During my recent appearance on the Powered Sport Flying (Internet) Radio Show, I said I remained amazed that although the western U.S. has a large share of all pilots and airplanes in the country, no western airshow seems to have taken off the way Sun 'n Fun or AirVenture has. True enough, no west-of-the-Mississippi event comes close in size to the eastern shows, but my comments weren't fair to steady work by organizers of Copperstate, an event with a 37-year history (nor to the even-larger and older Arlington show or the Golden West event.) These western shows may not be huge, but they reveal an aviation passion. *** This year's Copperstate will be held in Casa Grande, Arizona — just south of Phoenix — from Thursday, October 21st through Saturday, October 23rd. The 2009 edition reported "more than 6,500 attendees." I spoke with new LSA enthusiast Steve Bass, Copperstate Fly-In Vice President and Light Sport & Ultralight Committee Chairman. He told me, "Though I have flown Pipers, Cessnas and owned a Beech, I have always had a fascination with weight-shift trikes.  About a year and a half ago I took trike flight instruction and purchased a used trike, which is now based in a hanger at the Chandler, Arizona airport." *** The southwestern show has long had a focus on the light end of aviation but it needed fresh leadership. "Copperstate wanted me to come in and breathe some life back into their Ultralight segment and they were, of course, including Light Sport Aircraft in that description," explained Steve. *** Copperstate 2010 expects 50 commercial exhibitors will showcase the latest aviation products. They forecast more than 350 aircraft, 200 of which will be show planes vying for awards. Steve finished, "The Copperstate Fly-In is recreational aviation at its best — powered parachutes, ultralights, Light-Sport, experimental, certified, classic, vintage and warbirds." Aircraft demonstration flights and helicopter rides will take place daily. In addition, they'll produce more than 70 educational forums and from my visits to this event, southern Arizona's weather is close to perfection in late October.

The second annual Midwest LSA Expo is set to launch. The exhibitor count is up from last year's inaugural event, according to main organizer Chris Collins. Print and web publisher Roy Beisswenger has organized a slate of forums (click for a PDF list), including yours truly. Aviators Hot Line has a special edition and General Aviation News is producing the program, which this year will feature data about all exhibiting aircraft plus offer informative articles. If you can't wait to see what's happening or if you're planning your visit, you can check out this program right here. *** Last year's first event was praised for the good organization (fairly amazing for a first year when glitches usually appear). Hotels and restaurants weren't far away and the airport terminal building offers dining, regular airport services, and regular bathrooms, not porta-potties. Indeed, how civilized! *** The Midwest LSA Expo is about a week earlier than last year and being in southern Illinois (a long state), weather should be mild. *** Last year Collins reported 42 airplanes on display plus another 30 exhibitors. Catch more detail on the video appearing on the show's website. *** People flying in — and plenty did — can catch a shuttle provided by the organizers to nearby hotels and restaurants. Last year, hotels were readily available so even those without reservations should be able to find accommodations. *** I'll arrive for opening on Thursday September 23rd. The Midwest LSA Expo runs through Saturday the 25th. Come on down and enjoy some Light-Sport Aircraft action!

Lately the subject of flying IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) has occupied my time and more than a few pixels on this website. The debate centered on flight into IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions... or situations with no or low visibility, or simplistically, flight into clouds). Although I spend 100% of every day on the subject of Light-Sport Aircraft and other flying machines used for aerial recreation, I can also make mistakes explaining all the ins and outs of the six-year-old regulation abbreviated as SP/LSA. I corrected my last SPLOG post on this subject, but I enlisted Robert Hamilton of Dynon to help further. Robert had politely explained to me that I'd made an error. Rather than tackling this myself, I asked him to contribute. From Robert... "At Dynon we are often asked if our avionic products are 'Certified' for IFR flight. In fact, there is no such thing as 'IFR Certification' for amateur-built and LSA aircraft, and so answering the question requires an explanation. "The relevant regulation is FAR 91.205, which lists equipment that is required for various types and times of flight: VFR, VFR Night, and IFR. Included for IFR flight are such things as two-way communication and navigation equipment, gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, sensitive altimeter, artificial horizon, etc. Most modern digital glass panel avionics meet these requirements for the analog gauges they replace. Interestingly, the definition of 'gyroscopic rate-of-turn' is based on functionality, and so includes solid-state MEMS (micro-electro-mechanical system) devices which are used in most digital, solid-state AHRS (Attitude Heading Reference Systems). There are many thousands of home-built aircraft legally flying IFR with 'non-certified' Dynon digital avionics. "Does this mean a Light Sport Aircraft with the same digital avionics is IFR legal? The answer to that question must come from the ASTM F37 LSA committee and the aircraft manufacturer. Assuming a LSA is equipped to meet the requirements of FAR 91.205, the avionics equipment is not a restriction. However, the overall aircraft operating limitations are specified by the manufacturer according to the standards written by ASTM committee members and subsequently accepted by FAA." Hopefully Robert answered the question, but as I've noted earlier, this is not likely the end to the vigorous IFR/IMC discussion.

The following is taken from FAA's "Light-Sport Aircraft Manufacturers Assessment" Final Report issued May 17, 2010. It has not been edited or changed in any way other than to format for Web posting. Light-Sport Aircraft Manufacturer Assessment ----- Final Report ----- Issued May 17, 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of the Light-sport Aircraft Manufacturers Assessment (LSAMA), (herein referred to as assessment and team). This executive summary briefly discusses the assessment team's analysis, conclusions, and recommendations based on data collected during the assessment. GOAL The assessment team's goal was to review current LSA manufacturing industry systems and processes through on-site evaluation, analysis, and reporting. The team was also tasked to recommend enhancements to industry consensus standards for LSA design, manufacturing, continued airworthiness, and maintenance and FAA processes and procedures. The team's methodology was to collect data from LSA manufacturers, including their extensions and distributors, located in the United States. The team collected data on LSA industry compliance with applicable regulations, standards, and existing processes. METHODOLOGY The team developed survey questions and data gathering tools, performed evaluations, analyzed collected data, and developed conclusions and recommendations. The team designed the questions to evaluate the LSA industry's understanding and application of applicable regulations, standards, processes and procedures. The team developed conclusions and recommendations based on the analysis of the collected data, team observations, and comments and suggestions of individuals the team interviewed during the assessment. The team evaluated 14 manufacturers, including their extensions and 16 distributors. This sample of 30 LSA facilities established a 93 percent confidence level that the results of this assessment represent the LSA industry as a whole. The assessment surveys began in September 2008 and were completed in March 2009. The assessment survey participants were cooperative and provided unrestricted access to their LSA facilities. They exhibited a willingness and desire to build and promote safe LSA. CONCLUSIONS This [Manufacturers Assessment report from May 17, 2010] identifies four areas that need minor to significant improvement. Deficiencies vary from facility to facility, by degree, quantity, and type. 1. Compliance with FAA-accepted consensus standards The majority of LSA facilities surveyed could not fully demonstrate their ability to comply with certain consensus standards. The assessment indicates that manufacturers are making statements of compliance for aircraft that may not fully meet certain consensus standards. We have concluded that relying solely on the manufacturer's statements of compliance, for the issuance of airworthiness certificates, should be reconsidered. 2. Implementation of manufacturing systems Some manufacturers have failed to implement widely accepted internal quality control and production procedures that are necessary to assure minimal compliance to the ASTM consensus standards. Many manufacturers also lacked corrective action systems used to address systemic deficiencies. Further compounding this scenario is the fact that current consensus standards identify only minimum requirements without a systems-based approach which only exacerbates procedural and record keeping weaknesses. We conclude that these lack of controls may result in the production and distribution of such poorly documented aircraft that it may be very difficult to verify conformity. Distributors have not developed and implemented manufacturing and quality system procedures for many of the tasks they perform. When distributors perform assembly, inspections, and other functions, they seldom use the manufacturers' procedures, records, or controls. The consensus standards do not require distributors to use process control procedures and as a result, distributors have only partial manufacturing and quality system procedures and associated records. We conclude that the consensus standards need revision to require documented controls and processes for assembly and other production functions that distributors perform prior to airworthiness inspections and flight. 3. Understanding FAA regulatory requirements, policy and guidance, and industry consensus standards We conclude that industry and FAA designees have inadequate knowledge of FAA regulatory requirements and policies and ASTM/industry consensus standards. The evidentiary factors for this conclusion include: (1) inadequate application of manufacturing process procedures necessary to establish eligibility, (2) misinterpretations of the intent of FAA regulatory requirements, policy and guidance, and industry consensus standards, (3) misinterpretations of overall roles and responsibilities of the various industry entities (manufacturers, their extensions and distributors), (4) non-standardized methods and sequencing of airworthiness certification, and (5) uncertainty of appropriate contacts for needed guidance. 4. Industry's system for managing, assessing, and maintaining the effectiveness of the consensus standards The industry does not have a means to communicate with manufacturers on how to comply with the requirements of the consensus standards. We conclude that the process for evaluating compliance with the standards and taking corrective action needs significant improvement. Additionally, the process for maintaining and updating consensus standards needs improvement. RECOMMENDATIONS The team developed its recommendations based on data analysis, conclusions, trending indicators, and industry responses to a questionnaire. Specific recommendations are located in section 2.1 through 2.8 of this report, and the following summarizes those recommendations: Industry: *** Take immediate steps to fully comply with FAA regulatory and consensus standard requirements. *** Standardize the continuous airworthiness notification process for all LSA types. *** Develop training to ensure industry fully understands FAA regulatory and policy requirements, and the methods and means to comply with those requirements. *** Establish periodic meetings between FAA and industry to work toward full compliance to FAA regulatory and consensus standard requirements. *** Conduct an initial conformity inspection of all first-time-manufactured LSA models. *** Continue assessments of manufacturers, extensions, and distributors. *** Review current accepted consensus standards for adequacy and revise existing standards or create new standards where necessary. FAA: *** Update existing policy (Advisory Circulars and Orders) pertaining to airworthiness certification requirements, registration marking, and designee management. *** Update Designated Airworthiness Representative(s) (DAR) and advisor training. *** Establish a process to receive safety alerts, directives, and other pertinent information. *** Continue oversight of the LSA manufacturers to assure compliance with FAA requirements and ASTM consensus standards. If you wish to download a PDF file version of the full-length "Final Report from FAA," click here. An even longer "Industry Participant Supplemental" report was offered only to companies that were assessed. The Supplemental Report reaches no new conclusions but supplies additional detail.

In the last month, I've received many calls and emails from more than a dozen flight schools. Here, I will try to reduce the confusion — and some alarm — regarding IFR (flying by instrument reference) and LSA. ASTM's F37 committee is comprised of people with technical knowledge and they have done the nearly-impossible: start with a blank sheet of paper and create aircraft certification standards for the LSA sector... in just five years, and on the leanest of budgets. These volunteers from many countries created a series of standards, one of which is the Design and Performance Standard. Following a positive vote by committee members, all have been accepted by FAA. For more than three years another subcommittee has tried to create an IFR standard that has yet to find agreement. Until consensus may be found and to provide an interim defensive position for the committee and for manufacturers, F37 added a point to the revised but yet-to-be-accepted-by-FAA D&P Standard. The ASTM committee revised the standard to prohibit use of a SLSA for flight into IMC, that is, into clouds or no-visibility situations. This does not prevent flight in the IFR system — filing and flying IFR into controlled airspace by qualified pilots with a current medical. And, importantly, it does not affect any LSA approved under earlier standards, that is, any LSA currently in flight school operation assuming that LSA is properly equipped with the correct instrumentation, lighting, and powerplant. Flight at night is not affected by this decision and remains acceptable in a suitably equipped LSA for a qualified pilot with medical. In the future (after FAA accepts the newest D&P Standard version) a LSA builder will be able to equip a LSA with instruments specified in FAA regulations permitting qualified pilots to file and fly IFR but only into VMC (Visual Meteorological Conditions). An interesting contrast: Numerous FAA personnel with whom I've recently spoken support the use of LSA for IFR training including into IMC (though not all FAAers nor ASTMers agree!). FAA regulations governing LSA do not prevent IMC ops. This is a complex topic that will continue to stimulate debate. The important fact to remember: No presently registered SLSA, nor any issued an airworthiness certificate before the new ASTM standard gains FAA acceptance, are prohibited from IMC flight if properly equipped and flown by a qualified pilot. Additional info on the revised standard: IFR training in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) may be conducted by qualified pilots in a SLSA that meets the equipment requirements of part 91, sections 91.109, 91.205, and — for an airplane operated in controlled airspace under the IFR system — 91.411 and 91.413. However, if the aircraft is not approved for IFR operations under a type certificate, operations in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) are prohibited by the proposed ASTM standard. [UPDATE 9/1/10: A point of clarification is needed for this story — thanks to the sharp eye of Jeff van West, editor of IFR Magazine. *** I stand by all the preceding info as correct but I did not state that the manufacturer has ultimate authority over how their airplanes (or engines) may be used. Before or after the ASTM committee prohibition of flight into IMC, if a manufacturer said it does not want its airplanes flown IFR, that's the end of it... no IFR for that brand. *** As with the ASTM committee, however, any manufacturer can change its mind, amend the Pilot Operating Handbooks (and other related documents), and begin offering IFR aircraft. In the same way, the committee may reverse itself on the IMC prohibition once the IFR standard is approved by committee and accepted by FAA.]

I am not alone in thinking Part 103 ultralight aircraft are the ideal platform for initial development of electric powered aircraft. Sure, someday you'll be able to fly your 2-4 seater for 300-400 miles or more, recharge in the time it takes you to use the facilities, and be on your way again. But today, electric-powered Part 103s are available. *** You can buy the eSpyder for under $30,000 and fly for an hour or more. Accompanying photos show the Voyager ElectraChute from Powrachute, another possibility. Or, how about an electric trike? Longer-trip capability depends on better batteries. And thanks to a multibillion-dollar push from the auto industry, battery tech should develop rapidly. Ready for a short science lesson?*** According to an article in Nature Nanotechnology, researchers at MIT have developed a new method of adding carbon nanotubes to lithium-ion batteries that give the batteries the best characteristics of both capacitors and traditional lithium-ion batteries while simultaneously increasing their energy storage. *** Using layered carbon nanotubes as the positive electrode (the cathode) and a lithium titanium oxide as the negative electrode (the anode), batteries demonstrated an impressive ability to deliver power at the very fast rates of capacitors while being able to store more energy and last much longer than even the best lithium-ion batteries available today. *** Researchers dipped a base material repeatedly into a solution loaded with carbon nanotubes building up layers like a candle. Researchers referred to spraying techniques as a means to achieve mass production. *** All batteries are made up of three components: two electrodes (the negative anode and the positive cathode) separated by an electrolyte. When lithium ion batteries are producing energy, positively charged lithium ions move through the electrolyte and deposit at the cathode, which makes electricity. Alternatively when they are recharged, an external energy source such as your outlet causes these lithium ions to move the back across the electrolyte and embed in the anode.*** Because of the enormous surface area of the carbon nanotubes, the batteries can hold much more charge than traditional cathodes, enabling carbon nanotubes for the first time to serve as the positive electrode in lithium batteries, instead of just the negative electrode. *** At an energy content of about 200 Watt hours per kilogram, these experimental batteries rank way up with the very best lithium ion batteries, yet they also can provide very high short bursts of energy. As an added benefit, the carbon nanotubes seem to provide the batteries with an incredible durability. After 1,000 charge/discharge cycles, researchers saw no appreciable degradation in the battery's function. *** In practical use, this could mean new batteries that can supply ample power, say, for climbing to altitude, and then hold a charge for much longer. Earlier studies have also pointed the way to extremely fast recharging. This is getting interesting!

A gentleman at Oshkosh asked me a question about Sport Pilot Instructors and I'm afraid I gave a misleading answer. Even though I inhabit the SP/LSA space all day long every day, it isn't hard to get a detail incorrect. My expertise is on the LSA side and less so the SP side, so I called in my expert friend, Paul Hamilton. Paul agreed to blog on this subject area from time to time, and here's his first installment. Welcome, Paul! *** So the question is: Can Sport Pilot training be used for Private Pilot training? The answer: Yes... and no. It depends on the type of flight instructor rating. *** First off, solo time is solo time. So, yes, all solo time for Sport Pilot certificate can be used towards the Private Pilot license. *** Dual training is where it gets tricky. To understand the differences in qualifying Sport and Private Pilot training you have to understand the differences in flight instructor types. A CFI (Subpart H) able to train Private Pilots can also train Sport Pilots and can teach in both LSA and non-LSA. A Flight Instructor with a Sport rating, CFIS (Subpart K), may only teach Sport Pilots and may only teach in Light-Sport Aircraft. *** So yes, if your flight instructor is qualified and current as a Private Pilot Flight Instructor (CFI), then all your dual training time counts towards the Sport and the Private Pilot tickets. *** When you start training — even if you complete your Sport Pilot certificate first — all your dual training with a Subpart H CFI counts towards the Private Pilot license. But no, if your flight instructor has a Flight Instructor with a Sport rating (CFIS from Subpart K), then your dual training does not count towards the dual training for the Private Pilot license *** The good news? Typically, to go from a Sport to a Private Pilot would take an additional 20 hours anyway for the extra night, instrument, VOR navigation, and towered airports dual training. [One thing no one can take away or fail to count is the knowledge you acquired flying a Light-Sport Aircraft, regardless of which instructor you had. —DJ]

Randall Fishman's ElectraFlyer Trike pumped me up. As a trike enthusiast, my real interest is soaring. A lightweight trike with an electric motor offers real advantages (see my earlier SPLOG). I want to climb high enough to find lift, shut off the power, and hop from thermal to thermal. To me, that's pure flying! An electric motor starts up readily if you lose the lift. It doesn't vibrate. It doesn't have smelly fuel or oil. It's quiet, other than a bit of prop noise. But was it powerful enough? With his second project, Randall has again motivated me. The Moni he renamed ElectraFlyer C is a motor glider at heart. Again, an electric powerplant sounds perfect. "You can fly for an hour and a half on less than $1.00 of power"...and that assumes you keep the power on. Randall and I will look each other up in Florida this winter and I'll investigate for a further report. Fishman's project is not the only one. Sonex is also at work on ePower; another soaring enthusiast, Greg Cole, is electric powering his Sparrowhawk SL carbon motorglider; and the builder of the NASA-prize-winning Pipistrel is pursuing a two-seat electric-powered LSA.