Light Sport Gyro Airworthiness Cert.

[Robert G. Stark]

On the morning of the 18th of Nov, I issued what I believe to be the first Light Sport Gyro Airworthiness Certificate. I am sure of it in the Southwest Regon and it possibly is in the U.S. If anyone knows of an earlier one, please let me know and preferably with the N number.
Bob Stark

[mark treidel]

Bob, I put this request out a couple of days ago and only got one response. The gentleman said he believed there was an earlier one belonging to a person who worked for the FAA back east. No name was mentioned, nor was the location. Perhaps someone else will be able to help this time. Mark Treidel

[Chuck Roberg]

That was Tom Milton who replied to the other post. I believe Tom was referring to Marty Weaver of the FAA. Marty I believe is in charge of the LSA branch.

Marty has an RAF that he had certificated LSA. He is due to retire from the FAA and plans on offering instruction in his LSA RAF.

All this information is from last May. I have not heard any further word on what Marty has or may have not done up to this point. Tom any more info??????

[RockyMeLad]

I thought we couldn't get LSA authorization for gyros until the concensus standards were adopted. Did I miss something here???

[Dean_Dolph]

Rocky, the standards have been accepted, by everyone, which includes the FAA. However they don't have any use except as a measuring stick for the backyard engineer/builder. So they do have a lot of value.

The 'Standards' were to be used by gyro manufacturers who offered factory built LSA gyros and LSA gyro kits. But they can not do that until the FAA includes autogyros in the LSA rule. And the FAA has said they will not include the gyro until it is shown that the standards work and the gyro safety record improves. If anyone understands that logic then you are doing better than me!

I don't know about anyone else but I was under the impression that a gyro could not be registered as LSA until a factory verified their machine could pass the standards. Apparently that is not the case. It looks like the only requirement is that a gyro weigh 1320 lbs. or less, carry no more than two passengers have a top speed of less than whatever and may be a couple of other specs. It doesn't appear that the Performance & Construction Standards have to be met. If that is indeed fact then I don't know how the FAA will ever determine if the standards work and consequently they will never include the gyro in the LSA rule.

I wanted to ask Marty Weaver about this at the forum he presented at Mentone this year but I got caught up in other activities and missed it. May be Greg G. will see these posts and clarify or correct.

[Mayfield]

Hi Dean,

Tommy Milton or Bob Stark can articulate it better, but here goes.

A gyro, at the present time, can not be certificated as a SLSA. Normally, an aircraft can not be issued an ELSA certificate unless there is at least one aircraft that has received a SLSA certificate.

A gyro can be certificated as an ELSA under a sort of loophole. I have some moral conflict with the loophole, but I guess we have to take what we can get.

The FAA, in my opinion, made a good call in that they will allow the "fat" ultralight training machines to be certificated as ELSA for a limited period of time. This rule was meant (again, only in my opinion) to allow folks with fat ultralight trainers to continue to provide training. After September of this year, it is my perception, that the fat ultralight trainers would be hunted down. This of course, has not happened, but the intent of the rule was to give every opportunity for operators to become legal.

Good rule Vs loophole:

I call it a loophole because I do not believe, by the wildest stretch, an RAF or SH can be considered an ultralight trainer.

Anyway, that is what we have right now. Thus far the FAA has not said whoa.

I'm also not quite sure what the advantage, to an RAF or SH bulder, is to obtain an ELSA certification. Any aircraft that meets the FAA part 1 definition of a LSA can be legally operated by a Sport Pilot. I guess manufactuers like Groen or RAF could conceivably produce machines, that are almost completely built, under this loophole.

Jim

[Robert G. Stark]

I do not find a gyro registered to Marty Weaver on the FAA data base. If any one knows the N number, please pass it on.
Bob Stark

[gyroplanes]

Hi Dean,

Tommy Milton or Bob Stark can articulate it better, but here goes.

A gyro, at the present time, can not be certificated as a SLSA. Normally, an aircraft can not be issued an ELSA certificate unless there is at least one aircraft that has received a SLSA certificate.

A gyro can be certificated as an ELSA under a sort of loophole. I have some moral conflict with the loophole, but I guess we have to take what we can get.

The FAA, in my opinion, made a good call in that they will allow the "fat" ultralight training machines to be certificated as ELSA for a limited period of time. This rule was meant (again, only in my opinion) to allow folks with fat ultralight trainers to continue to provide training. After September of this year, it is my perception, that the fat ultralight trainers would be hunted down. This of course, has not happened, but the intent of the rule was to give every opportunity for operators to become legal.

Good rule Vs loophole:

I call it a loophole because I do not believe, by the wildest stretch, an RAF or SH can be considered an ultralight trainer.

Anyway, that is what we have right now. Thus far the FAA has not said whoa.

I'm also not quite sure what the advantage, to an RAF or SH bulder, is to obtain an ELSA certification. Any aircraft that meets the FAA part 1 definition of a LSA can be legally operated by a Sport Pilot. I guess manufactuers like Groen or RAF could conceivably produce machines, that are almost completely built, under this loophole.

Jim
Hi Jim,
>> After September of this year, it is my perception, that the fat ultralight trainers would be hunted down. This of course, has not happened, but the intent of the rule was to give every opportunity for operators to become legal.<<

Actually, we have until Jan 31, 2008 to get so called "fat ultralights" into ELSA certification. It isn't just a "loophole" for two place trainers, they want all illegal aircraft to get certified. This will allow someone to bring a heavy or fast single seater into ELSA as well.
It was even exampled that an individual could pick up a Cub fuselage, buy a couple of Univair wings and a set of tail planes from Wag Aero, bolt them all together and certify it ELSA (as long as the fuselage doesn't have an existing data plate).

Training ELSAs will still need to obtain an exemption for commercial use.

>>I'm also not quite sure what the advantage, to an RAF or SH bulder, is to obtain an ELSA certification. Any aircraft that meets the FAA part 1 definition of a LSA can be legally operated by a Sport Pilot. I guess manufactuers like Groen or RAF could conceivably produce machines, that are almost completely built, under this loophole<<

The only advantage to putting your RAF or Sparrowhawk into ELSA is that if you didn't build it you could still get a repairman's certificate to inspect it annually. This would only require a 16 hour class to earn.
There is some talk that ELSAs will be easier to find insurance for as well.
Time will tell.
Tom

[RockyMeLad]

Dean, Jim and Tom,
Thanks guys. That is exactly the info I needed. The EAA chapter here does war birds and some experimentals, but I'm the only one involved with Sport Pilot/LSA stuff. Rumor has it there is a FW CFI-SP on the airport, but haven't been able to track him down ... yet.

[Robert G. Stark]

All CFI's are Sport Pilot CFI's. All they need to do to give Sport Pilot instruction is to have 5 hours in the make and model they will instruct in. Having a copy of the PTS is a good idea too.
Bob Stark, CFI, amel, ses, glider, sport pilot, etc.etc.etc. ad nausium

[Heron]

Bob2 . . .what happende to you gyro pilot training.
Still training:
Heron

[Doug Riley]

The term "fat ultralight" is a (usually derogatory) term for aircraft that don't qualify as Part 103 ultralights, but whose owners fly them without registration on the theory that the craft are "sorta" ultralights. IOW, they are illegal, unregistered aircraft. Multi-thousand-dollar penalties PER FLIGHT can be assessed by the FAA for such flights, should they choose to prosecute a particular violator.

A 2-place gyro trainer operated by a rotorcraft BFI under (and within the terms of) the current ASC training exemption is not a "fat ultralight." All training flights and other flights authorized by the exemption letter are entirely legal. No "hunting down" involved.

The weight limit for this exemption is 496 lb. empty, however, so Jim's right. A Sparrowhawk, RAF or pretty much any other enclosed machine won't qualify. My 912S Dominator tandem squeaks under the limit with a few pounds to spare.

Doug Riley
ASC BFI

[Robert G. Stark]

Heron, I am Bob 1, Am now BFI and working on Sport Pilot CFI.
How is it going for you??
Bob Stark (Bob 1)

[Robert G. Stark]

The ELSA certification for trainer ultralights ends 31 Jan 2008, (unless extended). The FAA policy is to leave them alone until after that. ALL wavers, BFI's, AFI's expire at that time. If you do not have your certificated by then, expensive pile of parts.
Bob Stark

[Mayfield]

A 2-place gyro trainer operated by a rotorcraft BFI under (and within the terms of) the current ASC training exemption is not a "fat ultralight." All training flights and other flights authorized by the exemption letter are entirely legal. No "hunting down" involved.

The weight limit for this exemption is 496 lb. empty,
Doug Riley
ASC BFI

Aircraft that meet the Part 103 definition, and the ASC exemption, are not "Fat Ultralights."

However, I have seen 900 pound open frame machines with an "A" number instead of an "N" number.

I truly believe that the FAA wants to allow these machines to become legal by obtaining an ELSA certification.

Jim

[Heron]

Bob . . .since when you got promoted to Bob1? :)
As you know we founded the Club and BFI's CFI's are very welcome.
Moving to Florida, eh?
Thanks for your efforts and Bob2's too.
Heron

[Robert G. Stark]

One of the major goals of the Sport Catagorey certification is to get what the FAA calls "The Wild Wild West" aircraft into a properly certificated status. A grace period until the experation date (31 Jan 08) exist. After that, By By.
Bob Stark

[Hognose]

After September of this year, it is my perception, that the fat ultralight trainers would be hunted down. This of course, has not happened, but the intent of the rule was to give every opportunity for operators to become legal.

Jim,

the two-seat ultralight training exemptions granted to EAA, USUA and ASAC are good till January 31, 2008. As of Feb 1, 2008, any two-seat UL trainer that has not been issued an ELSA certificate becomes contraband. The ELSAs converted from UL trainers can still be used for Sport Pilot instruction until January 31, 2010. After that date they may be used as ELSAs, in other words, like amateur-built aircraft without night or instrument privileges.

The USUA has a petition on the docket to change this but if LSA teaches anything, it's that you're wasting your breath to petition the FAA or comment on NPRMs.

Of course, a two seater now that is not registered with one of the three bodies above, or properly N-numbered. is already contraband, as is an unregistered single-seater that does not meet Part 103 standards.

There's really no such thing as a "fat ultralight" -- just an "unregistered experimental."

Remember also how FAA sold this program to its constituencies? It sold to the pilots as a way to get back flying with a lost medical (a football they yanked away at the last minute, not before the Geritol Gang at EAA got fully on board). But it sold it to the internal people and the security goons as a way to eliminate the "15,000 people flying with no licenses and no oversight." The other shoe has yet to drop.

The tone of LSA/SP changed abruptly when Marty Weaver replaced Sue Gardner, who was exiled to Siberia -- excuse me, Alaska. Same thing.

cheers

-=K=-

[CLS447]

Kevin, so what you are saying is that we were doin better with Sue than we are with Marty?


OK,.... I want to register my A numbered fat 2 seat trainer gyro.

Which way should I go....ELSA or Experimental? And why?


Thanks

[Robert G. Stark]

This has been a week now and no one has come up with an earlier Light Sport Gyro certification. I cannot find one on the FAA data base either, Therefore: I claim to have done the first one. If someone can get me an N# of one done earlier, I will recognize it.
Bob Stark

[KenSandyEggo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, which is rare, but happens once in awhile, but couldn't one just build a Sparrowhawk, have it examined by a DAR and placed into the experimental category, and then just fly it as an LSA without a medical under the LSA restrictions/guidelines?

[GyroRon]

If the Gross weight is under 1320 lbs.... And that also means that you can't fly it heavier than 1320.....

[Robert G. Stark]

If the gyro meets the defination of Light Sport in FAR 1.1, and the paper work is completed prior to 32 Jan 08, yes you can.

[Robert G. Stark]

Kevin, so what you are saying is that we were doin better with Sue than we are with Marty?


OK,.... I want to register my A numbered fat 2 seat trainer gyro.

Which way should I go....ELSA or Experimental? And why?


Thanks
If you can show you built it to the satisfaction of the DAR, you can go Amateur Built, if not you will need to go Light Sport. When you register to get your N#, be carefull, there are two different forms, one for LS and one for AB.
Bob Stark

[CLS447]

Bob, I did ,& can prove that I built it.

I am asking which is the better way to go...ELSA or AB? And why?

Thanks

[Robert G. Stark]

Bob, I did ,& can prove that I built it.

I am asking which is the better way to go...ELSA or AB? And why?

Thanks
The choice should be based on your needs. Light Sport, you do not need an FAA medical. Amateur Built you do. Light Sport may not be flown at night, Amateur Built may if it has proper lights. Both require you have gyro license to carry a passegnar. Sport Catagory license is easier to get. For your existing aircraft to be used as a trainer under Light Sport, it must be operating now as an Ultralight trainer under one of the exemptions. An amateur built may be used as a trainer under EAA or PRA exemptions. (training for hire that is). You may receive all the training you want in either if the use of the aircraft is not for hire. You can pay the instructor. Of course for training you will need two seats. Amateur built have no weight limitations. ELSA is 1320 lb GROSS weight max. unless it is float equipped. There are more considerations, I think these are the major ones.

[Mayfield]

The choice should be based on your needs. Light Sport, you do not need an FAA medical. Amateur Built you do.

Bob,

I do not believe aircraft certification basis has anything to do with the medical requirement.

R/S

Jim

[GyroRon]

Bob,

I do not believe aircraft certification basis has anything to do with the medical requirement.

R/S

Jim

Exactly. Thank God for this - and other - forums, to educate people willing to spend the time to read everything and pay attention.

So many people have it wrong and can seem to be official or at least know what their talking about. You can just about NOT trust any one person to have all the answers. Not even the FAA.

Chris, the answer to your question is it is better to register as a normal experimental, as we have done for years. This automatically allows you to be able to do all repairs and annual condition inspections yourself - You do have to apply for a repairmans certificate when you apply for airworthiness, to be able to do all that, it is not totally automatic.

Register is as a LSA experimental and you got to take classes to do work and condition inspections. Do you want to take classes if you have a choice to not have to take classes?

In either case the A.B. experimental can be flown as a LSA by a Sport pilot so as long as the gyro meets the requirements - such as no more than 2 seats, less than 1320 gross weight, fixed pitch prop, no turbine engines, etc....

What advantage is there at all to registering as a LSA experimental??? Insurance companies may give better rates for a LSA - who knows and my gut feeling is they won't. The only other advantage is a LSA experimental can be 99 percent factory built and only 1 percent built by the owner/pilot.

[gyroplanes]

Register is as a LSA experimental and you got to take classes to do work and condition inspections. Do you want to take classes if you have a choice to not have to take classes?


What advantage is there at all to registering as a LSA experimental???

Close Ron,
1) No classes needed to do work. 16 hours of class will be required to perform your annual condition inspection.

2) There is the advantage that if you sell your aircraft, the new owner can attend the same classes and perform his own inspections. You couldn't do this with amateur-built.

3) If a person wanted to take the repairman's maintenance class (85-120 hours) you can work on any ELSA or SLSA in the catagory for which you are certified. You could have an FBO of factory built aircraft and earn a certificate to work on and inspect them in 120 hours. A far cry from the 30 months it takes to become an A&P.

[Brent_Brown]

Come on Ron was only close.

[gyroplanes]

This is a completely new segment of aviation. There is a lot of information to digest.

Ron's a smart cookie. (even if his hero is a big guy from NY)

[GyroRon]

I was under the impression that to do maintance on a LSA you had to take one class - a short one - and to do annuals you had to take a different class - a longer one roughly twice the hours? Perhaps the two classes are, one for Experimental LSA, and the other for Factory build certified LSA?????

and do note the quote from my post above...... ;)

So many people have it wrong and can seem to be official or at least know what their talking about. You can just about NOT trust any one person to have all the answers. Not even the FAA.

Gotta love the Big Man!

[CLS447]

OK, I am going for my SP rating.

If I register it AB experimental, I will be allowed to fly it as long as it fits the definition of an ELSA. ?

Either way I go, the state will want their tax....What's the best way to screw them? I also want to delay this as long as possible.

Right now it is registered with the ASC as a 2 place UL trainer( it might be a little heavy). Can it be transitioned to a ELSA trainer & for how long?

If I get my BFI (I'm close) , can I get transitioned to a SP instructor?

I really hate reading all the BS regs. I need some guidance to do this the simplest way. I don't really want to instruct. I just want to be legal the easiest way.

Thanks for all the help guys!

[Robert G. Stark]

You are a little late for the BFI conversion to SPCFI, you had to have the BFI prior to 1 Sept 04. If you register and certificate your aircraft amateur built and can show that you built it, you get a repairman certificate to do the inspection. If you register and certificate as ELSA, you have to take a 16 hour class to get the repairman certificate to do the inspection. You should notice that in each case I said inspection. You or any one else may do the maintenance on the Experimental, Amateur Built or ELSA. If the aircraft is certificated Amateur Built, you may fly it with a Sport Pilot license as long as the aircraft meets the defination of Light Sport (FAR 1.1) Note that Sport Pilot's cannot fly at night and if you certificat as ELSA you will be prohibited from flying at night. Private pilot or higher in an Amateur Built may fly at night if the aircraft is properly equiped.

There is a lot of confusion on the new rules, I have made a study of them, Been to the FAA school on them, and have now certificated aircraft under them.
Bob Stark

[Hognose]

Chris -- the best way to screw the state is to pay them and deny the bastridges the pleasure of seeing you go up the river.

YES, you can fly an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft on a Sport Pilot ticket as long as it meets the regs and you only colour within the lines. Everything Bob said is correct.

If you register as Ex-Am-built, and DON'T get the Repairmans Certificate, the annual (note small "a") Condition Inspection must be done by an A&P. Unlike the certified mechanic that signs off the Annual Inspection (note large "A") on a type-certified aircraft, the A&P that signs off an Experimental's condition inspection does NOT need to have Inspection Authorization.

(Former FBO and Part 145 Repair Station Owner here...).

Some A&Ps are hinky about inspection of amateur built aircraft. But you can usually hook up with one through your local PRA or EAA chapter.

I personally believe that it is a mistake to always be your own pilot, mechanic, builder, and inspector. It's too easy to get into a habit of overlooking something! Despite that, it is a very, very good thing to get your Repairman Certificate, and if you built the plane (as you did), it's a snap.

Advisory Circular 65-23A describes how to get the Repairman's Certificate.

You can download a .pdf from the FAA on this page:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/A61550959E374561862569BA0052B860?OpenDocument

Another document that may be useful is AC 20-27F. This is the AC on registering an experimental. Unlike the above, it was revised in 2003 and so you need to be sure you have the latest. It is also in pretty plain English (for an FAA communication). Appendix 14 to 20-27F is a sample "FAA FORM 8610-2, AIRMAN CERTIFICATE AND/OR RATING APPLICATION" that shows exactly how to fill it out to get your repairman certificate.

You will need to prove to FAA that (1) you were primary builder of this aircraft, and (2) you can determine if it is in condition for safe flight. A decent photo-log should meet both needs.

Here's the .pdf:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/1ab39b4ed563b08985256a35006d56af/0ca2845e2aafffbb86256dbf00640cb2/$FILE/AC20-27F.pdf

Good luck.

Bob, check your private messages please.

cheers

-=K=-

[CLS447]

Thanks Kevin, as for the tax thing..... I am going to have to give them a very rough estimate of what it cost. Then pay them 6%.

So I guess the engine was junk....$1 & I built the blades...free. I mean how crazy are they gonna get with reciepts?

Anybody else have to do this?

[Chuck Roberg]

Chris, Not sure how your state works I live in Illinois. But I would register your aircraft model as a "Chris mini mite 1" or someting to that effect. And check the plans built box not kit built.

One of our club members built an Air Command and registered it as such. The state of Illinois looked up his Air Command model on the Air Command web site and sent him a tax bill for the price listed on the Air Command site. With out any reciepts showing to the contary, he was stuck.

So do like I mentioned above. Register the model as your name and plans built. Then you can say it was a used engine etc, etc.

[gyroplanes]

I've attached a flow chart for aircraft certification. If you have any ideas for improving it, let me know.
I'm working on a pros and cons chart as well.

[Hognose]

Tom, that's a great chart. Somewhere you should note that (1) it's the owner's responsibility to register -- that's usually done as part of the transfer paperwork, but it may become an issue down the road where people buy from other than a dealer.

And (2) many states require you to register aircraft... you get a sticker you affix to the plane... it's a way of keeping you on the books for excise taxes probably, but it varies from state to state.

What a great start, though! And a pro/con listing would be a great thing, too.

cheers

-=K=-

[Robert G. Stark]

Today I spoke to Mr. Marty Weaver about his gyro. He did do sport catagory last february. He had to have an FAA Mido ASI issue the certificate as there were not many DAR's authorized Light Sport. I will give him credit for first in Nation and in Southwest Region. The one I did is second however. That is not bad for a new catagory.
Bob Stark

[Robert G. Stark]

It has now come to my attention that We are still the FIRST!!!
Marty Weavers gyro is a two place, The one I certifiated is a single place. I therefore claim that Mr. Treidel's gyro that I certificated was the first single place.
He he he he.

[mark treidel]

HOT DAMN!!!!!! Thanks for the research Bob, #1 single place LSA in the nation is not at all a bad moniker to wear, & I'll fly it proudly & safely!!
Mark

[Robert G. Stark]

Crash and Burn is not allowed.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AirHorse1]

Are these repairman classes held at nationwide locations (such as airports)? If so, does anyone have a list of places that offer these classes to recieve training for the Repairman Certification?

[mark treidel]

in response to Airhorse 1, depending on what it is that you fly, yes there are classes around the country being phased in now. they started with fixed wing and are now going to trikes, etc. As far as gyros go, Bob Stark will be starting a class, presumably in Olney, Tx. sometime this spring. There was supposed to be a class in Sept. but that was cancelled. Now that he has his certification, he will put together another class. At least that was the plan last time we spoke. Im sure he will expound on the subject when he reads your post.

[AirHorse1]

Thanks Mark. Enjoy your new LSA:)

[Robert G. Stark]

I will be doing a class after I get the IA renewal courses out of the way in Jan and Feb. Does anyone need a BFI renewal class? If enough do, I will put one on.
Bob Stark

[AirHorse1]

That sounds like good timing for me, as I'm doing my ground school in Jan. and Feb. Please, let me know the dates so I can arrange a flight down there. Thank you.

[Robert G. Stark]

I will post on the forum and in "Homebuilt Rotorcraft Magazine"

[gyroplanes]

Congratulations Bob and Mark. I think we should disqualify Marty Weaver anyway as he is the head of the Light Sport program.

We should be darn proud that the head of the program is a gyroplane guy though.

I don't know who your FAA / EAA presenters were Bob, but I had Van Stumpner as one of my presenters. Van told me he just got back from training with Steve McGowan in a Sparrowhawk.

I think we are quite fortunate to have very influential FAA people joining the gyro community.

[Aussie_Paul]

Congratulations Bob and Mark. I think we should disqualify Marty Weaver anyway as he is the head of the Light Sport program.

We should be darn proud that the head of the program is a gyroplane guy though.

I don't know who your FAA / EAA presenters were Bob, but I had Van Stumpner as one of my presenters. Van told me he just got back from training with Steve McGowan in a Sparrowhawk.

I think we are quite fortunate to have very influential FAA people joining the gyro community.

Tom, that is wonderful for the gyro industry over there.

Aussie Paul. :)

[gyroplanes]

Actually, our gyro industry doesn't seem to care a bit about the new LSA opportunity. I can't be too harsh on them as the USA fixed wing companies aren't really stepping up to the plate either.

Most of the aircraft certified in LSA have been foreign designs. It's sad for me as I can remember when most of the free world clamored for our aircraft.

[Doug Riley]

Tom, Mike Boyette is right about the liability problem. The "experimental amateur-built" category has so far been an effective (if sometimes undeserved) shield for manufacturers against products liability. No such dodge will be available with factory-built or factory-kitted LSA's. The designer-manufacturer really IS the responsible party in that situation.

FAA didn't provide a legal "safe harbor" in the LSA regs (nor do the have the power to; that's Congress's job). Without that, as a manufacturer I think I'd only want to build LSA's offshore, too.

The Cayman Islands look nice this time o' year...

[gyroplanes]

Maybe we could get closer to Puerto Rico and hang with our fellow sailor?

They said in OKC, that the ELSA should afford some liability protection (as amateur-built does) as the "kit" is still assembled by the owner, regardless of the percentage.

We had a couple SLSA folks in our class. The feeling was that if they adhere to the ASTM standards, as required, that should limit some of their liability.

I sure wish this country could regain it's prominence in aviation. I had a Marvel Schebler (now Precision) aircraft carburetor sales rep tell me that a full 50% of the cost of their carbs is product liability insurance.

Mike Hynes (Brantly Helicopters CEO) was forced to take his entire business offshore, Years ago he said he was paying liability insurance for every Brantly ever produced and flying in this country.

[Doug Riley]

Tom, I'd like to agree with those SLSA folks, but I just can't. If adherence to federal regs were a safe harbor, then it would certainly work for current certified aircraft (and cars, for that matter). And we know it doesn't.

As for the "kit" concept as a shield, I doubt it will work that well for SLSA. The regs impose detailed design duties on the mfr., and design defects are where the liability is most likely to be found. I'm actually surprised at how well the "kit" defense has worked to date, even for homebuilts. After all, many of them are paint-by-number projects, where every last TyRap is in the kit and the only builder contribution is color choice.

I think the real reason that kit mfrs. don't get tagged with liability more often than they do is that most of them have too little money to make a really intense legal effort worthwhile. Even the truly defective designs get by, for this reason.

[Caribean_gyro]

PR have the resorces and the testing place. Been US land (offshore) comercial agreements are similar. Now Labro is a bit cheaper but freight to US will affect total cost. Beside the liability that is an issue no matter where is made.

Currently there is a guy puting TECNOCAM together here and sflying them to Dominican republic island. I spoke with an owner of an amphibian FW co. and he said that the cost of putting plane,trainig,support for SLA was not worth it . That he is better off selling the kits .

Keep in mind that a kit quicksilver is around 20K if you have to buy this build and tested you will look in to 30 to 40K. I can get a goold C172 for this price.

ChuckP

[gyroplanes]

Currently there is a guy puting TECNOCAM together here and sflying them to Dominican republic island. I spoke with an owner of an amphibian FW co. and he said that the cost of putting plane,trainig,support for SLA was not worth it . That he is better off selling the kits .

Keep in mind that a kit quicksilver is around 20K if you have to buy this build and tested you will look in to 30 to 40K. I can get a goold C172 for this price.

ChuckP

Some of the manufacturers will change their tune when they see the sucess of the companies that have embraced SLSA. (I hope)
There are over a dozen SLSA aircraft available with new models being introduced weekly. (RANS S7 yesterday)

Sure you can buy an old Cessna, but you are stuck with high parts and maintenance costs. And you will have an old technology aircraft. My friend has a new SLSA that is a modern Cessna 150, except it's roomier, faster, burns less fuel and has a much lower operating cost.

I have been an A&P A.I. for many years. I constantly hear "what can I do to put my Cessna (piper, Beech, etc.) in the experimental category so I can do my own maintenance and produce my own parts?"

SLSA is the only answer to that money saving question. You can buy a factory built SLSA aircraft and re-certify it as ELSA. You can do all of your own maintenance and buy your parts wherever. Your annual condition inspection will require you to obtain a repairman's certificate by taking a 16 hour class.

This is the answer to what people have been asking for for years. Time will be the judge if the FAA got this one right.

[AirHorse1]

After reading all these posts, I am still a bit confused about something. If someone bought a used gyro that has already been given airworthiness registered and N numbered as an AB Experimental, can the buyer take the 16 hour course to do the inspections, since he was not the builder?

If so, is the buyer limited to flying it under Sport Pilot rules?

If not, can the buyer de-register it and re-register it under LSA rules and then take the repairman's class?

What would be the process needed to allow the buyer to do the inspections himself?:confused:

[Chuck Roberg]

This is more Tom's and Robert's territory but I'll give it a try.

After reading all these posts, I am still a bit confused about something. If someone bought a used gyro that has already been given airworthiness registered and N numbered as an AB Experimental, can the buyer take the 16 hour course to do the inspections, since he was not the builder?

No. Only the builder can apply for the repairman's certificate.

If so, is the buyer limited to flying it under Sport Pilot rules?

It's still an experimental. So it can be flown under either Sport Pilot rules or as Recreational Pilot or higher rating.

If not, can the buyer de-register it and re-register it under LSA rules and then take the repairman's class?

The FAA answer is no. But. If you can find a cooperative DAR. Or your creative in your answers to the DAR....................... I really don't really feel comfortable posting anything more on a public forum about this.

What would be the process needed to allow the buyer to do the inspections himself?

As an experimental aircraft that you did not build. Your only option is to find an A&P mechanic or an IA to perform the conditional inspecton. Or become an A&P yourself.

[AirHorse1]

Thanks, Chuck. Thats what I thought but needed to know for sure. Message received.;)

[Chuck Roberg]

Quote:
If so, is the buyer limited to flying it under Sport Pilot rules?

It's still an experimental. So it can be flown under either Sport Pilot rules or as Recreational Pilot or higher rating.

Oop's I goofed, I didn't realize it was an RAF. It was brought to my attention, that if it's registered Experimental, the gross weight listed is probably over 1320#. In that case it can not be piloted by a Sport Pilot.

[gyroplanes]

Oop's I goofed, I didn't realize it was an RAF. It was brought to my attention, that if it's registered Experimental, the gross weight listed is probably over 1320#. In that case it can not be piloted by a Sport Pilot.

The aircraft's gross weight limit is determined by the builder.

The only place gross weight is listed is on YOUR weight and balance. It's a document we change every time we fly, Right?

Some store bought data plates have a space for gross & empty weight. That information is not required by the FAA.

The head of the FAA Light Sport program brought his RAFs empty weight down to under 1320 (unless he wrote himself an exemption? :-> )

[gyroplanes]

The gross weight of an aircraft is determined by the aircraft's manufacturer.

The gross weight is not something you can measure with a scale, it is an arbitrary number and is usually determined by the aircraft's ability to climb at specific temperature conditions.

I don't care what claims a kit manufacturer makes. What's important is how much weight you can carry under the prevailing conditions.

If Marty Weaver built his gyro he could assign any gross weight he saw fit. Flying over gross weight is a violation of the CFRs without an exemption.

p.s. I'd be the last guy to call the head of the FAA Light Sport Aircraft program, Illegal!