Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - LSA compliant vs. not

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

LSA compliant vs. not

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Lightning-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Colin K.

Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 157
Location: Oklahoma

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 3:50 pm Post subject: LSA compliant vs. not

How late in the construction is it practical to make the decision on whether your Ligtning will be LSA compliant or not?



I would think it would be just before you chose your propellor and needed to decide to fit VGs rather than gear leg fairings and wheelpants. In other words, right at the end.



Am I missing something?



Colin K.

OK

_________________
Colin K.
OK

N1BZRich(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 7:18 pm Post subject: LSA compliant vs. not

In a message dated 5/29/2007 7:51:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  cjk129(at)cox.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Am I    missing something? 	


 

 Colin,

     Don't forget the 1320 max gross weight requirement  that should be on the data plate and of course in the log book.  The log  book entry after your 40 hours are complete is where you document the stall  speed and max continuous rpm speed.  Others have already mentioned no later  change to meeting light sport if you document something other than light  sport compliant at first.

 Blue Skies,

 Buz 



See what's free at AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

Kayberg(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 4:47 am Post subject: LSA compliant vs. not

In a message dated 5/29/2007 11:06:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  flying(at)qdea.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  

Don't forget that the Experimental Amateur Built Aircraft must have    

met the definition of a Light-Sport Aircraft *since its original    

certification*.



This means that if it *ever* had a variable-pitch    prop or didn't meet 

some other part of the definition, it is technically    *never* eligible 

to be flown as an LSA by a Sport Pilot.



You can    read the rule here:



http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/index.html

	


 

  

 I think there is some bad word engineering here.   "Since its  original certification" means it must be regestered and loged as Amateur-Built  Light Sport from the get-go. You cannot retro register an airplane to  another catagory.   If any mods are made to take the plane out of Lite  Sport parameters it is no longer light sport.   It is still a legal  airplane.  But cannot be flown by a Lite Sport pilot.   Just  changing the configuration back to the tested Light Sport configuration would  make it a light sport again.

  

 If you do a major change, like the prop, then there is a logbook  notificatiion, possibly a Fed approval and a fly off.   If you add or  subtrack wheel pants and fairings, that is not a major mod.   A  variable pitch prop can be installed from the get-go, it simply cannot be  in-flight adjusted from the cockpit.   Ground adjust is  OK.   If you get ramp checked, you should be ready to show how your  current adjustment meets the pitch requirements for your Light sport test  data.

  

 All this is subject to debate and interpretation, of  course.    My point is that if words can be engineered in more  than one way, then one can take whatever stand you think you can defend.   You can work it out with the Feds before or try to work it out  after.   Permission is often more difficult than forgiveness,  particularly when the likelyhood of gettng caught is low.   

  

 Also, you can make any claims you want about a Lightning you  assemble.  I can claim mine stalls at 20 mph if I want.   Or that  it will only go 100 mph.  I can claim that my special MUD  FLAPS on my wheels make it so.   Because it is EXPERIMENTAL  flight,  the latitude for changes to an airplane is huge.  The only  real absolute for Light Sport is Registered Gross Weight.   In my  opinion, it is about possiblites, not restrictions.

  

 Doug Koenigsberg



See what's free at AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

N1BZRich(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 4:58 am Post subject: LSA compliant vs. not

In a message dated 5/30/2007 8:49:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  Kayberg(at)aol.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  In my    opinion, it is about possiblites, not restrictions. 	


 

 I vote for Doug to be the next head of the FAA.

 Buz



See what's free at AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

testpilot(at)wildblue.net
Guest

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:30 am Post subject: LSA compliant vs. not

Hi Doug

  

 I am registering my Light Sport as Expererimental  only, not amateur-built-light sport. I  fly and have owned a lot of  aircraft.   When I was able to pass my medical I could fly my  experimental and certified aircraft under either rule as long as they had always  met (weight, airspeed, etc) as light sport.  Flying the same aircraft at  night or IFR I could only do that under a pvt or above with medical yet the  aircraft was still sport pilot authorized.

 If I did a mod to the aircraft that exceeds any light sport limit such as  have the weight increased to 1400 pounds and FAA approved, then if  I was to remove the mod and return the weight to 1300 pounds and approved by the  FAA that aircraft can never be used for sport pilot again. These limits are  only the ones put out by the FAA that are applied to the airfrane speed, weight,  ect. to make it meet light sport.This is a dumb rule like failing a  medical, no fly. No take medical, no fail, same problem, you fly. I have an  Ercoupe for sale that caught is under that rule. On our lighting that is  experimental I can fly it light sport since I met the limitations but my wife  can fly it FIR at night. If we register it as light sport, amateur built it is  restricted to fly only under those rules according to what I have read and the  local FAA thinks. I do not think this is true but do not want to take a chance  and get stuck in only light sport operation by registering it light sport. Our  old J3, fly light sport, fly pvt at night.  Hope this helps but as of  now,  I don't trust anything the FAA says about medicals, light sport and  aircraft certification.  Too many contradictions.   Johnny

 [quote]   ---

flying(at)qdea.com
Guest

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:45 am Post subject: LSA compliant vs. not

If any mods are made to take the plane out of Lite Sport parameters 

it is no longer light sport.   It is still a legal airplane.  But 

cannot be flown by a Lite Sport pilot.   Just changing the 

configuration back to the tested Light Sport configuration would make 

it a light sport again.



There is no "Amateur-Built Light Sport" category, there are only 

Experimental Amateur-Built airplanes that meet the Light Sport 

definition.



According to the rule, "just changing the configuration back to the 

tested Light Sport configuration" does *not* make it a Light Sport 

aircraft again, because it would not have met the definition of a 

Light-Sport Aircraft since its original certification.



I don't care what anyone does with their aircraft, and in fact I 

don't like the rule, but it's better to be well-informed on this 

matter before the fact.



What I'd like to see is a driver's license medical for recreational 

pilots. In that case, a standard Lightning can be flown without a 

medical certificate.



Hugh Sontag



 	  Quote: 	
		  In a message dated 5/29/2007 11:06:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 

flying(at)qdea.com writes:

Don't forget that the Experimental Amateur Built Aircraft must have

met the definition of a Light-Sport Aircraft *since its original

certification*.



This means that if it *ever* had a variable-pitch prop or didn't meet

some other part of the definition, it is technically *never* eligible

to be flown as an LSA by a Sport Pilot.



You can read the rule here:



<http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/index.html>http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/index.html

I think there is some bad word engineering here.   "Since its 

original certification" means it must be regestered and loged as 

Amateur-Built Light Sport from the get-go. You cannot retro register 

an airplane to another catagory.   If any mods are made to take the 

plane out of Lite Sport parameters it is no longer light sport.   It 

is still a legal airplane.  But cannot be flown by a Lite Sport 

pilot.   Just changing the configuration back to the tested Light 

Sport configuration would make it a light sport again.



If you do a major change, like the prop, then there is a logbook 

notificatiion, possibly a Fed approval and a fly off.   If you add 

or subtrack wheel pants and fairings, that is not a major mod.   A 

variable pitch prop can be installed from the get-go, it simply 

cannot be in-flight adjusted from the cockpit.   Ground adjust is 

OK.   If you get ramp checked, you should be ready to show how your 

current adjustment meets the pitch requirements for your Light sport 

test data.



All this is subject to debate and interpretation, of course.    My 

point is that if words can be engineered in more than one way, then 

one can take whatever stand you think you can defend.  You can work 

it out with the Feds before or try to work it out after. 

Permission is often more difficult than forgiveness, particularly 

when the likelyhood of gettng caught is low. 



Also, you can make any claims you want about a Lightning you 

assemble.  I can claim mine stalls at 20 mph if I want.   Or that it 

will only go 100 mph.  I can claim that my special MUD FLAPS on my 

wheels make it so.   Because it is EXPERIMENTAL flight,  the 

latitude for changes to an airplane is huge.  The only real absolute 

for Light Sport is Registered Gross Weight.   In my opinion, it is 

about possiblites, not restrictions.



Doug Koenigsberg





See what's free at <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503>AOL.com.

<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List

Kayberg(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:09 am Post subject: LSA compliant vs. not

In a message dated 5/30/2007 8:59:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time,  N1BZRich(at)aol.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		         	  Quote: 	
		  In my      opinion, it is about possiblites, not restrictions. 	


   

   I vote for Doug to be the next head of the FAA.

   Buz

	


 

  

 Thanks for the Vote.   

  

  For the fun of it, Permit the following assertions, if you  please.

  

 1) Within the rules, there is usually latitude.   Read loopholes.  That is why there are so many lawyers.  They  are being paid to find  that latitude; often because rules were bent beyond all recognition.

  

 2) If you dont raise a stink, no one will dig in your feces.  In my 4  years running Sky Ranger Aircraft Company, I have only gotten one call from the  Feds.  They wanted to know what the hell kind of airplane flew into Class B  airspace and landed on a taxiway without bothering to notice or talk to the  tower!  They were simply searching for the proper implement to do some  digging. More than 100 Sky Rangers flying about the country had not attracted  their attention, so they didnt know what it was.

  

 3) If the Feds want you, you are toast.   Every flight we make  has at least one violation of the FAR's.   Our real mission is to  offer dis-incentives to have it discovered.  If you and your airplane look  like you deserve to commit aviation, you can probably get away with it.   

  

 4) If you are going to be spectacular, be sure you have your paperwork in  line.   When asked if he had advice for his drug-selling clients, one  lawyer said, "If you are going to transport some quantity of drugs, be sure your  tail lights work and drive the speed limit!!!"    I often see  people try to show off at fly-in's.   How stupid it that?  Most  fly-in's have Feds in attendance who dont WANT to work that hard.  But they  will if pressed.   Do your low flying and stupid stunts where they  ARN'T!

  

 5) Remember that when a Homebuilt airplane is inspected in the USA, it  doesnt have to be able to fly!! There are no flight charactoristic  requirements.  Much attention will be paid to nuts, bolts, cable tension,  threads showing, control stops, brakes, tires etc.   Paperwork will be  required that does not make sense.   In my opinion, the least  regulated part of Experimental aircraft is the most important.... 1)a decent  flying aircraft to start with 2) pilot skills that match the aircraft  capability.  Europeans require extensive flight testing of aircraft designs  before they can be sold; done by real test pilots.   They worry  less about a bolt being installed with the nut on top and more about flight  charactoristics.    

  

 6) I think it is important to consult with other pilots who HAVE  knowlege and a decent skill level.   I am amaized by homebuilders who  slap some peice of crap together and then slam it into the trees because their  control cables are crossed.   When they were offered some sage advice  they neither considered it nor considered the source.   By definition,  innovations are rarely appreciated by all.  But when you decide to do  something new and different, at least carefully consider the criticisms of the  concept.  Of course there are also people to avoid at most  airports.   But we are all in this thing together.

  

 I was in the mood for a bit of verbal divestment.   Sorry.

  

 doug koenigsberg



See what's free at AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

Colin K.

Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 157
Location: Oklahoma

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject: LSA compliant vs. not

Thank you all for thoughtful responses to my original queston.

I have read and re-read your posts and refined the following:

The airplane will always be certified as an EAB.

If built , with a ground adjustable variable prop and VGs, and initially tested and documented to meet LSA speed constraints, including the 1320 lbs gross weight limit, it can then be legally flown by a Light Sport Pilot.

It can be modified with gear leg fairings and wheel pants and the propellor pitch can be adjusted thereafter, allowing it to exceed LSA speeds, so long as it does not then exceed the 1320 lbs weight limit, which it was originally certified with. It can then be flown by a Private Pilot, but not a Light Sport Pilot. No documentation is required, since none of the modifications are major.

Later, the fairings and pants could be removed, the propellor pitch readjusted to original setting and the Light Sport Pilot could then fly it again.

I am not trying to abuse or contravene the regulations. I am interested in flying legally and fast, initially as a Private Pilot and later a little slower, as a Sport Pilot, without having to buy or build a new airplane.

I am sure that if carried on ad-infinitum, this thread would become very boring, however, if anyone sees a fatal flaw in the above logic, I would really appreciate hearing from you. Is this an interoretation that one could feel confident in presenting to the FAA?

Also, I had one other question, which no-one responded to (must have been more boring than this one , so I will ask again:

How late in the construction is it practical to make the decision on whether your Ligtning will be LSA compliant or not? 

I would think it would be just before you choose your propellor and needed to decide to fit VGs rather than gear leg fairings and wheelpants. In other words, right at the end. 

Thanks for your tolerance!

Colin K.

OK

---- Hugh Sontag <flying(at)qdea.com> wrote: 

 	  Quote: 	

   If any mods are made to take the plane out of Lite Sport parameters 

 it is no longer light sport.   It is still a legal airplane.  But 

 cannot be flown by a Lite Sport pilot.   Just changing the 

 configuration back to the tested Light Sport configuration would make 

 it a light sport again.

 There is no "Amateur-Built Light Sport" category, there are only 

 Experimental Amateur-Built airplanes that meet the Light Sport 

 definition.

 According to the rule, "just changing the configuration back to the 

 tested Light Sport configuration" does *not* make it a Light Sport 

 aircraft again, because it would not have met the definition of a 

 Light-Sport Aircraft since its original certification.

 I don't care what anyone does with their aircraft, and in fact I 

 don't like the rule, but it's better to be well-informed on this 

 matter before the fact.

 What I'd like to see is a driver's license medical for recreational 

 pilots. In that case, a standard Lightning can be flown without a 

 medical certificate.

 Hugh Sontag

 >In a message dated 5/29/2007 11:06:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 

 >flying(at)qdea.com writes:

 >

 >

 >Don't forget that the Experimental Amateur Built Aircraft must have

 >met the definition of a Light-Sport Aircraft *since its original

 >certification*.

 >

 >This means that if it *ever* had a variable-pitch prop or didn't meet

 >some other part of the definition, it is technically *never* eligible

 >to be flown as an LSA by a Sport Pilot.

 >

 >You can read the rule here:

 >

 ><http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/index.html>http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/index.html

 >

 >

 >I think there is some bad word engineering here.   "Since its 

 >original certification" means it must be regestered and loged as 

 >Amateur-Built Light Sport from the get-go. You cannot retro register 

 >an airplane to another catagory.   If any mods are made to take the 

 >plane out of Lite Sport parameters it is no longer light sport.   It 

 >is still a legal airplane.  But cannot be flown by a Lite Sport 

 >pilot.   Just changing the configuration back to the tested Light 

 >Sport configuration would make it a light sport again.

 >

 >If you do a major change, like the prop, then there is a logbook 

 >notificatiion, possibly a Fed approval and a fly off.   If you add 

 >or subtrack wheel pants and fairings, that is not a major mod.   A 

 >variable pitch prop can be installed from the get-go, it simply 

 >cannot be in-flight adjusted from the cockpit.   Ground adjust is 

 >OK.   If you get ramp checked, you should be ready to show how your 

 >current adjustment meets the pitch requirements for your Light sport 

 >test data.

 >

 >All this is subject to debate and interpretation, of course.    My 

 >point is that if words can be engineered in more than one way, then 

 >one can take whatever stand you think you can defend.  You can work 

 >it out with the Feds before or try to work it out after. 

 >Permission is often more difficult than forgiveness, particularly 

 >when the likelyhood of gettng caught is low. 

 >

 >Also, you can make any claims you want about a Lightning you 

 >assemble.  I can claim mine stalls at 20 mph if I want.   Or that it 

 >will only go 100 mph.  I can claim that my special MUD FLAPS on my 

 >wheels make it so.   Because it is EXPERIMENTAL flight,  the 

 >latitude for changes to an airplane is huge.  The only real absolute 

 >for Light Sport is Registered Gross Weight.   In my opinion, it is 

 >about possiblites, not restrictions.

 >

 >Doug Koenigsberg

 >

 >

 >

 >

 >See what's free at <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503>AOL.com.

 >

 >

 ><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List

_________________
Colin K.
OK

N1BZRich(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 8:06 pm Post subject: LSA compliant vs. not

In a message dated 5/30/2007 10:42:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  cjk129(at)cox.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Is this    an interoretation that one could feel confident in presenting to the    FAA?

	


 

 NO.  Colin, the part of your interpretation that I  think is wrong and would not fly with the FAA is:

  

 It can be modified with gear leg fairings and wheel  pants and the propellor pitch can be adjusted thereafter, allowing it to exceed  LSA speeds, so long as it does not then exceed the 1320 lbs weight limit, which  it was originally certified with. It can then be flown by a Private Pilot, but  not a Light Sport Pilot. No documentation is required, since none of the  modifications are major.



Later, the fairings and pants could be removed,  the propellor pitch readjusted to original setting and the Light Sport Pilot  could then fly it again.



 My understanding (others may  have different thoughts) is that any airframe or propeller changes "should"  be documented in the log books and the experimental aircraft placed back into  phase one testing until the changes are proven out.  "IF" you do  document these changes, you now have prevented the airplane from flying in the  future by a light sport pilot.  Again, this is my interpretation.  I  would suspect that some will make the changes that you mentioned, but not  document them.  Now don't tell the FAA I said that.

  

 And speaking of the FAA, some  pilots think of the FAA just like a fire hydrant thinks of a  dog.  

  

 Anonymous



See what's free at AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

mark.stauffer1(at)gmail.c
Guest

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 8:12 pm Post subject: LSA compliant vs. not

<snip>

It can be modified with gear leg fairings and wheel pants and the propellor pitch can be adjusted thereafter, allowing it to exceed LSA speeds, so long as it does not then exceed the 1320 lbs weight limit, which it was originally certified with. It can then be flown by a Private Pilot, but not a Light Sport Pilot. No documentation is required, since none of the modifications are major.



Later, the fairings and pants could be removed, the propellor pitch readjusted to original setting and the Light Sport Pilot could then fly it again.

<snip>



No, this is incorrect. The aircraft must stay LSA compliant at ALL TIMES.



 	  Quote: 	
		  From EAA.org Sport Pilot web site: 


	


Light-Sport Aircraft:



The FAA defines a light-sport aircraft as an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following: (goes on to define LSA to include stall speed and maximum speed in level flight)



"Has continued to meet the following" is the key phrase. I'd be cautious if you're using "no major modification was performed" as your basis for changing the configuration of the airplane and the results just so happen allow the plane go faster. Each MIDO (or FISDO - I always get them mixed up) has their interpretation of the rules. I was present when our local Amateur Built - Designated Airworthiness Representative (AB-DAR) was being observed/inspected performing his duties by his boss at the MIDO. I was absolutely amazed at what some of his (FAA MIDO guy) interpretations of "major modifications" were. How about placing tape over a NACA scoop? Extreme interpretation? To me, yes. To him no, but he's the one that can make your life miserable. Your MIDO's mileage may vary!



Sure, how does he (the FAA) know if you tested/certified the plane with the wheel pants on or off or what pitch you had the prop set to but as Doug stated earlier just be prepared to defend yourself if necessary.



I'm not trying to be the sport pilot Gestapo, this is just a question that we get quite often, especially at air shows.



I hope this helps.



Mark

Kayberg(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 4:15 am Post subject: LSA compliant vs. not

I suppose I am preaching to the choir, but I dont have confidence that my  point is being understood.  

 Trying to be a bit more clear, here is my understanding.

  

 Guys, there is only one absolute in Light Sport.   Paperwork that  lists the gross weight at 1320.  Thats it.

  

 There are two other very important parameters.   Stall speed  clean and Maximum continous.  But those are subject to  interpretation.   As Buz says, "your milage may vary"

  

 A strict interpretation that some are advocating would mean that IF you  stalled too fast or went too fast ONE TIME you no longer have a Light Sport  plane!  That is a bit over the top.  Conversely, if you brag to the  Feds that your Light Sport will stall at 80 and run 200, you will invite some  unwanted interest.   

  

 So, the Feds have one point of view;  the folks at Lightning must hold  a particular line that does not invite distain for the Feds....but there is  another bit of understanding that I have tried to expound.

  

 IF YOU ARE THE OWNER, IT IS YOUR AIRPLANE!

  

 Unless you are dumb enough to log that your stall speed seems to exceed 40  knots or your top speed exceeds 120 knots, no one will know!   You  have every right to claim that even without VG's and with fairings, YOUR  Lightning is compliant, EVEN IF the "factory"  says  otherwise.    

  

 Additionally, HOW DO YOU KNOW WITHOUT TESTING?    Despite  how nicely finished and uniform the parts are done, each airplane  varies.   You simply WILL NOT know your airplane's performance until  you FLT it.  You may have to do what the CT does and cheat on the stall  speed by flexing the flaps down a bit!    

  

 I understand that customers want a definitive answer before a  purchase.  But they should also understand that Experimental Aviation is  defined by a circle not a point.  Certified aircraft must comply with  specific regulations and are treated as such. I am saying that is a single  point.   But wether kit built or stick built, there is a "circle" of  operations that is legal for the Experimental rather then a single point.   Yes, there are some absolutes; some points within the circle.  But there is  a lot of latitude.   The responsibility for that latitude rests on the  BUILDER/OWNER/PILOT not the "factory".  They simply base their claims on  the performance of a prototype.

  

 Bureaucrats will define that circle as small as possible to match  their General Aviation cultural reference.   The Ultralight people  like to pretend there is no circle at all.   Reality is somewhere  between.   You may chose to 1) hide from the Feds  2) smooze the  Feds  3) Be sensible and safe, obeying all the rules you can  4)ignore  everything and everybody and just do whatever the hell you want.

  

 As a "manufacturer'  one must smooze the Feds.   As an  Owner, I suggest # 3.   Play by a reasonable interpretation of the  rules.

  

 It is a free country.

  

 Doug Koenigsberg

  

  

  

  

 In a message dated 5/31/2007 12:13:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time,  mark.stauffer1(at)gmail.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    Lightning-List message posted by: "Mark Stauffer"    <mark.stauffer1(at)gmail.com>



<snip>

It can be modified    with gear leg fairings and wheel pants and the propellor pitch can be adjusted    thereafter, allowing it to exceed LSA speeds, so long as it does not then    exceed the 1320 lbs weight limit, which it was originally certified with. It    can then be flown by a Private Pilot, but not a Light Sport Pilot. No    documentation is required, since none of the modifications are    major.



Later, the fairings and pants could be removed, the propellor    pitch readjusted to original setting and the Light Sport Pilot could then fly    it again.

<snip>



No, this is incorrect. The aircraft must stay    LSA compliant at ALL TIMES.



 	  Quote: 	
		  From EAA.org Sport Pilot web site:    


	


Light-Sport Aircraft:



The FAA defines a light-sport aircraft as    an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original    certification, has continued to meet the following: (goes on to define LSA to    include stall speed and maximum speed in level flight)



"Has continued    to meet the following" is the key phrase. I'd be cautious if you're using "no    major modification was performed" as your basis for changing the configuration    of the airplane and the results just so happen allow the plane go faster. Each    MIDO (or FISDO - I always get them mixed up) has their interpretation of the    rules. I was present when our local Amateur Built - Designated Airworthiness    Representative (AB-DAR) was being observed/inspected performing his duties by    his boss at the MIDO. I was absolutely amazed at what some of his (FAA MIDO    guy) interpretations of "major modifications" were. How about placing tape    over a NACA scoop? Extreme interpretation? To me, yes. To him no, but he's the    one that can make your life miserable. Your MIDO's mileage may    vary!



Sure, how does he (the FAA) know if you tested/certified the    plane with the wheel pants on or off or what pitch you had the prop set to but    as Doug stated earlier just be prepared to defend yourself if    necessary.



I'm not trying to be the sport pilot Gestapo, this is just a    question that we get quite often, especially at air shows.



I hope this    helps.



Mark



	


 

  



See what's free at AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

vettin74(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 5:50 am Post subject: LSA compliant vs. not

The key word in all of this is "continuously operated as" this means to be operated as a Sport pilot eligble aircraft the Expermental Ameture built Lightning must show in the airframe log book a entry showing the Vso, Vs1, Vx, Vy, Va, VNE for the aircraft. And the weight and CG location at which they were found. So if the performance numbers that were found during testing were with in the parameters of the sport pilot rule and properly documented here than the aircraft can be operated by a Sport pilot. Again if the aircraft has a "Major change" and the is put back into phase 1 flight testing the new data should be recorded, if the new data is out of parameters for sport pilot and than is operated as such the aircraft can not be brought back to the original parameters because it was not "continuously operated as" so if you start out with a light sport compliant lightning and want to go faster with no intention of coming back, put the mods on document it and go. But do  not expect to go fast in the first palce and come back to the Sport Rule later unless your performance numbers show that the plane originaly was flown with in the parameters.....Rember that 2850 is max continuous power for the jab with intermitent operation exceeding that.....it just depends on how long that internitent operation is for.....

   

  Nick

   

   

   

   

   

  

N1BZRich(at)aol.com wrote:

  [quote]      In a message dated 5/30/2007 10:42:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, cjk129(at)cox.net writes:

   	  Quote: 	
		  Is this an interoretation that one could feel confident in presenting to the FAA?

	


  

  NO.  Colin, the part of your interpretation that I think is wrong and would not fly with the FAA is:

   

  It can be modified with gear leg fairings and wheel pants and the propellor pitch can be adjusted thereafter, allowing it to exceed LSA speeds, so long as it does not then exceed the 1320 lbs weight limit, which it was originally certified with. It can then be flown by a Private Pilot, but not a Light Sport Pilot. No documentation is required, since none of the modifications are major.



Later, the fairings and pants could be removed, the propellor pitch readjusted to original setting and the Light Sport Pilot could then fly it again.



  My understanding (others may  have different thoughts) is that any airframe or propeller changes "should" be documented in the log books and the experimental aircraft placed back into phase one testing until the changes are proven out.  "IF" you do document these changes, you now have prevented the airplane from flying in the future by a light sport pilot.  Again, this is my interpretation.  I would suspect that some will make the changes that you mentioned, but not document them.  Now don't tell the FAA I said that.

   

  And speaking of the FAA, some pilots think of the FAA just like a fire hydrant thinks of a dog.  

   

  Anonymous



        Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! 

[url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48223/*http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow]Play Monopoly Here and Now[/url] (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. [quote][b]

Kayberg(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 1:30 pm Post subject: LSA compliant vs. not

Yeah, what he said.

  

 Doug

  

  

 In a message dated 5/31/2007 9:51:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time,  vettin74(at)yahoo.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     The key word in all of this is "continuously operated as" this means to    be operated as a Sport pilot eligble aircraft the Expermental Ameture built    Lightning must show in the airframe log book a entry showing the Vso, Vs1, Vx,    Vy, Va, VNE for the aircraft. And the weight and CG location at which they    were found. So if the performance numbers that were found during testing were    with in the parameters of the sport pilot rule and properly documented here    than the aircraft can be operated by a Sport pilot. Again if the aircraft has    a "Major change" and the is put back into phase 1 flight testing the new data    should be recorded, if the new data is out of parameters for sport pilot and    than is operated as such the aircraft can not be brought back to the original    parameters because it was not "continuously operated as" so if you start out    with a light sport compliant lightning and want to go faster with no intention    of coming back, put the mods on document it and go. But do not expect to go    fast in the first palce and come back to the Sport Rule later unless your    performance numbers show that the plane originaly was flown with in the    parameters.....Rember that 2850 is max continuous power for the jab with    intermitent operation exceeding that.....it just depends on how long that    internitent operation is for.....

    

   Nick

	


 

  



See what's free at AOL.com. 

  [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Lightning-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum