about the future of general aviation and safety in general make your voices heard. Like the ''Pilot's Bill of Rights'' that is the way things will change.

    Selfishly an extra ~100lbs of legal weight would allow me to carry safety gear and fuel in a SS7 but I just mailed off a few letters to my representatives too.

    I don't think that GA will be on the top of their priorities but public safety is and studies like this and incidents over the past few years should be.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5157081/

    As public comments on proposed regulation are not anonymous the people suffering from either medical or minor but treated mental challenges voices won't be heard so consider being a voice for others. Maybe related to a loved one who suffers from social anxiety and up the dream to fly, or in my case a loved one who chose intentional controlled flight into terrain vs risk seeking help for depression.

    Us enthusiasts are probably the best driver of change in this case.

  4. #14
    Senior Member aviator79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Posts
    913

    Default Re: Light Sport Weight Limit

    I lost my dad to a mental health condition that was probably treatable, and I work where a diagnosis might get authorization to work revoked. We have mandatory mental health screening annually, but it's not for our benefit, so there is a strong motivation to keep things to yourself.

    So I will speak up. Thank you for posting.
    --Brian
    Flying - S7SS

  5. #15
    Senior Member efwd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Yorba Linda, CA
    Posts
    2,817

    Default Re: Light Sport Weight Limit

    Welcome Nyrikki.
    That is an interesting read. I work in the medical field and I will tell you that Diagnosis of Depression is rampant. The diagnosis is placed in ones chart anytime someone seeks relief from the pains of divorce, loss of a loved one, loss of ones job etc. etc. etc. . Seriously, who has not lost sleep or quit eating during a time such as those. Diagnosis is placed and so from then on forward I suppose you would have to explain to the FAA that your safe to fly. Of course some healing would need to take place. My point is, Depression is placed in the chart while it may be a temporary state (quit flying) but the recorded condition could be extremely difficult to get through when dealing with the government. Hell, you could be restricted from owning a firearm with that diagnosis on record. Maybe I'm being crazy but it certainly concerns me to see anyone regarding a stressful period of my life. I can see how people just "check out".
    Our country is being "***** slapped" with the state of our mental health system since we went nuts with the closing of the psychiatric facilities in the 80's. Seems we may be considering opening some back up. Im in California and if you have been watching the BS that's going on here with the homeless you may understand. Psych is in a terrible position in this country. Patients of mine who are trying to get help while holding down a job, aren't able because, shy of getting oneself admitted for several days, psych help seems to only operate during business hours. Who can miss work frequently enough to talk with someone weekly about their problems. I certainly understand why a pilot would ride it out (or not).
    Anyhow, thanks for the article.
    Eddie Forward
    Flying
    SS7, 912iS, Garmin G3X

  6. #16
    Senior Member fastfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    herkimer,ny
    Posts
    217

    Default Re: Light Sport Weight Limit

    I also agree it seems like they would rather have more fuel with less fuel stops in unfamiliar airports with attendants that over fill under fill or leave the caps loose or back wards. Also the ability to have better equipment , back up alternator, fuel pump and emergency equipment . Now I must run light and watch my waistline.

  7. #17
    Senior Member aviator79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Posts
    913

    Default Re: Light Sport Weight Limit

    I think the problem is not the depression diagnosis itself, but the stigma and havok the diagnosis can wreak in the rest of your life. Maybe I'm naive, but mental health should be treated more like physical health. Nobody is afraid to go to the doctor for a bacterial infection. You get antibiotics, you get better, and you get on with your life. Nobody, a year after the fact, is going to refuse to let you eat at the salad bar because you were ill a year ago. People should not fear getting treatment for mild mental illness associated with stressful life events. Like physical illnesses, these are often treatable, and people should not neglect their mental health for fear of what it could mean for their job, their liberties, or their medical certificate. I guess we're a little off topic though

    To Fred's point: Don't lose sight of why the Sport Pilot certificate exists. It is to allow less stringent training and certification requirements for pilots who want to fly simple, light, easy-to-manage airplanes. It was not intended to be a mechanism used to avoid medical certification. I'm not against increasing or removing the weight limit, but when you start to grow the LSA definition to encompass almost every airplane Private Pilots fly, then what's the point? To me it's a strong clue that you're just building an end-run around medical certification, and I think the better approach is to fix medical certification.
    --Brian
    Flying - S7SS

  8. #18
    Senior Member fastfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    herkimer,ny
    Posts
    217

    Default Re: Light Sport Weight Limit

    I agree again. Most will all be near that point someday which is why I try to fly every nice day . On the weight issue it would nice to be able to haul food for a camping trip for 2 people. They don't have to worry about us drinking beer because it won't fit. 1320 or 1430 is there that much difference?

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    seattle, wa
    Posts
    22

    Default Re: Light Sport Weight Limit

    Warning, novel length post, but as policy maker and industry folks may read this I want to make my stance isn't just about ducking medical rules, but as a result of the one shot lottery and potential for temporary or similar but not risky conditions forcing me into the sport pilot track. I would still self ground when there was a concern.

    I was pretty hard on the FAA with my post, which I think is justified in that segment but I do want to give them kudos because the industry lobbying bodies like LAMA weren't asking for a higher gross and that came from the FAA.

    While there is an issue with statistics and rare events and these numbers do not cover E-LSA or EAB aircraft it is quite clear that the SuperCub and other S-LSAs that were adapted from too heavy designs with more robust construction have less issues and accidents. Kitfox will not be captured due to E-LSA or EAB.

    https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/...4_SLSA_COS.pdf

    Now there are a lot of factors that could cause this like training and usage and to be honest it could be noise it does show that the supercub sized and hotrod engined planes are actually much safer than the lower gross weight designed designs.

    If you compare the Cessna 162 with the Carbon Cub numbers, which may be biased due to the Skycatcher being used in training, but also probably relates to safety compromises made by Cessna to meet the gross weight limitations it is pretty clear why the FAA is looking to increase the gross weight.

    While not a complete list of accidents, if you go through the skycatcher incidents here you can see how often gear collapse happens.

    https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase...hp?AcType=C162

    Looking through just the Series 7 I can only find one gear collapse which was due to replacement bolts.

    https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase....php?at=kitfox

    Obviously both have a big issue with people in landings and veering to the left from probably a need to use rudder to correct for the p-factor when pilots used flaperon/ailerons which were close to stall. But the lack of structural failures on the kitfox is encouraging.

    If you look at front landing gear in heavy weight LSA's like the Bristell which have shocks, steering, and design loads closer to a GA standard it adds ~30 pounds to the airframe.

    While the numbers have serious issues, I am sure that the FAA sees that a Carbon Cub, which to be honest is probably almost always flown over gross weight has an accident rate way closer to that of a 172 while the Cessna 162 has a 500% higher rate with structural failures and injuries.

    This added with the FAA's apparent interest in encouraging technologies like angle of attack indicators which would be helpful for reducing a lot of these takeoff, spin, and accelerated stall accidents I would expect something more like super cub weights or formula that allow for safe airframe structures and not a general bump up to increase gross to legacy aircraft, although that may happen too.


    As there are no STCs for S-LSA I do wonder if there will be an option for existing S-LSA or E-LSA to be bumped up but E-AB and a good DAR seems like it may be likely. Hopefully they will address the S-LSA or E-LSA issues so that those lucky people or those who can afford a carbon cub can avoid breaking the rules.

    We may get the European 700kg limit which is 57kg short for a c152 or the formula may limit power in some crazy way. I hope for us mountain area pilots hope they remember this question from the PPL/SP test.

    Q:Climb performance depends upon

    A: reserve power or thrust

    A 172 is a marginal 2 place airplane in my part of the world in the summer even well below supplemental O2 altitude at 2000' AGL 2000' from terrain. A J3-90, LSA legal Champ or a lot S-LSAs aren't even safe solo after 10AM in the summer. If only I could talk my family into moving to Arizona or at least 100 miles to the west to lose 3500'.

    What I would do with a bump in gross weight.

    • Increase power for climb performance at altitude. Mostly to provide an out if the weather changes and I need to divert routes and not purely for STOL performance.
    • Increase reserve fuel as in places like Wyoming alternate routes can have you fighting with a head wind especially if conditions change in ways that are not forecast.
    • Add safety based avionics like AOA or XM weather receivers and the needed display systems with redundancy.
    • 2 axis autopilot to allow for reduced workload during some phases of flight and to allow for the use of the level button as a last resort during a loss of spatial awareness potentially due to an unintentional flight into IMC.
    • 2 axis autopilot for the automated recovery from unusual attitudes in an automated fashion as a backup in case of pilot error.
    • MFD to allow more situational awareness with terrain and traffic as well as weather.
    • More cargo capacity to carry water, backup communication and first aid supplies to reduce the need to activate more intrusive means of support during a forced landing due to mechanical issue, pilot error, or weather.
    • Carry additional food and shelter to allow for waiting out weather or other issues sometimes in areas that may require risky trips across mountain passes or risking scud running to an airport with services which can be 100's of miles away in the west.
    • Avoid the risks involved with solo hand starting of LSA eligible legacy aircraft like the J3 or Champ.
    • Gain the advantages of ADS-B anti-collision technology which is not available in LSA eligible legacy aircraft like the J3 or Champ
    • At 6'2" and 180# avoid LSA eligible aircraft like the 8A which frankly suffer from internal dimensions that make them unsafe for me to fly and also have extremely restricted visibility for tall pilots. Also unable to equip with ADS-B due to a lack of electrical.


    I am not dismissing the desires or validity of those who wish to fly slightly larger or more complex aircraft without a 3rd class medical, this is just merely how I would exercise a increase in gross weight privileges.

    My desire is to fly slow and low and to try to keep search and rescue at their base and ready to respond to more critical needs by being equipped and prepared in the best way possible or to mitigate the urgency of an event by being prepared to invoke a far less resource intensive investigation if an unfortunate incident happens.

    I only wish to be for being prepared for the worst case and perhaps sharing the experience with friends or family with a greater safety margin. Sure I would love the ability to fly a SR22t or a Beaver, but I think that the current regs are only ~500# away from allowing far more safe engineering and safety equipment.

    Let us not repeat the mistakes by copying number from the 150, which to be honest is also likely over gross weight with a student instructor and fuel but which is also at a design limit that makes it pretty soft and terrifying. Please consider ASTM Light Sport Aircraft Standards and almost a century of increase in knowledge. If the limitations are based on safety goals and engineering best practices it would be much easier for E-AB and LSA manufacturers to help improve the safety.

    I am probably preaching to the choir here but gross weight may relate to kinetic energy, but the flight characteristics and energy dissipation matter more. Modern oleo struts and modern higher strength larger diameter tubing for crash cages can do a lot to help with a bad landing. But like EFI or single lever adjustable props they induce weight or go counter to regulations.

    I am optimistic that the FAA is interested in working on these areas and the changes will be in the right direction. The complexity of modernizing the AME system is most likely a harder problem and unfortunately a typical GP isn't a super human and will always need to be conservative for medicals.

    But outside of pilot error issues the main problem seems to be people trying to produce useful aircraft which are safe. In theory tools like AOA will help out with a significant number of accidents if pilots take the time to understand them but basing the max weight based on factors like the G forces experienced during a poor landing and ensuring those forces are well below the structural limits of the airplane and within safe acceleration speeds for humans would help address the structural issues. Actual hydraulic shocks would reduce airframe and human loads by ~300% and make a bounce back into the air less likely as an example but add ~15lbs or more to a taildraggers main gear and ~30lbs or more to a nosewheel and thus spring gear are far more common. This is ancient knowledge and obvious to anyone has flown a champ and a J3. But the deluxe struts that actually work on the EC champ are also what kick it past the 1320 limit.


    Again I apologize for the length of this post, and it is all 100% opinion so take it with pounds and pounds of salt.
    Last edited by nyrikki; 09-12-2018 at 05:42 PM.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Harvard, IL
    Posts
    337

    Default Re: Light Sport Weight Limit

    Just got an email from Avweb.com that states a "high ranking FAA source" has confirmed the FAA plans to almost triple the LSA weight limit to 3600 pounds in rulemaking to be introduced in January.

    Rick

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •