Looking again

[3Dreaming]

Re: Looking again

You guys are talking about PILOT privileges and limitations.
So, Have a look at FAR Part61, Subpart J-SPORT PILOTS.
Specificaly, 61.303 and the 'Table' below it.
That should clear up any confusion.
These specific FARS are pretty clear.
For pilot limitations,look under the Pilot regs., NOT the aircraft cert. regs.............

If you read through the thread we have talked about a lot more than pilot privileges and limitations. Like the Taylorcraft not being a light sport aircraft from a certification stand piont, but being one from a pilot view point. The big one though is if the CFR 1.1 definition of light sport aircraft applies just to aircraft that are certified light sport, or to all aircraft that can be flown by a sport pilot. Personally I think it is the latter. Just like category and class have different meanings for pilots and aircraft certification I think light sport aircraft does as well. The problem is CFR 1.1 just offers 1 definition with no guidelins to which it applies.

[stearman3]

Re: Looking again

The whole thing hinges on the 1.1 definition. Does it apply to to CFR61 subpart "J" or does it apply to special light sport aircraft. Special light sport aircraft have their own rules that they must comply with in the ASTM standards. I think the definition applies to what sport pilots can fly because that is the only place that defines the requirements. I think the FAA needs to clarify or add dual definition for "light sport aircraft" like thay did for category and class. They are different in regards to pilots and aircraft certification.

You guys are talking about PILOT privileges and limitations.
So, Have a look at FAR Part61, Subpart J-SPORT PILOTS.
Specificaly, 61.303 and the 'Table' below it.
That should clear up any confusion.
These specific FARS are pretty clear.
For pilot limitations,look under the Pilot regs., NOT the aircraft cert. regs.............

[3Dreaming]

Re: Looking again

Really interesting discussion. At first I thought Mr. Otha was in error because of what 1.1 says about "continual" in the definition of light sport. But now I think not.

And here is the rub: There are two CLASSES of aircraft that can be flown by a light sport pilot, and one of them is a certified "regular" aircraft (whatever the proper name is). But if I fly my Taylorcraft as a light sport pilot it does not make it a light sport aircraft. It is still a regular certified aircraft.

Problem is that there is not a SEPARATE specification for general certified aircraft to qualify to be flown by a light sport pilot. The definition given in the 1.1 is for a light sport aircraft, but if it is the (only?) definition available it may be being used in error to define what kind of generally certified aircraft can be flown by a light sport pilot. You cannot call a regular plane a light sport aircraft just because it is being flown by a light sport pilot. Therefore there is a need for a specific set of specifications for regular aircraft that would qualify them to be flown by a sport pilot.

That is what the definition says; it is the DEFINITION OF a light sport aircraft. I believe in a legal wrangle that what generally certified aircraft can be flown would have to be separately defined.

Now if they state somewhere in the regulations that other aircraft must meet this definition to be flown by sport pilots, well that would be a different thing.

The whole thing hinges on the 1.1 definition. Does it apply to to CFR61 subpart "J" or does it apply to special light sport aircraft. Special light sport aircraft have their own rules that they must comply with in the ASTM standards. I think the definition applies to what sport pilots can fly because that is the only place that defines the requirements. I think the FAA needs to clarify or add dual definition for "light sport aircraft" like thay did for category and class. They are different in regards to pilots and aircraft certification.

[exp2ex]

Re: Looking again

This fellow that is based out of Gordonsville airport, VA is pretty knowledgeable about the regs.

Caleb A. Glick
FAA Headquarters DC AFS 350 General Aviation Maintenance at US Department of Transportation (DOT)

I believe he can help with any aw questions.

Chip

[flyguy]

Re: Looking again

Really interesting discussion. At first I thought Mr. Otha was in error because of what 1.1 says about "continual" in the definition of light sport. But now I think not.

And here is the rub: There are two CLASSES of aircraft that can be flown by a light sport pilot, and one of them is a certified "regular" aircraft (whatever the proper name is). But if I fly my Taylorcraft as a light sport pilot it does not make it a light sport aircraft. It is still a regular certified aircraft.

Problem is that there is not a SEPARATE specification for general certified aircraft to qualify to be flown by a light sport pilot. The definition given in the 1.1 is for a light sport aircraft, but if it is the (only?) definition available it may be being used in error to define what kind of generally certified aircraft can be flown by a light sport pilot. You cannot call a regular plane a light sport aircraft just because it is being flown by a light sport pilot. Therefore there is a need for a specific set of specifications for regular aircraft that would qualify them to be flown by a sport pilot.

That is what the definition says; it is the DEFINITION OF a light sport aircraft. I believe in a legal wrangle that what generally certified aircraft can be flown would have to be separately defined.

Now if they state somewhere in the regulations that other aircraft must meet this definition to be flown by sport pilots, well that would be a different thing.

[3Dreaming]

Re: Looking again

In the FAR's the FAA goes to great length to keep the LSA and Standard aircraft seperate. The Certification is different, the Licencing is different and the Maintenance is different. To make the leap that they are the same based on FAR 1 definition is a large one. If this is you definition of LSA, good for you. I don't share your thoughts on this.
This thread was to point out a different viewpoint on the definition of LSA compliant aircraft. I'm sorry if I questioned your view on it. But I feel that my points are as valid as yours with equal supporting information. If, and when the FED's decide to ammend the FAR's perhaps we can understand them. Bill O'Brian told me (quite candidly) that the FAR's are not written for people to understand,but, for the FAA to defend in court.
EO

I am not saying they are the same, and I never have if you read my post. I agree that the certification is different. I agree that the maintainance is different. I agree that the term sport pilot eligible is a better choice in describing the Taylorcraft. We are 100% in agreement on all of these facts.
The point from the begining is that for the Taylorcraft to be sport pilot eligible it must meet the CFR 1.1 definition. Part of that definition is, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following. You can't move the airplane in and out of sport pilot egilibility simply because it is a standard category airplane and not a "light sport aircraft".

[Hank Jarrett]

Re: Looking again

"The FAR's are not written for people to understand,but, for the FAA to defend in court."

Has there ever been a truer statement!

Hank

[Edwin Otha]

Re: Looking again

In the FAR's the FAA goes to great length to keep the LSA and Standard aircraft seperate. The Certification is different, the Licencing is different and the Maintenance is different. To make the leap that they are the same based on FAR 1 definition is a large one. If this is you definition of LSA, good for you. I don't share your thoughts on this.
This thread was to point out a different viewpoint on the definition of LSA compliant aircraft. I'm sorry if I questioned your view on it. But I feel that my points are as valid as yours with equal supporting information. If, and when the FED's decide to ammend the FAR's perhaps we can understand them. Bill O'Brian told me (quite candidly) that the FAR's are not written for people to understand,but, for the FAA to defend in court.
EO

[3Dreaming]

Re: Looking again

The only document would be the definition in FAR 1, as you pointed out. The Taylorcraft to be sport pilot eligible would need to fit those criteria not the definition. I don't think you can pick and choose which criteria you want to meet, it has to meet them all.

The definition is for Light Sport Aircraft, not Standard catagory. You need to remember that for pilots category means airplane, helicopter, glider, ect. How the airplane was certified doesn't matter. The wording for the definition just says aircraft, and not aircraft certified as a light sport aircraft. That is the reason I think it applies to pilot certification and not aircraft certification

I don't remember the Beech/Roby thing but I agree. If installed the aircraft is not sport pilot eligible. If removed it would again be eligible. You said to be sport pilot eligible it needs to meet the part 1 difinition. You don't get to pick and chose which parts of the definition you are going to follow. Once it has been installed it can not be flown by a sport pilot even if it is removed.

A LSA aircraft could not do the same thing. First the controllable prop would need factory approval and this would take it out of the LSA certification basis. At this point it would need a modification to it's provisional airworthyness certificate. I would guess to Expermental Phase 1 testing. And once modified could not be returned to LSA certification. No factory approval needed because it would take them out of the loop. The only place to go would be experimental exhibition or maybe research and developement. The only way to return would be with factory approval, and I doubt that would happen because they wouldn't want the liability.


I understand your fanatisism, you've got some skin in this fight. I really don't believe this is worth whipping to a froth. I have my position you have yours. Like I said it is about education. There are to many incorrect thoughts and ideas floating around about light sport aircraft and sport pilots. It is confusing because how the terms apply to pilots is different than aircraft certification. Just because it is light sport aircraft for the pilot to fly doesn't mean that it can be maintained as a light sport aircraft by the pilot. The FAA really screwed up in the way they use the different terms. There are very few within the FAA at the local level that really understand how the rules apply.
EO

This whole thread started because Ryan was looking for another airplane, because he posted in another thread that his Taylorcraft once had a Beech Roby prop installed. Knowing that he was going to use it for flight training I dirrected him to CFR 1.1 and suggested that it might not be sport pilot eligible. He looked into it with the FAA and found that it was not eligible.

[Edwin Otha]

Re: Looking again

The only document would be the definition in FAR 1, as you pointed out. The Taylorcraft to be sport pilot eligible would need to fit those criteria not the definition. The definition is for Light Sport Aircraft, not Standard catagory. I don't remember the Beech/Roby thing but I agree. If installed the aircraft is not sport pilot eligible. If removed it would again be eligible. A LSA aircraft could not do the same thing. First the controllable prop would need factory approval and this would take it out of the LSA certification basis. At this point it would need a modification to it's provisional airworthyness certificate. I would guess to Expermental Phase 1 testing. And once modified could not be returned to LSA certification.
I understand your fanatisism, you've got some skin in this fight. I really don't believe this is worth whipping to a froth. I have my position you have yours.
EO

[3Dreaming]

Re: Looking again

Like I said, we've beaten this to death. You go fly anything you feel fits you needs and I'll do the same. And the answer to your question would be to start at the top and read it again. I understand the point you're trying to make and I would still have to disagree.
But, if you need that warm fuzzy feeling of satisfaction, you win.
EO

EO, it's not about winning for me it is about education. I started at the top and read back throught the whole post. It's not the idea of whether a Taylorcraft is a LSA or not. You said a Taylorcraft can have the beech Roby prop installed and removed and still be sport pilot eligible. I asked one simple question and you did not answer it. I'll ask again, what FAA document do you use to determine the requirements an aircraft like the Taylorcraft must meet to be sport pilot eligible?

[Dano"T"]

Re: Looking again

This is a case of self induced compliance...and black and white rule interpretation....i understand that this is aviation and dealing with the FAA is black and white....that's too bad...but true. However, this is not the same as gross weight increases which require structural modifications to get the desired increase....I understand the FAA not wanting to get into the business of having everybody with a plane over the max amount by such and such an amount petitioning them to get a decrease to be compliant. This, however, involved the addition of an accessory sometime in its past (easily removable) that did not change the aircraft as a whole......this alone should be enough to get the FAA to allow an exception in this case. A simple letter of understanding could be issued by the engineering branch or head of the LSA to that effect and this could be a dead issue. I'm not so Nieve As to think it will actually happen that way....just making my humble opinion known:etek:

[Edwin Otha]

Re: Looking again

Like I said, we've beaten this to death. You go fly anything you feel fits you needs and I'll do the same. And the answer to your question would be to start at the top and read it again. I understand the point you're trying to make and I would still have to disagree.
But, if you need that warm fuzzy feeling of satisfaction, you win.
EO

[3Dreaming]

Re: Looking again

I guess we've beaten this subject to death. I don't believe the FAA has presented the information correctly, you can't have it both ways.
In asking for a waiver it makes them work, so it's denied. Any time you ask the Fed's to regulate they will. I choose not to ask and use their regulations to fit my operations. When asked for supporting documents I provide their FAR's and never have had issue with them.
I've seen a few rodeos, Langhorne Bond signed my first ticket.
EO

EO, You did say that the Taylorcraft was a sport pilot eligible aircraft didn't you (post #20)? What regulation did you use to come to that conclusion? The FAA has to have something in writing that you can use to determine that the airplane is sport pilot eligible. Please show me the FAA document that you use to determine this. Would you please point me to where the requirements the airplane must meet to be sport pilot eligible are written.

[Edwin Otha]

Re: Looking again

I guess we've beaten this subject to death. I don't believe the FAA has presented the information correctly, you can't have it both ways.
In asking for a waiver it makes them work, so it's denied. Any time you ask the Fed's to regulate they will. I choose not to ask and use their regulations to fit my operations. When asked for supporting documents I provide their FAR's and never have had issue with them.
I've seen a few rodeos, Langhorne Bond signed my first ticket.
EO