Peter wrote:
Could you describe these?
You need the production organisation approval from your national CAA.
National anemosities are pulling the handbrake on production aircraft
Could you describe these?
1. The CarbonCub already fits CS-LSA. How many are registered in Europe? How many other US LSA are registered in Europe? And how many European designs take off in the US?
2. The RV10 does not fit into the proposed FAA LSA class (too fast cruise, too fast stall, and probably a CS-prop fitted
3. Because EASA is way better regime in Part-21 than the FAA, we do see most advances in Europe, not in the US. (e.g. new engines, new airframes, new materials, etc.)
4. National anemosities are pulling the handbrake on production aircraft, not EASA. But you already know that.
5. FAA LSA needs to be recertified to Eurpean standards, if you want a European TC.
mh wrote:
Thus, it won’t be of big effect in Europe
No? How is an LSA RV-10 (built at some “factory”) or LSA Carbon Cub (also built by some “factory”) going to be exported and sold in Europe? Or any other similar-ish performing aircraft. They are no longer experimental since they are not following the 51% rule, and there is no way to certify them. It’s good for European manufacturers exporting to the US, but without a home market that is problematic.
EASA better get their heads out of their buts. If anything this shows how little progressive EASA is. We have LAPL and ELA(1/2)/VLA, but none of that really changes anything in a practical sense as things are today.
Silvaire wrote:
The most important implication is the end of private pilot medicals for pilots flying most FAA registered ‘non-complex’ light aircraft in the US.
I think that’s the main impact for GA. Thus, it won’t be of big effect in Europe, because there is no comparable pilot license for “LSA only”. On a certification level, going LSA instead of CS-23 doesn’t make any significant difference, on the contrary.
All this is going to take a lot more time than a few months. And for manufacturers is may be an opportunity in the long run, but for now worrying as buyers may want to wait and see..
https://www.bydanjohnson.com
As I see it, there is no NPRM at the moment and unlikely to be before the end of the year.
The Light Sport Aircraft definition in 14 CFR part 1.1 has a lot more to it than gross weight, so it remains to be seen what other concessions will be proposed.
That would make a lot more aircraft available to sport pilots. I presume existing LSAs would have to get their limitations revised to permit higher gross weights and that process could be different depending on the certification class, factory or amateur built.
They also alluded to opening up more experimental kits to be professionally built, which could formalise what is already happening more covertly.
Unless they give more detail to the proposal, there’s still a lot to be decided.
Thought it was a joke, but it’s apparently fact 
Read about it in the local aero-news here. But there are limitations:
No constant speed, no retract, max speed limit. “Certification” include flight test to test for “gentle behavior”. It also open up for “professional builders” to build and sell homebuilts.
alioth wrote:
The content of the maintenance hasn’t changed but isn’t the difference who can do the maintenance, i.e. an LSA repairman suitably trained can do it rather than a full-blown A&P?
Maintenance on FAA certified aircraft must be done by an A&P. It doesn’t matter if the plane is or can be operated under LSA rules, for example if flown by a private pilot with an expired medical. This is not a big issue for LSA-compliant Cub owners and the like who typically work closely with a friendly local A&P and control their own parts/maintenance.
A factory produced LSA aircraft has different maintenance protocols and regulations, most of which are actually problematic relative to what the FAA certified Cub owner faces unless the plane is converted to E-LSA (experimental).
I think the significant issues in this NPRM are no-pilot-medical for many bigger planes of all regulatory types, plus the path towards allowing new production four seat factory built LSA aircraft to be built and sold as LSA, then potentially converted to Experimental-LSA. That makes new four seat planes more marketable in relation to both existing FAA certified and FAA Experimental-AB aircraft. Having read the FAA statement, I note they also plan a NPRM to allow professional builders to construct Experimental-EB aircraft, which is interesting. Obviously to me its becoming no holds barred at this point to accelerate new light aircraft sales for the US market.
