Light Sport Gyroplanes

cleatus99

CFI/CFII
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
381
Location
Rhome, Tx
Aircraft
Calidus 912
Total Flight Time
4400+
Hi all,
I know there has to be someone working to get S-SLA Gyroplane in the regulations. Is there any specific groups, organizations, individuals etc. working toward getting it done?

What are the obstacles? FAA, ASTM, Gyro Community?

Who do we need to make it happen? Us, Manufacturers, Congressman, Senators, Obama?

Can I, and we help to make it happen? Do we all need to camp-out & whine at our represenatives offices?

I can see Light Sport approved regulation Gyroplanes as only working toward furthering our sport safety etc.

Thanks, Bryan
 
Greg Gremminger is working on it along with the PRA, EAA and U.S. Dept of Justice. Just to name a few.

The way I understand it. The big obstacle is the Rotorcraft division within the FAA.

I'm sure eventually SLSA Gyroplanes will be allowed. Unfortunately it's tied to the FAA's time line. I hope I'm still able to fly when it comes about. :D
 
Hi Cleatus99,

There will never be an experimental light sport gyroplane(ELSA) until there is a
special light sport gyroplane(SLSA). There will never be an SLSA until someone offers a "ready to fly" gyroplane that has been built to ASTM standards. This is because the FAA regulations are written in such a manner that they can only be interrpreted this way: you can't have an ELSA until you have an SLSA. In addition, I don't beleive that there are complete ASTM standards for any gyroplanes and because of the variation of types of gyroplanes I seriously doubt that any SLSA gyroplanes are going to be available in the near future.

Remember the FAA's credo "We're not happy until your not happy."
 
...There will never be an experimental light sport gyroplane (ELSA) until there is a special light sport gyroplane (SLSA)...

There are numerous E-LSA gyroplanes registered today - the ones that came in as grandfathered fat ultralights. There are at least two for sale here on the forum right now, one of them-factory built. I know that window closed, but I thought it needed to be mentioned because it demonstrates that the FAA can let machines be sold factory-built as E-LSA without S-LSA parents if it chooses to go that way.

This will be driven by the manufacturers, IMHO. Greg Gremminger (Magni) and the AutoGyro guys will be pushing hard, and I have to think the FAA is noticing that the public use exemption is providing an end-run around the arbitrary and constipated process, which has to be driving them nuts.

I only hope the new machines sold to law enforcement and as quick-built kits to others achieve a good safety record in the US.
 
Howdy PW Plack,

You are absolutely correct There are a number of ELSA gyros out there. I used to own 227E which was the third gyro to ever be registered as an ELSA; however, you are missing the point-THERE WILL BE NO MORE ELSA GYROS UNTIL THERE IS AN SLSA GYRO OR THE FAA WRITS NEW RULES AND THEY ARE NOT MAKING ANY PLANS TO DO SO!!! Insofar as law enforcement and other govt agencys go they are not subject to the same rules and can do pretty much what ever they want.

It's an impossible situation for the gyro community and the FAA is not going going to change it's position.

I really wish I could be more positive about the situation but I can't. But it could be worse: We could actually get the government we pay for!!!!!
 
There will never be an SLSA until someone offers a "ready to fly" gyroplane that has been built to ASTM standards.
. . .
I don't beleive that there are complete ASTM standards for any gyroplanes and because of the variation of types of gyroplanes I seriously doubt that any SLSA gyroplanes are going to be available in the near future.

I thought the standards were complete and here:

http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2352.htm

If so, then some manufacturer just needs to go through the hoops to show compliance. (It should be a heck of a lot cheaper than going through the hoops for Standard Airworthiness!)

As an admitted complete outsider to the process, I've overheard lots of complaining and moaning and hoping that somebody will make an exception, or change a rule, or bend some rule, or use this or that instead of the required data, but I haven't yet heard of any gyro manufacturer who has:

(1) asserted full compliance with the standard

and

(2) submitted whatever the required evidence of compliance is to the FAA

and

(3) been denied by the FAA.

If I'm wrong about that, I would be very happy to be corrected.

Otherwise, it looks like the FAA has set a target, that the target is known, that the target is meaningfully easier to hit than full Standard Airworthiness certification, but that nobody has hit the target. It doesn't sound entirely fair to blame the FAA for all of that if the manufacturers are not willing to do what the FAA has asked.

Is there really no straightforward path to get this done? I find that very hard to believe; I find it more likely that nobody wants to pony up the $$$$ to follow the path, and are hoping to change the path.


OK guys, I'd really like to know the real situation.
Fix my misunderstandings for me now, please.
 
...you are missing the point-THERE WILL BE NO MORE ELSA GYROS UNTIL THERE IS AN SLSA GYRO OR THE FAA WRITS NEW RULES AND THEY ARE NOT MAKING ANY PLANS TO DO SO!!!

...I really wish I could be more positive about the situation but I can't. But it could be worse: We could actually get the government we pay for!!!!!

Paul, no need to shout, I understand your point, and acknowledged it was a temporary window. My point is they did it once, they could do it again.

Regarding plans within the FAA, I will defer, as you may have better sources than I do.

The good news: Given the concessions made to unions in the FAA and TSA during the current administration, and the mindless flogging of struggling industries by both agencies during a recession, I would expect a wholesale change at the top after the next presidential election cycle.

The bad news: 20-year bureaucrats in Oklahoma and Texas have come to understand that if they can just stall things long enough, they'll prevail, because they have job security far superior to whoever heads the FAA at any given moment.

I think the real future is in 51% quick-build kits that can be put together at an authorized distributor's shop over a weekend. If the FAA keeps sticking out its leg to trip people who want to fly recreationally on a budget, some will learn how to jump the obstacle.
 
Last edited:
Howdy PW,

Not shouting but I get so upset when I see the FAA developing solutions to problems that don't exist in order to create a problem that they will have an answer for!!!(that's the clearest way I can think of to describe the gov't mind set)

Yes, there are astm general standards for gyroplanes but each mfgr will have to have the astms' modified in order to fit the particular gyroplane that they wish to produce. In addition, I do beleive that once an slsa is produced(and the mfgr only has to produce one) the kits that are sold will have to be constructed to the exact plans with no modifications. (I may be incorrect about this for elsa but I know that no mods can be made to an slsa) And, no mods may be made to the acft without a letter from the mfgr.

This whole thing is a very expensive and time consuming process and the FAA's rational for not advancing on gyros is that there is the Experimental Amature built catagory covers aircraft that don't fit the LSA mold.
 
Yes, there are astm general standards for gyroplanes but each mfgr will have to have the astms' modified in order to fit the particular gyroplane that they wish to produce.

Isn't it the other way around?
Don't the manufacturers have to produce an aircraft that meets the standards? And if they don't, they'll have to modify the gyro until it does?
 
...Yes, there are astm general standards for gyroplanes but each mfgr will have to have the astms' modified in order to fit the particular gyroplane that they wish to produce. In addition, I do beleive that once an slsa is produced(and the mfgr only has to produce one) the kits that are sold will have to be constructed to the exact plans with no modifications.

Paul, the manufacturers will have to submit an affidavit that their machine complies with the existing standards. It looks as though the FAA may get more directly involved with that determination. The manufacturers have the freedom to do their own designs, but not their own standards.

You are correct about the E-LSA kits, which will have to be built as an exact clone of the S-LSA parent. But that's not to say the same kit can't be sold to others for completion as an Experimental Amateur Built, if it qualifies under the 51% rule. If you can build a Glasair Sportsman at the factory in two weeks and taxi it out the door 51%-eligible, a quick-build gyro should take about two days.

The real issue here isn't kits anyway, it's factory-built machines. There is a huge untapped market among people who want to fly, but have no interest in building. The FAA has said in the past it would consider allowing factory-built machines registered as E-LSA, even without an S-LSA parent, and then evaluate the resulting fleet's safety record before allowing S-LSA.

The comment about "don't fit the LSA mold" is irritating. Gyros fit it better than fixed-wings. Airplanes often push the limits on stall speed, max speed, and other parameters, but if a gyro with one or two seats can make weight, it's pretty much guaranteed to meet all the other limits, even if you give it 300 HP!

If gyros don't fit the LSA mold, why is there an FAA Sport Pilot Rotorcraft/Gyroplane certificate?
 
Chuck,
Thank you for the reply

Paulp, I'm afraid you missed the point, question is the method needed to get S-LSA Gyroplanes "in regulation", and who and how to make it happen.

I don't want to hear governmental or gyroplane voodoo.

I am in partners in an E-LSA gyro. I know they exist. Yes I know there can be no new ones created per current FARs. End of that story.


I know there are some #%%^ in FAA Rotorcraft Engineering, what does it take to override their stupidity?

That is my hope for this thread.

Can we force it with a FAA funding bill add-on?

I would think we need community effort to make it happen.
I would also think it would be in the best interest of all Gyroplane Manufacturing organizations to ban together to get er' done.
 
I didn't get any direct answers before to indicate whether my impressions were correct, so let me try questions one topic at a time:


Has any gyro manufacturer built any gyro that they claim meets the ASTM standards today?


If so, which one(s)?
 
Howdy All,

You all are all correct in one way or another. An existing mfgr would be able to modify their acft to the existing astm; however, when you start introducing sxs, tandum seating, dual rotors and all kinds of other variations problems are going to arise.

I am merly saying that in our present reality, an slsa gyroplane is going to be expensive-very expensive and, quite frankly beyond the reach of most folks who would be interested in flying a gyro. With that in mind, where is the market?

If someone would come up with a 51% kit, under 25K they might have a ghost of a chance of making it. However, with the present mind set @ the FAA and the current government attitude towards protecting us from ourselves I seriously doubt that that the mfg of an slsa or a 51% kit in the US is not in our immediate future.

That is a shame because this is a great sport and there are many viable and safe designs out there. And, the gyroplane fits the lsa catagory perfectly.
 
The ASTM standard for Gyroplanes is here: http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2352.htm

I have the entire document on my desktop.

If there is a gyro manufacturer that comes close to this standard....it's us (Sport Copter). We actually use real aircraft hardware....can you believe it? And yes, real aircraft wheels and tires. Where does this madness stop? It doesn't.


We (Sport Copter) have been working on this for years. As has Greg G. and others. I feel it's getting close to happening.
 
Howdy Master Roda,

Thank you for the direction to the finally complete? astm standards for gyroplanes. I certainly hope that you are right about being close; however, I am afraid that I am a little skeptical when it comes to dealing with the FAA and their politics.

And you are correct-there is no end to it.
 
I thought the standards were complete and here:

http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2352.htm

The ASTM standard for Gyroplanes is here: http://www.astm.org/Standards/F2352.htm


Uhh - do I hear an echo?


In any event, thanks for confirming my suspicion that nobody yet meets the standards. That sounds like the critical first hurdle to me, and some of the complaining about the FAA seems unfair given that the standards haven't been met by anyone.

Maybe in the abstract a gyro seems like a good candidate for the concept of LSA, but not a cheap gyro that all can afford. LSA airplanes are already very expensive, and one shouldn't expect an LSA gyro to be immune from that.
 
I am merly saying that in our present reality, an slsa gyroplane is going to be expensive-very expensive and, quite frankly beyond the reach of most folks who would be interested in flying a gyro. With that in mind, where is the market?

Actually, I think S-LSA gyroplanes WOULD put gyroplanes within the reach of far many more folks who would be interested in flying one.

Paul Plack touched on this issue when he wrote:

"The real issue here isn't kits anyway, it's factory-built machines. There is a huge untapped market among people who want to fly, but have no interest in building."

In the general aviation community, including S-LSA airplanes, most fixed wing pilots don't own the airplanes they fly. They rent them by the hour or lease them. Unlike an experimental-designated gyroplane, an S-LSA gyroplane would allow persons to rent or lease the aircraft. They wouldn't have to own it to fly it.

Very likely, an S-LSA gyroplane would be about as expensive as an S-LSA airplane. And I think that's a good thing. Just as some persons pony up the money to buy S-LSA airplanes, some will buy an equivalently priced gyroplane. That means more money for gyroplane manufacturers. A healthy gyroplane production environment is a good thing for our sport.

Having S-LSA gyroplanes would allow gyroplane flight schools. It would be an hefty investment, but no more than for a fixed-wing flight school that makes money from instruction, rental and, in some cases, sales of the aircraft - new or used. With gyroplane flight schools, gyroplane instructors don't have to own the aircraft they instruct in or require their students to own the aircraft. That means more instructors and more students.

For persons who want to build a gyroplane or own something less expensive, there's still the Experimental-Amateur Built route.
 
Uhh - do I hear an echo?


In any event, thanks for confirming my suspicion that nobody yet meets the standards. That sounds like the critical first hurdle to me, and some of the complaining about the FAA seems unfair given that the standards haven't been met by anyone.

Maybe in the abstract a gyro seems like a good candidate for the concept of LSA, but not a cheap gyro that all can afford. LSA airplanes are already very expensive, and one shouldn't expect an LSA gyro to be immune from that.

Jeez. Sorry. I didn't see your post. I didn't confirm or deny anything for you either. Don't assume.


,
 
I didn't confirm or deny anything for you either. Don't assume.

This is what sounded like confirmation to me:
If there is a gyro manufacturer that comes close to this standard....it's us (Sport Copter)...

We (Sport Copter) have been working on this for years. As has Greg G. and others. I feel it's getting close to happening.
I was just taking you at your word that you're close, but not there.
 
Top