 |
AirTalk.org
Aviation discussions newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John Dean
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 8:49 pm Post subject: Getting Ready for Sport Pilot |
 |
|
Dennis Demeter has been writing an article on Getting Ready for Sport Pilot
in Ultralight Flying.
Do I understand him correctly? I will not be able to have my fat ultralight
certified as a sport plane since I bought it secondhand and do not have a
receipt from an ultralight manufacturer.
John
[email]jdean133 (AT) comcast (DOT) net[/email]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Richard Carlisle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 9:06 pm Post subject: Re: Getting Ready for Sport Pilot |
|
|
On 9/28/03 4:49 PM, in article [email]bDGdnWMNa9eb2uqiXTWJhg (AT) comcast (DOT) com[/email], "John
Dean" <jdean133 (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:
| Quote: | Dennis Demeter has been writing an article on Getting Ready for Sport Pilot
in Ultralight Flying.
Do I understand him correctly? I will not be able to have my fat ultralight
certified as a sport plane since I bought it secondhand and do not have a
receipt from an ultralight manufacturer.
John
[email]jdean133 (AT) comcast (DOT) net[/email]
|
The way I read it, there will be a grace period where you will be allowed to
register existing planes as LSA. There are two separate LSA categories.
There is certified LSA and experimental LSA. Our kit/scratch built planes
will be experimental LSA.
Ross
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sleepy6
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 12:43 am Post subject: Re: Getting Ready for Sport Pilot |
|
|
In article <bDGdnWMNa9eb2uqiXTWJhg (AT) comcast (DOT) com>, [email]jdean133 (AT) comcast (DOT) net[/email]
says...
| Quote: |
Dennis Demeter has been writing an article on Getting Ready for Sport
Pilot
in Ultralight Flying.
Do I understand him correctly? I will not be able to have my fat ultra
light
certified as a sport plane since I bought it secondhand and do not hav
e a
receipt from an ultralight manufacturer.
John
[email]jdean133 (AT) comcast (DOT) net[/email]
|
It all depends on what is in the final version whenever it is released.
It could be as simple as your word that you owned and flew it as a fat
ultralight, it could require log book proof, it might have to have been
registered with one of the orgs or it might be worse. We just have to
wait and see. Don't get too excited over anything anyone says until
you see something in writting from the FAA.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian Graeme
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 7:57 pm Post subject: Re: Getting Ready for Sport Pilot |
|
|
You may understand him correctly, but as I've been told by FAA, it is
the design which counts, not the sales slip.
John Dean wrote:
| Quote: | Dennis Demeter has been writing an article on Getting Ready for Sport Pilot
in Ultralight Flying.
Do I understand him correctly? I will not be able to have my fat ultralight
certified as a sport plane since I bought it secondhand and do not have a
receipt from an ultralight manufacturer.
John
[email]jdean133 (AT) comcast (DOT) net[/email]
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scrappman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2003 11:27 pm Post subject: Re: Getting Ready for Sport Pilot |
|
|
To be really honest,,,,,,,, if its a single seat,,,,, wouldn't worry to
much,,,,,
Scrappman
John Dean wrote:
| Quote: | Dennis Demeter has been writing an article on Getting Ready for Sport Pilot
in Ultralight Flying.
Do I understand him correctly? I will not be able to have my fat ultralight
certified as a sport plane since I bought it secondhand and do not have a
receipt from an ultralight manufacturer.
John
[email]jdean133 (AT) comcast (DOT) net[/email]
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bryan Reed
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:28 am Post subject: Re: Getting Ready for Sport Pilot |
|
|
"Ian Graeme" <shaidorsai (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: |
You may understand him correctly, but as I've been told by FAA, it is
the design which counts, not the sales slip.
Snip |
I think it would take even more than a reciept for a manufacturor to
magically retrofit an existing ultralight to (yet to be finalized) ASTM
standards. Then to certify it and assume liablility would be quite a bit
of insanity indeed. I think the best we can hope for is a temporary
extension of use as a trainer by currently registered 2-seat trainers.
The rest are I suspect destined to be registered as experimental LSA.
I am not sure how they will cross that bridge either since experimental
LSA's must be an accurate representation of the manufacturors certified
version but not factory built. I am curious how the FAA will
get out of this one and keep anybody happy.
Bryan
| Quote: |
John Dean wrote:
Dennis Demeter has been writing an article on Getting Ready for Sport
Pilot
in Ultralight Flying.
Do I understand him correctly? I will not be able to have my fat
ultralight
certified as a sport plane since I bought it secondhand and do not have
a
receipt from an ultralight manufacturer.
John
[email]jdean133 (AT) comcast (DOT) net[/email]
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin McCue
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:34 pm Post subject: Re: Getting Ready for Sport Pilot |
|
|
The worries expressed may be missing the mark... I don't think there
will be a problem with the Fat U/L stuff.
The receipt issue is the comes from the registration legalities. You
need to prove that you own it. For all registered aircraft this requires a
"chain of custody" proven by sales receipts back to the original
manufacturer of the plane or kit. An affidavit from the builder is executed
for experimentals made from plans. I had to do this for my Rans.
I doubt this "need" will change for the sport pilot.
--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gilan
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian Graeme
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 11:58 pm Post subject: Re: Getting Ready for Sport Pilot |
|
|
Bryan Reed wrote:
| Quote: | "Ian Graeme" <shaidorsai (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:3F788E8D.5040603 (AT) nospam (DOT) com...
You may understand him correctly, but as I've been told by FAA, it is
the design which counts, not the sales slip.
Snip
I think it would take even more than a reciept for a manufacturor to
magically retrofit an existing ultralight to (yet to be finalized) ASTM
standards. Then to certify it and assume liablility would be quite a bit
of insanity indeed.
|
What "liability"? One of the key features of LSA is that there is
essentially NO liability. The folx in the LSA office know what killed
the light plane industry in this country (it's not all that long ago
that new C-150s were in the $5000 price range)!
| Quote: | I think the best we can hope for is a temporary
extension of use as a trainer by currently registered 2-seat trainers.
The rest are I suspect destined to be registered as experimental LSA.
|
Yes, but they will still be legal LSA.
| Quote: | I am not sure how they will cross that bridge either since experimental
LSA's must be an accurate representation of the manufacturors certified
version but not factory built.
|
??? Experimental LSA just have to conform to the design standards, the
same way ULs are supposed to conform to Part 103. While some designs
will be listed as conformal, the list is not going to be all-inclusive.
| Quote: | I am curious how the FAA will
get out of this one and keep anybody happy.
Bryan
|
I don't think that they will keep everybody happy, but as long as enough
of us are happy, that works for me.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian Graeme
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2003 11:59 pm Post subject: Re: Getting Ready for Sport Pilot |
|
|
I don't see anything in the proposal requiring this.
Kevin McCue wrote:
| Quote: | The worries expressed may be missing the mark... I don't think there
will be a problem with the Fat U/L stuff.
The receipt issue is the comes from the registration legalities. You
need to prove that you own it. For all registered aircraft this requires a
"chain of custody" proven by sales receipts back to the original
manufacturer of the plane or kit. An affidavit from the builder is executed
for experimentals made from plans. I had to do this for my Rans.
I doubt this "need" will change for the sport pilot.
--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian Graeme
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2003 12:00 am Post subject: Re: Getting Ready for Sport Pilot |
|
|
Using Yahoo groups is an obnoxious, annoying process.
Gilan wrote:
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bryan Reed
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2003 1:10 am Post subject: Re: Getting Ready for Sport Pilot |
|
|
Ian wrote:
| Quote: | What "liability"? One of the key features of LSA is that there is
essentially NO liability. The folx in the LSA office know what killed
the light plane industry in this country (it's not all that long ago
that new C-150s were in the $5000 price range)!
Snip |
Ian,
This statement is quite wrong. I would suggest you research the original
proposal closely. It is very well understood by all the manufacturors that
there is a dramatic increase in liability. You do understand that the
manufacturor will be self certifying the airworthiness of his product. You
also need to understand that the LSA experimental catagory is only for an
exact replica of the factory built product that conforms to the ASTM
consensus standards.
All other fat ul's will have to be registered under the existing
experimental catagories. They will however be allowed to be flown by Sport
Pilots providing they meet the weight, stall speed etc..etc..
I don't know where you are getting your information but it is very
misleading.
Bryan
--
"Ian Graeme" <shaidorsai (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: |
Bryan Reed wrote:
"Ian Graeme" <shaidorsai (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:3F788E8D.5040603 (AT) nospam (DOT) com...
You may understand him correctly, but as I've been told by FAA, it is
the design which counts, not the sales slip.
Snip
I think it would take even more than a reciept for a manufacturor to
magically retrofit an existing ultralight to (yet to be finalized) ASTM
standards. Then to certify it and assume liablility would be quite a bit
of insanity indeed.
What "liability"? One of the key features of LSA is that there is
essentially NO liability. The folx in the LSA office know what killed
the light plane industry in this country (it's not all that long ago
that new C-150s were in the $5000 price range)!
I think the best we can hope for is a temporary
extension of use as a trainer by currently registered 2-seat trainers.
The rest are I suspect destined to be registered as experimental LSA.
Yes, but they will still be legal LSA.
I am not sure how they will cross that bridge either since experimental
LSA's must be an accurate representation of the manufacturors certified
version but not factory built.
??? Experimental LSA just have to conform to the design standards, the
same way ULs are supposed to conform to Part 103. While some designs
will be listed as conformal, the list is not going to be all-inclusive.
I am curious how the FAA will
get out of this one and keep anybody happy.
Bryan
I don't think that they will keep everybody happy, but as long as enough
of us are happy, that works for me.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gilan
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2003 2:43 pm Post subject: Re: Getting Ready for Sport Pilot |
|
|
That is so silly I can't believe you even wrote it.
Maybe you just don't know how to use it.
Sometimes having much more information available to you is more than a
person can handle. I enjoy having so much more information available to me
such as calendar events, web links, photos, data base tables, live chat and
more. Using a simple text message system like this is nice and I enjoy it
but to say Yahoo's easy system is obnoxious and annoying just tells me it is
too complicated for you.
--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sleepy6
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2003 3:13 pm Post subject: Re: Getting Ready for Sport Pilot |
|
|
In article <3F7B6A2F.6010807 (AT) nospam (DOT) com>, [email]shaidorsai (AT) nospam (DOT) com[/email] says...
| Quote: |
Bryan Reed wrote:
"Ian Graeme" <shaidorsai (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:3F788E8D.5040603 (AT) nospam (DOT) com...
You may understand him correctly, but as I've been told by FAA, it i
s
the design which counts, not the sales slip.
Snip
I think it would take even more than a reciept for a manufacturor t
o
magically retrofit an existing ultralight to (yet to be finalized) A
STM
standards. Then to certify it and assume liablility would be quite a
bit
of insanity indeed.
What "liability"? One of the key features of LSA is that there is
essentially NO liability. The folx in the LSA office know what killed
the light plane industry in this country (it's not all that long ago
that new C-150s were in the $5000 price range)!
|
Do you realise that the LSA manufacturer has to issue a certificate for
the plane that states the plane conforms to the LSA standards? That
increases his liability way above UL which require no certificates.
No manufacturer in his right mind will issue that certificate to a
plane that was not designed to the LSA standards. Since those
standards are VERY detailed and not complete yet, NO existing UL can
possibly meet those standards.
| Quote: | I think the best we can hope for is a temporary
extension of use as a trainer by currently registered 2-seat trainer
s.
The rest are I suspect destined to be registered as experimental LSA
.
Yes, but they will still be legal LSA.
I am not sure how they will cross that bridge either since experimen
tal
LSA's must be an accurate representation of the manufacturors certif
ied
version but not factory built.
??? Experimental LSA just have to conform to the design standards, th
e
same way ULs are supposed to conform to Part 103. While some designs
will be listed as conformal, the list is not going to be all-inclusive
|
If the FAA requires the existing UL that transfer into SP to meet the
design criteria of SP that list will be so exclusive that not a single
existing UL will be on it:)
Its also going to be impossible to meet the requirements for 51%
amateur built experimental unless you kept a builders log, pictures,
reciepts, etc as you built it.
The FAA has to pull a rabbit out of the hat to solve this one.
| Quote: | I am curious how the FAA will
get out of this one and keep anybody happy.
Bryan
I don't think that they will keep everybody happy, but as long as enou
gh
of us are happy, that works for me.
|
Learn a little more about SP. You may not be so happy with it when the
final version is realeased. The NPRM had a lot of serious problems and
no one knows what has been done to correct those or if the FAA added
new ones.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian Graeme
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 02, 2003 7:12 pm Post subject: Re: Getting Ready for Sport Pilot |
|
|
Gilan wrote:
| Quote: | That is so silly I can't believe you even wrote it.
Maybe you just don't know how to use it.
|
Maybe it has more to do with hardware timing issues (I'm usually using
"alternative" connections to the net), like the Yahoo tech guys said . . .
Maybe it has more to do with my already having too many passwords and
logons to deal with, and I'm not all that interested in adding more . . .
Maybe it has more to do with the way it's written with Inyerface
Exploder in mind and doesn't always work with Netscrape, especially the
beta versions that I usually use . . .
But yeah, maybe I just don't know how to use it. ;)
| Quote: |
Sometimes having much more information available to you is more than a
person can handle. I enjoy having so much more information available to me
such as calendar events, web links, photos, data base tables, live chat and
more. Using a simple text message system like this is nice and I enjoy it
but to say Yahoo's easy system is obnoxious and annoying just tells me it is
too complicated for you.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
