Many have asked about progress on FAA’s proposed rewrite of the Light-Sport Aircraft regulations. Following a lengthy teleconference at the end of June 2019, LAMA, the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association, provided another update.
The update to industry covered a lot of ground but here we’ve tried to make it a quicker read.
Two key points: First, FAA is in the early stages of this rulemaking; at least minor changes are certain. FAA itself does not know all the specific details of the proposed rule at this time.
Secondly, the steps reported here come from actual rule writers but their effort has support from top FAA leadership. Driven by a Congressional mandate we know this will go forward.
LSA Is a Success Story
For 15 years Light-Sport Aircraft and their producers have proven themselves, LAMA argued. FAA concurred; the agency has often referred to the safety record as “acceptable,” reasonably high praise from regulators.
“A lot of [the rule change] is based on the [generally positive] experience with LSA,” FAA noted. They also said the revised regulation will be “less prescriptive, more performance-based.” This is seen as a deregulatory effort by the agency.
Regarding the much-anticipated max weight increase, FAA refers to a “Power Index.” This term means a formula-based method to replace maximum takeoff weight in the definition of a LSA, involving wing area, horsepower, and takeoff weight.
FAA is also looking at up to four seats, “for personal use and for flight training.” Airspeeds — referring to maximum horizontal and never-to-exceed speeds (Vh and Vne) — may be higher than in the current rule, but will still be limited.
Neither will FAA be prescriptive about (that is, tightly defining) powerplants. The 2004 version of the LSA rule prohibited electric motors because rule writers wanted to discourage turbine power and therefore specified reciprocating engines, which knocked out electric. FAA will now consider both electric and hybrid.
Yet FAA was clear, “Movement of people for hire (such as the multicopter air taxis proposed by numerous companies) is not part of this.”
FAA is also reviewing what type of mechanics (LSR-M or A&P) can do what kind of work on specific systems of aircraft (examples: in-flight adjustable prop or electric propulsion systems).
When Will the New Rule Emerge?
One of the most-asked questions is when will this rule be announced, meaning when will an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) be published for public comment.
The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 includes a deadline of 2023 for implementing a key mandate that suggests the longest it should take. Once an NPRM is published, a comment period follows to hear from the public after which FAA needs time to address the concerns raised during that comment period. After closure of that comment period, the FAA has 16 months to publish the Final Rule.
Throughout the LAMA/FAA teleconference some ideas were repeated by FAA personnel…
- “The former (current) regulation “was unnecessarily restrictive.“
- FAA wants the revised regulation to “allow the industry to do more.”
Update on LAMA’s Specific Requests
Over the last few years LAMA made several specific requests: aerial work or commercial use of LSA; fully built gyroplanes (only kits have been permitted); single lever control for in-flight adjustable props; and electric propulsion. LAMA also supported the idea of increased weight. Each of these was explained via a detailed white paper submitted to the agency followed by more discussions with FAA executive management over several meetings in Washington DC.
“All of these requests are on the table,” FAA acknowledged in the June teleconference. Of course, this does not mean all are certain to be included, but they represent a “huge opportunity [for industry and for pilots].”
Gyroplanes — Special LSA (fully-built) gyroplanes are part of what is being considered for the new regulation but this remains a work in process. LAMA presented new arguments, assembled safety data that FAA requested, and kept up the pressure resulting in its inclusion in the proposed new regulation.
Weight Increase — Yes, weight will increase. The often-mentioned “3,600-pound gross weight” number is irrelevant, however, because FAA will use the power index as mentioned above.
Under this more performance-based approach, LSA manufacturers would have more flexibility in making trade-offs among these parameters to meet a new power index limit. That new limit is intended to allow for up to a safe, robust, four-seat airplane.
“All this is seen [within the agency] as relieving on industry; enabling, not tightening the screws,” said FAA.
Aerial Work / Commercial Use — The topic of for-hire work in LSA involves another group — Flight Standards Service. Most of the proposed changes originated with Aircraft Certification Services office.
“The Flight Standards people are considering [aerial work],” said FAA.
This important topic has been a priority for LAMA because it could become a vital activity to keep manufacturers healthy by expanding their capabilities and the markets they can serve. Pilots could also gain as this would provide more compensated flying jobs and business opportunities.
Electric Propulsion — Not only is electric fully on the table, but hybrid power involving both gasoline and electric is envisioned as well (though ASTM standards for hybrid have yet to be composed). Notably, the discussion did not involve batteries.
Single Lever Control (in-flight adjustable prop) — The concept for Single Lever Control (SLC) is that the prop adjusts automatically based on information supplied by instruments and the engine such that the system “knows” what prop pitch might be optimal. A pilot puts the throttle where needed (full forward for takeoff) and the prop adjusts. At altitude, the system also knows this and can adjust to a cruise setting.
While SLC is more complex and currently more costly, LAMA believes continued development will lower costs. However, SLC does not raise the workload of the pilot, thereby staying with the “simple, safe, and easy-to-fly” mantra.
LAMA is “very pleased with the FAA’s open attitude and willingness to consider important changes that industry and the flying community seek.”
Hi Dan: I hold an ATP never denied a medical. Will a Cessna 150 be Light-Sport one day?
The quick answer is no, but that is wordplay. No, a Cessna 150 will never be a “Light-Sport” as it already has a Standard certificate ad that will not change. However, perhaps you meant to ask… will you be able to fly a C-150 while exercising the privileges of Sport Pilot (i.e., driver’s license medical)? That answer is very likely, yes.
Any idea on a date the new changes may come out?
As the video in that article relates, FAA has promised the NPRM by August 2023. The rule itself will take until the end of 2024.
Dan,
It’s been awhile since I have heard any updates on this? Do we have any idea where we are at in the process?
We have heard nothing more as FAA is in a quiet period where they remain willing to listen but will not advise status. The proposed regulation is going through an internal process. I stand by my earlier guess that we may see the NPRM by Oshkosh 2021, but neither would I bet the farm on that date occurring. The original target to have it all done and ready for issuance will likely not come much before the end of 2023 and even that date could slip.
Dan,
I am in the process of shopping for an LSA Aircraft and have noticed that the Jabiru J230D was originally a 4 seater in its home turf of Australia. If the new law goes into effect allowing 4 seats in an LSA, after I buy a current model 2 seat Jabiru, will I just be able to add a back seat into the 2 seater since it was designed and built to be a 4 seater? Or, will I have to go through some recertification process of that craft?
Thanks
It’s impossible to know how FAA will write the new regulation and harder yet to know how they will implement pilot privileges. Personally, I doubt they will allow the addition of a back seat as you describe without some hoop-jumping, but on the other hand, the agency is definitely looking at things differently now, so who knows? Of course, they started this new regulation under a presidential decree that regulations be reduced. The new administration has no bias against stronger regulations so that could change everything …but hopefully not.
Quick question:
You mention that the FAA finds the safety record “acceptable”. I know that was in reference to the LSA category, but is it possible (from the conversations you’ve had) to imply that the FAA also feels that way about the Sport Pilot certificate? Or are they still leary about SPL and mostly are commenting on the LSA category itself.
Either way, this is progress and I’m excited for the future 🙂
Hi Jay: FAA has reported on that, I believe, though I have primarily focused on the aircraft, which enjoy large enough numbers to be statistically significant and therefore reliable. Regardless, the number of Sport Pilot certificates remains rather modest. Most pilots of LSA have higher certificates and merely exercise the privileges of Sport Pilot (primarily meaning no aviation medical is needed).
Do you know if Light Sport Pilots will be able to fly say a Cessna 177 under the new rules?
Keith: OK… to repeat, no such “Light-Sport Pilot” certificate exists. We have Light-Sport Aircraft and the Sport Pilot certificate. So, to attempt answering your question, a Cardinal would be within the weight and stall speed FAA rulewriters are currently describing but an airworthiness certificate, once issued, is very rarely changed. I would not expect FAA to allow what you want, but much of this is still unknown and undecided.
Let’s be clear. The emphasis and changes are to the aircraft specifications, not to the Sport Pilot rules. The heavier, faster planes will require a Recreational or Private license to fly. This is about broadening the market for the manufacturers, not loosening Sport Pilot requirements.
The changes coming will definitely affect Sport Pilot certificate holders. We don’t know exactly how yet. Nonetheless I agree that heavier, faster airplanes will require a Private or better. I’ve heard nothing about Recreational Pilot which has nearly withered away over time.
Dan, concerning sport flight training hours 61.109 says for a sport pilot certificate holder the hours apply toward a PPL. What about say 10 hours light sport SEL then the person changes from cfi-s to cfi for private pilot training. Does the 10 hours count for the required PPL?
Hi Jay: Yes, in fact, you hit a specific point. A CFI-S cannot train for things for which that instructor may not be qualified, for example, night operations. This is similar to a regular CFI that cannot provide full training for an instrument rating; that takes a CFI-I. If you flew in a LSA for all hours but with a regular CFI, 100% of the hours count toward Private or better. Still, most hours from a CFI-S can count toward a Private.
Do you know when we will be getting more updates on this?
Hi Jay: Yes, we have another draft recently submitted to FAA for their review (a professional courtesy). As soon as they comment, if any, I will post this report. The good news is all the positive expansions for LSA remain on the docket although internal reviews by FAA that will start soon could change any number of proposals. We have also asked about Sport Pilot certificate privileges on new, larger LSA and we asked about maintenance on these and other proposals such as electric/hybrid propulsion. We have no definitive answers on the latter two inquiries but at least they have the requests in front of them.
Progress is progress. The wheels turn slowly sometimes…
Also, regarding SPL (or using SPL under PPL), is there any chance they will drop the pretense that you can get an SPL if you can’t pass a 3rd Class medical and, yet, you can just choose to not get a medical and go right on ahead getting an SPL?
I mean, if they’re just going to let folks prance around the rules, why not just make it a definitive, “If you fail a 3rd class, you can get an SPL instead” or something? Is there a reason they are not doing this? The current rules create some serious confusion around this particular point…
Hi Jay: I won’t try to explain FAA’s thinking on this as medical-problem-related accidents are statistically insignificant. It was reportedly FAA’s legal department that held up SP/LSA for almost three years and the reason was said to be their concern over no medical. Honestly, I agree with you that the medical — except perhaps for airline pilots — serves little useful purpose. You can take ill shortly after you successfully pass your medical. Plus, with your driver’s license you can drive a 35,000-pound motorhome 70 mph down the highway but you can’t fly a light aircraft. …sigh…
When LAMA and the FAA reach a Pay-off Agreement, they don’t care about pilots, they just want to sell more expensive aircraft. If the FAA gave a damn about pilots then they would allow safety upgrades with only a log-book entry!!
Warren: I have no idea where you get the idea that any “pay-off agreement” exists but I assure you that is not the case. You are entitled to your opinion and I am allowing it to be posted, but you are badly mistaken in your allegations.
Sport pilot instructor hours count toward a Private certificate only if the student gets his sport pilot certificate and then goes for his Private. See FAR 61.109 (l). If the student switches out to Private pilot training before getting his certificate, none of the CFI-S hours count. (Not what we were told was going to happen with the NPRM that credited that but that’s where it wound up.)
Any news of allowing retracts and higher cruise speeds? Aircraft like the shark and what DarkAero is working on would become very appealing with less stringent restrictions
Hi David: We are presently working on a new progress report. The draft is at FAA now awaiting their review. However, it appears FAA may (possibly!) include retractable and higher cruise speeds, though neither are well defined at this time. We always note any reporting we do on this subject is subject to change.
I’m a 63 year old former student pilot (1979) who foolishly never finished my training back when training and a wet aircraft was cheap. Gone are those days!
Now, in the twilight of my life, I want to build / buy a Kitfox and go play in the boonies. I understand from various articles that the FAA is considering expanding aspects of the LSA and Sport Pilot License, but such is still several years out (2023 or so).
I am somewhat confused with respect to the SPL only requiring a driver’s license in lieu of an aviation medical, or Basic Medical, which appears less than a Class 3, but still warrants some additional medical scrutiny. Seems reasonable enough if it allows for things like a single lever constant speed prop; something I am unclear about at this time.
Could someone please explain, in layman terms, the specifics and advantages relative to SPL type medical and Basic Medical and how it affects what one can and cannot have with respect to powerplant and propeller options?
Thanks!
Dave
Hello David: You are not the only one that’s confused. Let’s take this from the top.
In the past and still, a Class 3 (or 2 or 1) medical is a conventional aviation medical, which must be renewed every 2 years (or 1 year or 6 months for the higher levels). Major point: If you are denied a conventional medical, you have big problems. If you don’t think you can pass one, don’t take the exam.
Since 2004 and the arrival of Light-Sport Aircraft and the Sport Pilot certificate, you are only required to have a valid state drivers license in lieu of an aviation medical. Even a state drivers license has some medical requirements but it is less demanding than a standard aviation medical. If you have a drivers license and some pilot certificate (Sport, Recreational, Private, Commercial, or ATP), you can use your certificate with that drivers license substituting for the aviation medical. If you lose your drivers license, you cannot fly your LSA.
More recently, BasicMed was introduced. While easier than a standard airmen’s medical, it still has some obstacles to clear (ask EAA or AOPA for details; it’s a program they requested). However, it is an improvement welcomed by many pilots.
The very best situation still involves the drivers license medical substitute …OR Part 103 ultralights, which require no medical or drivers license whatsoever, nor does flying a Part 103 ultralight require any level of pilot certificate nor N-numbers. When all else fails, a Part 103 is a good opportunity but you cannot carry passengers or fly faster than 55 knots (63 miles an hour) among other restrictions such as a maximum five gallons of gasoline.
Regarding Single Lever Control (SLC) — different from a constant speed prop that demands pilot input — this is not presently available and what FAA may require in 2023 regarding a medical is yet to be determined, however, LAMA believes the drivers license medical should still be valid as SLC is actually easier to operate than constant speed and no more work than a standard throttle while delivering better performance.
I hope this was helpful.
One important point is that to fly under BasicMed, you must have received one FAA medical since some date (which I don’t remember.) So yes, subsequently it is may be easier than a medical, but if you can’t pass the medical once, you cannot fly BasicMed. The medical can be a special issuance. And, as you stated, if you don’t think you can pass the medical, don’t try. If you fail, you can’t fly Sport.
Hi Laurie: I will post your comment but only add that Special Issuance for a standard FAA Medical can become quite expensive. If it is your only way to get back in the game, by all means go ahead. Just be aware a substantial cost may be involved. The LSA deal is far better — so long as you have not been denied! — and Part 103 is even easier.
We are thinking about selling our Cherokee and purchasing a LSA.
If the FAA approves our Cherokee 160 as an LSA I would kick myself for selling the airplane we have owned for over 30 years.
Realistically if the LSA is defined broader what would be your best guess when that would happen?
Harvey: FAA does not change airframe certification — your Cherokee almost certainly will remain a Standard Category Aircraft but it may be that a Sport Pilot could fly it using the privileges of Sport Pilot; unlikely but possible. We may know more about such things when the NPRM is announced by mid- to late 2021.
Dan:
Does this imply that the only way a SPL pilot could fly a larger ( than current regulations) LSA aircraft would be to purchase a brand new LSA aircraft? If certifications rarely change, it sounds like the only way to fly a larger plane would be to buy a brand-new model under the new LSA rules. Nice to contemplate, but a real downer in the cost department.
I’m new to the aviation world, but if an older “Standard” certificate model is virtually the same machine — performance and weight- wise — as a new larger LSA, why not allow the older machines to be flown by SPL pilots?
Hi Jeff: Welcome to the world of recreational aviation. NO, you would not need to buy a brand-new aircraft because some “legacy” (earlier certified) aircraft should qualify. We do not know yet what certificate requirement FAA will put on the pilot. Additionally, any such change is still 2-3 years away from being implemented …with whatever changes happen from FAA’s own internal deliberations and then what may be thousands of comments to the NPRM. This is the government way of performing regulation so it rigidly follows their procedure. If I was to advise, and assuming you want to buy an aircraft before 2-3 years from now, I would look into all manner of LSA; a growing number of used and well-priced examples are available and can be found in a number of sources such as Barnstormer.
Correction:
Motorgliders are restricted to 850Kg / 1,870 pounds not 750Kg.
I am very interested in all updates of FAA plan to change LSA regulations. Also are you aware of any LSA pilot training near Cody, WY
Hi Greg: Keep clicking or tapping back here. We’ll report any changes on we we are briefed by FAA. ••• As to LSA training in Cody, Wyoming, no, I don’t know of any but Paul Hamilton runs an experienced operation in Reno, Nevada (yes, I know that is hardly close, but you may have to travel to get quality LSA instruction).
Greg,
Did you find a LSA Pilot [Sport Pilot] training school near Cody, WY? I have the same interest.
Dan, if the FAA was so concerned about the safety of pilots and planes, you would think they would give an exception to us orphaned SLSA aircraft to equip with ADS-B out. Really, they want me to convert to an ELSA to equip when I can can have a taillight replaced in ten minutes to make the sky safer for all. I’m in your airspace and want to be safe and install ADS-B in my airplane but the FAA won’t let me. Do they really care about safety?
NO they do not unless you have the $$$$ to pay them off.
Patrick: To even begin to answer your comment, I would need to know which aircraft has been orphaned.
Thanks for all the great info, Dan! I’m a student pilot who has put training, and an RV-10 build, on hold because I learned I would have to pay thousands of dollars to attempt a special issuance medical (SSRI) only to win the possibility of being told I can never fly again. That’s a whole separate issue I think is ridiculous. I’d like to go the Sport Pilot route but there are no schools near me with LSA under the current rules.
I just learned about these possible rule changes and I’m very excited! However, I’m confused by the comments about whether or not sport pilots will be able to operate these new expanded-capability LSAs. I thought the whole point of LSAs was to serve sport pilots and the point of the Sport Pilot certificate is to fly without a medical? What would be the point of expanding the LSA rules and then possibly not allowing Sport Pilots to fly them with a driver’s license? Would that not defeat the entire purpose?
Hi Bobby: Thanks for the kind words.
Yes, a special issuance medical can be very costly, no question. I presume you have not already been denied a medical. If so, do NOT go to an aviation medical examiner, as you could be denied, and then you cannot pursue Sport Pilot, either.
I realize you cannot find a flight school with LSA at every airport but many good ones are available. If none are close, I’d recommend traveling to and spending a couple weeks with a premium school. That might be enough time to finish. That may be a hassle, I realize, but it might get the job done.
FAA has not yet determined what level of pilot experience will be required for larger, faster, four seat LSA of the future, so it is premature to assume they will or won’t allow someone with a Sport Pilot certificate to fly one of these aircraft. I hope they’ll do as they do now. That is, you get the SP cert with basic training now and add more when ready. A basic SP cert does not allow entry to Class B airspace but you can get additional training for that and a mere logbook sign-off makes it proper. I hope the agency will do likewise with the new LSA to come but we’ll see.
Of course the Sport Pilot prospect should go to a private doctor or perhaps an aviation doctor for a private opinion on being confident of getting a special issuance.
To save the issue of being denied a special issuance plus the money and no longer being eligible for Light-Sport they should consider this:
Get a glider license with motor endorsement.
Features:
No medical needed; I think you can fly even if class III was failed.
No drivers license.
No 10,000-foot altitude restriction.
Plus, 750 kilogram (≈1,650 pounds) max weight.
Good luck❗️
Correction:
Motorgliders are restricted to 850Kg / 1,870 pounds not 750Kg.
In Europe it is 750Kg.
1,870 pounds max. for motgorglider – 1,320 max. LSA weight equals +550 pounds for more gas, stronger airframe, more hefty passenger and pilot, etc.
Just think:
Say extra 300 pound of extra fuel in a 850 kg/1,870 motorglider, 4 gallons/hour.
Too good to be true.
Soooo.
Hi James: I am not correcting your numbers as I cannot speak to what is allowed by European national CAAs or EASA but motorgliders operating as Light-Sport Aircraft under U.S. regulations cannot weigh more than 1,320 pounds. When certificated in other categories, perhaps motorgliders are permitted to weight more.
Hi Dan, I’m a longtime follower of your work and service to the aviation community. You are the voice of LSAs and thank you for your devotion. LSAs have a mission, sport flying, and that’s what a lot of us primarily do. However, try to take along a friend, luggage, if you had the space, and enough fuel to fly any distance with a comfortable reserve, well, just forget that idea. Training and experience in different conditions makes a better pilot. Flying a heavier plane allows you more flexibility if that cross wind just got 3 knots stronger. Most LSAs really turn out to be a one-person aircraft and most of the time the solitude is bliss but it would be nice to share our passion with a friend once in a while. Thoughts from the Peanut Gallery.
Hi Gary:
Thanks for the kind words. I agree some LSA are not as spacious nor can some carry as much payload …but many can do so. Some can also travel quite a long distance without stopping. “Peanut gallery” comments are always welcome.
Hi Dan…
Follow up questions…
-1-
Any specific discussion that addresses the 49%/51% rule being relaxed to allow professional builder assistance? The objective being focused on properly built and air worthy E-AB aircraft and less on who did the work.
-2-
Related to this is there any discussion about expanding annual condition inspections to include any later owner who completes necessary training. Presently only an original builder can hold the right to conduct the annual condition inspection.
These two changes would, I think, open the second hand E-AB market tremendously.
Hi Michael: As to #1 — Yes, changes are coming to increase professional builder centers. This is a focus of EAA who may be able to comment more fully on this. As to #2 — I am less informed on this question, but would again direct you to EAA. Homebuilding remains EAA significant focus and they will surely have the best information on this sector.
What are your thoughts on legacy aircraft being able to have a different certification status? Has there been any discussion on limiting places they could fly?
Hi George: Presuming by “legacy” you mean Part 23 (or CAR3) certified aircraft, I have heard nothing about any change to their certification status. FAA usually does not change certification of already-approved aircraft. Since I have heard nothing like that, it is not relevant to discussion any limitation (or not) of them.
The outgoing FAA Administrator mentioned something about that. He said that legacy owners would be given the choice of keeping their certified status or change to a new status that would enable the owner to use experimental equipment, etc.
Hi George: Yes, I heard about his remarks (though I was occupied and could not attend the session). Also, yes, his remarks are about a Part 23 aircraft switching to Experimental.
That is not particularly new — working with BRS Parachute, I made such a move years ago with a Cessna 150 being fitted with an airframe parachute before they were approved. I also switched it back to Part 23 Standard Category after the parachute gained approval. I understand FAA may now make the task of converting Part 23 Standard to Experiment process easier and smoother. I applaud this move.
However, my earlier comment was that a Part 23 aircraft is unlikely to become a Light-Sport Aircraft; they usually do not make such a move …BUT, a whole new ballgame is coming our way and anything might happen. I will try to follow it closely as I have done since we began advocating on behalf of the industry and its pilots in 2014.
Here is EAA’s video of the FAA administrator speech at Oshkosh 2019!
So Tl;dr,
An individual holding a sport pilot certificate should have access to a wider range of aircraft while still holding a Drivers License Medical?
Hi Patrick: I am baffled by your first paragraph but, yes, it is my thought that a Sport Pilot certificate using a Driver’s license in lieu of a Medical may be able to fly a wider range of aircraft. However, this remains speculation at this point.
Dan,
TL;DR means the individual didn’t consider your article worth reading. (Too long, didn’t read)
Gary
Hi Gary: Thanks for deciphering. I could’ve looked up this texting shorthand, but I thought Patrick fumble-fingered. I stand corrected and educated.
It wasn’t my intention to imply, “it wasn’t worth reading.” …more like, “I read it but I’m confused.” I have always known it to be a summarization of an article or the key takeaways of an article.
Dan…. Watched your videos for years. But this post and your thorough responses to comments was simply the best. Clear, concise and super informative. Just wanted to add my kudos. Great work.
RMM
Hi RMM: You are very kind to write what you did. I’m glad it is appreciated.
What kind of synario do you envision for a 70 year old flying under basic med currently owning a c172 might have for sport pilot?
Bill
Hi Bill: It is hard to know where a C-172 will fall in the new regulation. However, it is highly likely all Cessnas will keep their same certificate and that alone might doom a Skyhawk from being flown by a Sport Pilot. It is simply too early to answer this question.
Dan,
If I buy an LSA certified aircraft now, with the current gross weight restriction, will it be possible to amend the certified gross weight following any new LSA formula introduced?
The scenario is that the US LSA certified aircraft already has higher weight certifications in other parts of the world. I would honor the US 1,320lb limit until the new FAA rules are implemented, but want to know if I could legally fly the aircraft to the new, presumably heavier, gross at some point in the future, and what paperwork process that would take.
Thanks.
Hi Lance: That has not yet been determined. It’s still too early in the development process. However, for Special LSA that have proven their structures and manufacturing practices (unlike what kit-built aircraft do), I think it is highly possible that current LSA at 1,320 or 1,430 pounds could apply for higher weights based on test reports being available that satisfy FAA.
Greetings Dan, first I would like to thank you for all the hard work you have been putting in on the sports pilots behalf, I am patiently waiting to hear the final ruling from the FAA on this subject matter. I am in the process of running a nonprofit program to help veterans who can not pass a current third class due to issues that they received while serving the greatest country in the world. This rule change would finally give these veterans an opportunity to fly something that falls beyond the current sport pilot rules. I will wait this out with fingers crossed. But for now I will continue to take these warriors on hero flights to show them they have something to live for, the suicide rate for veterans is totally unacceptable to me. I have started the Flying For Freedom program in the USA from the leadership of the founder in Great Britain. I just received my articles of INC. from the state of NC and we are on our way to the 501 c3 status from the government. Soon I would like to meet with you and talk about our plan to help our veterans achieve their wings! Once again TY for all your hard work and dedication! Kindest Regards
Brian Fox Flying For Freedom USA
Hi Brian: Thanks for what you are doing for returning veterans. I wish you all the best and I share your hope that FAA’s new plans may aid your goals.
Dan, thanks very much for the info. I am a IFR rated pilot; Having sold my Cardinal earlier this year, I have the bug to fly and own again. Having looked at the LSA market, I have decided that even with the current rules, an LSA would fit my mission. I have in fact found a potential plane to purchase. However, I am struggling with the weight restrictions and have avioded making the purchase as I debate the pros and cons of this particular plane. This is a very well equipped beast, with a chute, 914 Rotax engine and extensive avionics. If there was ANY chance that a new rule, based on some kind of power based formula was introduced, and it applied to the existing fleet. buying this plane would become a no brainer for me. I am hoping that this gains momentum and we get some guidance soon
Hi David: Thank for your encouragement. We should learn sooner than later about some of these issues.
Dan, Would you expect that a Bearhawk would fall under the new LSA rules (engine dependent)? And would a Sport Pilot be able to fly it?
Hi Jay: We simply lack the info to answer your questions. I can guess but that’s all it will be. Even FAA has no firm answers yet as the rule is still in development. My guesses… Bearhawk could qualify as a “new” LSA and I’m not worried about the engine they choose. As to flying a Bearhawk with a Sport Pilot certificate, that’s hard to tell as the Flight Standards office that will prepare rules about pilot operation has not responded yet. Please don’t forget: ALL this is speculation at this point.
Hi , is there any new info on this?
Hi RJ: It’s like I heard you with today’s post. I hope that clarified a few more things in this evolving regulation.
Is it possible that many rules will change regarding Light-Sport Aircraft but pilots with only a light sport license will still be restricted to the 1,320 pound rule?
Jay
Hi Jay: First, it is difficult to know what the final words will be in this complex rule. Secondly, we should use the right terms. Many people call it as you did, a “light sport license.“ The accurate term is Sport Pilot certificate. That defined, yes, it could be decided that those using a Sport Pilot certificate (needing no medical) may have some restrictions that a pilot with a higher certificate may be permitted to do (night flight, for example). It is simply too early too to answer these questions at this time, but we will try to stay on top of the rule as it is developed and as we are informed.
The current Spor Pilot certificate rule regarding weight restriction is that a Sport Pilot may only fly aircraft that comply with the definition of a Light-Sport Aircraft. If the definition of a Light-Sport Aircraft changes to accomodate more weight, or a constant speed propeller, or retractable gear, or higher speeds, then a Sport Pilot would be able to fly them as well. Unless they change the rules for the Sport Pilot certificate as well (which I don’t expect to happen).
Just my 2 cents.
Hi Rafael: You may well be right with your speculation but until FAA decides itself, and then wins internal approval, and then publishes it to the public, and finally turns the current plan into regulation, we simply will not know.
Hi, Thank you for the great reporting!
I am curious about the 4 seat language. I know there is mostly speculation but is there talk that a person with a Sport Pilot certificate could conceivably fly more than 1 passenger? Of course depending on how the regulation all plays out. My mind immediately started to think that Cessna 172’s and Piper Cherokees may be able to be flown by a person with a Sport Pilot Certificate in the near future.
This would be a huge boost to general aviation as many flight schools could train Sport Pilots without having to make any changes to their fleets.
I’m really excited about the upcoming changes.
Hi Jeremiah: Thanks for your kind words. *** We simply do not know yet how FAA will handle the Sport Pilot certificate in the new opening they are planning. We are hopeful SP ticket holders will be given these privileges but it is too early to tell. Despite the uncertainty at this stage, you are right to be excited about the new opportunities we are facing.
Hi Dan
I am very close to finalizing a transaction on a very nicely equipped, but heavy LSA. In the rest of the world, this plane is approved at a much higher weight. I am hesitant to make the purchase, given the weight trade offs. However, if there in any chance that existing planes would be allowed to be re-certified under new rules, I would have no problems buying.
Any guidance?
Hi Dave: Since it will not presently qualify, you would have to register it as Experimental and that will bring some restrictions. FAA has rarely allowed an aircraft registered one way to be moved to another category so you have some risk of being stuck in that category. However, unless you want to use it commercially, this need not be an impediment to your acquiring the aircraft.
I have a similar question. Currently (I believe) the Kitfox series 7 can be registered at 1320# or 1550# and the Zenith CH-750 can be registered at 1320# or 1440#. If all other criteria were passed, would it be possible to re-certify the aircraft at the higher MTOW? I think some vintage aircraft have been granted an increase in their MTOW.
Hi Bob: You are speaking about either “grandfathering” or the manufacturer going back to prove their structures at higher weights. (Kit aircraft need not make such proofs, but a Sport Pilot can only fly the aircraft if it meets LSA parameters.) I think it is possible FAA might allow higher weights for existing aircraft but as both companies are highly (or completely, in the case of Zenith) focused on kit aircraft, it may be some time before FAA approaches these points.
I think it is a good thing that LAMA, EAA and FAA is bending over backwards to help increase the Sport Pilot weight limits and make things better for sport pilots, but I also see it as their lack of interest in helping us true FAR Part 103 pilots. I am a paying member of the EAA and think that I am in the wrong club as they advertise to get true Part 103 ultralight pilots to join the EAA, but what are they doing for us? We are helping to butter their bread, only for them to work to help another category of pilots and aircraft that would not even be in existence if it wasn’t for us true Part 103 pilots and ultralights. Part 103 has had no changes at all, that I know of, since it was created in 1982. While the Sport category is still somewhat new and is already getting major changes to increase weight and add other goodies when it actually wasn’t as necessary as increasing the weight that struggling ultralight pilots need just to be able to fly safely. It is very hard to keep an ultralight safe and under the 254 pound limit as it is. And the EAA and FAA seems not to care about that fact, but bending over backwards to give sport pilots more than they even need in weight making them able to fly close to GA aircraft weight, while the true part 103 pilots that have been waiting for over 30 years for help, gets nothing. The Sport pilots can thank the true Part 103 ultralight pilots for getting all the blessings they are getting while we still struggle just to fly safely. Thanks to EAA and the FAA for leaving us out again. My question is, can you confirm that the EAA and FAA has turned their back on what few true Part 103 pilots that are left? After all, I am sure without us, there would be no Sport Category and us few true Part 103 ultralight pilots are forgotten and left to wither on the vine.
Hi Paul: While I clearly hear your concerns about Part 103 enthusiasts, LAMA does not want to ask for any changes whatsoever to the 1982 Part 103 regulation because any work on it would surely make it more restrictive. Even veteran FAAers marvel that such a rule ever passed.
The concern about it becoming “more restrictive” is weak and getting old. The whole point of a change is to address community feedback, and the community (including commercial) is not asking for more restrictions, but less, like LSA. Yes it’s FAAs job to protect the public from harm, a nonissue here considering part 103 as-is is not causing anything crazy or negative upon the public… so why this poor excuse of a concern of a risk of becoming more restrictive???
It doesn’t take even 2 brain cells and a little bit of humanity for an FAA rep to crack this open and do the right, positive thing, as opposed to being arrogant and going the wrong direction. Seriously, there is nothing safe whatsoever for builders to cut corners on safety in order to make weight (happening DAILY), namely underpowering, and it would take a very minor, reasonable change to address this for good. That’s right, if anything, a positive change on part 103 is what would keep the public safer, not the other way around!
I may generally agree with the thrust of your comments but believe we have to pursue goals when the setting is right. I will discuss this with my advocacy partners. At present FAA is so focused on this current rule that any Part 103 talk would not see quick action, regardless of its merits.
Wow, this is not believable, saying you won’t support changes because of part 103 could become more restrictive ! I’m only one EAA member but I can tell you that maybe coming to an end! Flying stater it’s life with crafts closer to ultralights than LSA’s but we get no support or anyone willing to be our voice. Thanks!
Hi Dan: I do not support trying to change Part 103 for several reasons:
(1) More manufacturers are building airplanes that meet Part 103 and some are so busy, they could not handle more.
(2) Trying to change Part 103 has occurred several times since it become law in 1982; every time failed to change anything.
(3) In today’s much-more political environment, asking for more will cause a reexamination of the entire rule (assuming FAA would even consent to tackle the regulation) and any review will almost surely get more, not less, restrictive.
I don’t want to blow up what is presently working well. It is far more likely to get some regulation about the gap between Part 103 and current LSA but we won’t try until the current program is done. I don’t know what you think is “coming to an end,” but I believe Part 103 is alive and well as is.
Sport Helicopter coming? I can purchase and Fly a Mosquito XEL Helicopter under part 103.
But nothing with more power and range, any chance that LAMA and EAA could sport simple 2-4 place helicopters with the FAA under light sport?
Hi Ken: After the huge challenge jus to get SLSA (fully built) gyroplanes into the mix, a “sport helicopter” seems a long shot but FAA is being quite accommodating thus far, so…?
Hi Dan,
A few questions:
1.) FAA refers to a “Power Index.” I know the regulation is not finalized, but are there any real world examples of how the calculation would/might work, I am just trying to wrap my head around the concept? (Are they adding in a real Useful Load, with Safety gear and modern smart avionics. (I want a Plane Parachute to keep the wife happy, and avionics at least as good as I can get in my car or boat. LIDAR in your LSA…why not..pretty useful in boats.)
2.) Does the FAA understand the 170lb 21 year pilot is NOT the group that can re-energize General Aviation? We are 55…FAT (Loved aviation as youngsters) and have made a few bucks and collected a few health problems but can still drive a 8 passenger SUV on the road with THOUSANDS of people inches away from us EVERY DAY. (Many of also have 16-35 year old off-spring who would fly in our aircraft creating another 1-2-3 generations of general aviation.)
3.) Is anybody mentioning the inconsistencies in pilot/plane privileges between LSA Aircraft and “Gliders” (LSA or not)? i.e. Glider Pilots do not even need a Driver License Medical, and the aircraft can have Motor, full glass panels, MFG’s willing to night VFR certify, with a Private Glider Pilot License fly at high altitude (above 10K) including Oxygen, and retractable gear. (I realize the Stemme S12 at $500K is beyond many pilots reach, but $150K for a SAMBA XXL o r even less for Sundancer motorglider seems pretty reasonable for a NEW well loaded aircraft (Register-able as a S-LSA or S-LSA Glider.)
4.) Does the FAA understand they are impacting LSA sales for 2-4 years with these changes? An LSA purchased under the current standards may be worth much less if the new standards increase the opportunities for manufactures to create new aircraft making current and older aircraft less desirable very quickly. (Maybe they can complete this process with some enhanced urgency…) ***I am likely to keep my aircraft investment dollars un-invested until this shakes out.***
5.) Any mention of dumping the Recreation Pilot License or removing the required Medical whiten 5 years? Do those objecting commercial pilots understand they are more likely to get killed by a car driving to and from the airport than a general aviation pilot bumping in their giant Boeing or Airbus?
6.) Any consideration of what will happen to Light Sport Student Pilots who have completed written exam during this window but may or may collect their license? Will Existing Light Sport Pilot be grandfathered in or need new exams for any enhanced privileges that might come from the “Power Index.”
I am a HUGE fan of some rationalization to this whole mess…but “Trust me, I am from the Government” is a joke for a reason.
Dan, I really appreciate the updates and your efforts to keep us all informed about this exciting market segment.
Hi Ken: I am posting your comments for others to see, but I will have to address your questions after Oshkosh, when I have more time to properly respond.
I completely understand! Thx…
Had a chance to recover from Oshkosh?
Hi Ken: Thanks for your patience. You asked good questions but the pre-Oshkosh timing was challenging. Now, I will try to respond with responses after your questions…
“A few questions:
1.) FAA refers to a “Power Index.” I know the regulation is not finalized, but are there any real world examples of how the calculation would/might work, I am just trying to wrap my head around the concept? (Are they adding in a real Useful Load, with Safety gear and modern smart avionics. (I want a Plane Parachute to keep the wife happy, and avionics at least as good as I can get in my car or boat. LIDAR in your LSA…why not..pretty useful in boats.)”
DAN’S RESPONSE: The best answer is is that while they have thought about Power Index a lot, they are not finalized on the plan yet. I do not believe Power Index will involve useful load, safety gear, or other considerations. They want airplanes that remain “safe, simple, and easy to fly” even while they allow aircraft that could become considerably larger. I cannot answer with certainty but think that you should be able to get most of what you want, although all that gear will certainly increase the price.
“2.) Does the FAA understand the 170 pound, 21-year-old pilot is NOT the group that can re-energize General Aviation? We are 55…FAT (loved aviation as youngsters) and have made a few bucks and collected a few health problems but can still drive a 8-passenger SUV on the road with THOUSANDS of people inches away from us EVERY DAY. (Many of also have 16-35 year old offspring who would fly in our aircraft creating another 1-2-3 generations of general aviation.)”
DAN’S RESPONSE: Yes, I think the personnel with whom we have had many conversations understand the market and its demographics quite well, actually. Your point about the SUV — or for me, the reference is a 30,000-pound, 40-foot-long motorhome driving 70 mph — is well taken. An airplane would seem far less risky.
“3.) Is anybody mentioning the inconsistencies in pilot/plane privileges between LSA Aircraft and “Gliders” (LSA or not)? i.e. Glider Pilots do not even need a Driver License Medical, and the aircraft can have Motor, full glass panels, MFG’s willing to night VFR certify, with a Private Glider Pilot License fly at high altitude (above 10K) including Oxygen, and retractable gear. (I realize the Stemme S12 at $500K is beyond many pilots reach, but $150K for a SAMBA XXL o r even less for Sundancer motorglider seems pretty reasonable for a NEW well loaded aircraft (Register-able as a S-LSA or S-LSA Glider.)”
DAN’S RESPONSE: You are right about motorgliders and gliders. As a longtime soaring pilot I am well aware of the privileges those aircraft possess — and I am happy about that. As the medical aspects of the 2004 SP/LSA rule was the biggest problem for FAA’s legal department, I don’t think we’ll see more relief on this past the SP/LSA privileges or the Basic Med rule.
“4.) Does the FAA understand they are impacting LSA sales for 2-4 years with these changes? An LSA purchased under the current standards may be worth much less if the new standards increase the opportunities for manufactures to create new aircraft making current and older aircraft less desirable very quickly. (Maybe they can complete this process with some enhanced urgency…) ***I am likely to keep my aircraft investment dollars un-invested until this shakes out.***”
DAN’S RESPONSE: Yes, FAA personnel are aware and LAMA keeps talking about this every time we communicate. Any time new opportunities arise, prior generations of aircraft or pilots can seem to be left in the dust behind. However, what should FAA do? If they make no changes, many pilots will be unhappy. If they make changes and it impacts current-day sales or aircraft purchased under prior rules, other pilots will be unhappy. While I cannot argue against pilots waiting out this regulation, it will not be coming soon (my best, earliest guess is 2021). Older pilots should not wait while younger pilots might be better served waiting. It is a conundrum, no doubt.
“5.) Any mention of dumping the Recreation Pilot License or removing the required Medical within 5 years? Do those objecting commercial pilots understand they are more likely to get killed by a car driving to and from the airport than a general aviation pilot bumping in their giant Boeing or Airbus?”
DAN’S RESPONSE: I think FAA gets this but I have heard nothing about dropping Recreational Pilot (certificate) or Primary Category (aircraft) even though these are the least-used aspects of FAA regulation in my lifetime. Yes, I think everyone knows the drive to or from the airport is the most dangerous part of any flight.
“6.) Any consideration of what will happen to Light Sport Student Pilots who have completed written exam during this window but may or may collect their license? Will Existing Light Sport Pilot be grandfathered in or need new exams for any enhanced privileges that might come from the ‘Power Index.'”
DAN’S RESPONSE: OK, first, although it is a common error, we have nothing called a Light-Sport pilot certificate. It is a Sport Pilot certificate. I believe FAA will make a great effort to keep the Sport Pilot certificate and to make it as useful as possible, but it is simply too soon to know how this plays out.
Generally… I realize we all want definitive information as soon as possible. FAA simply does not have all the answers yet and then, it goes out for public comment, after which it will surely be somewhat revised. Anything clearer at this time is speculation.
You’re the best Dan…THANKS!
I hope to see you at Copperstate in February and tell you “thank you” for all you do for all of us in person.
I think it is a good thing that the LAMA, EAA and FAA is bending over backwards to help increase the Sport Pilot weight limits and make things better for sport pilots. But I also see it as their lack of interest in helping us true FAR Part 103 pilots. I am a paying member of the EAA and think that I am in the wrong club as they advertise to get Part 103 ultralight pilots to join the EAA, but what are they doing for us? We are helping to butter their bread, only for them to work to help another category of pilots and aircraft that would not even be in existence if it wasn’t for us true Part 103 pilots and ultralights. Part 103 has had no changes at all, that I know of, since it was created in 1982. While the Sport category is still somewhat new and is already getting major changes to increase weight and add other goodies when it actually wasn’t as necessary as increasing the weight that struggling ultralight pilots need just to be able to fly safely. It is very hard to keep an ultralight safe and under the 254 pound limit as it is. And the EAA and FAA seems not to care about that fact, but bending over backwards to give sport pilots more than they even need in weight making them able to fly close to GA aircraft weight, while the true part 103 pilots that have been waiting for over 30 years for help, gets nothing. The Sport pilots can thank the true Part 103 ultralight pilots for getting all the blessings they are getting while we still struggle just to fly safely. Thanks to EAA and the FAA for leaving us out again. My question is, can you confirm that the EAA and FAA has turned their backs on what few true Part 103 pilots that are left? After all, I am sure without us, there would be no Sport Category and us few true Part 103 ultralight pilots are forgotten and left to wither on the vine.
Hi Paul: While I sympathize with your concerns — I am also a huge fan of 103 — LAMA believes any change to Part 103 has great jeopardy to go negative. Since even FAA experts are surprised this unrestrictive rule ever passed, we don’t want to disturb it for fear of wrecking what we have now.
Dear Dan,
First, thank you for all of your A+ reporting and advocacy on the Light-Sport market over the years.
My question on this subject: I purchased a new FD CTLSi last year… if I am reading the FAA’s “thinking”, there may be a chance that the 1,320 could possibly be increased, according to a standard formula, to perhaps… “Float weight” of 1,420 (since CT’s are rated for that without any structural changes) ?
And, would the revised rules apply to the existing Fleet or would the new planes emerge with the revised weight?
Best, Andrew
Hi Andrew: We don’t know how FAA will apply rules that are still in development. We’ll all have to wait to learn more and I will report it here.
Thanks for your kind words!
Keep me posted!
Hi Lois: Our entire existence revolves around keeping you posted. ?
So do you have any words of wisdom on how we might lobby LAMA to get them to allow SLSA to fly in light IMC, since the FAA does not seem to have any problem whatsoever with LSA flying In IMC if the POH allows it. There are even some grandfathered LSAs that can fly in IMC since they were built before LAMA created this “rule”.
Hi Keith: Please allow me to correct a couple references. LAMA does not create any rules nor need anyone lobby LAMA to work toward this and other expansions of privilege for LSA. Broadening the opportunities for LSA and kit producers is LAMA’s primary mission. I think you may have meant ASTM (regarding an IFR/IMC prohibition; see article link), but even ASTM is merely a standards-writing body. They do not make rules, either. Only FAA does that and the agency does not prohibit LSA from entering and operating the IFR system, assuming proper equipment, manufacturer support, appropriate engine, and qualified pilot. This article does a fair job of explaining where any confusion might have started. The good news is work is starting to move again. I’ll keep an open ear and continue asking around.
Hi Dan, just curious about one thing. When they raise the weight limit of Light-Sport Aircraft, will the manufacturers start using yolks again instead of the joystick controls? I’m not a fan at all and don’t see any advantage using a stick for control… they are way too light in my opinion.
Hi Brent: Let me correct you gently. They are not “raising the weight” so much as creating a new way to determine how “capable” an aircraft can be. This may seem playing semantics but while the weight will go up, FAA prefers not to talk about increasing the gross weight. As to joysticks, well you have some choices now, for example, the TL Aircraft Sirius or the handsome new Colt from Texas Aircraft, who must have been listening to you.
Thanks for the hard work..
?? Thanks for reading!
If I am a commercial rated pilot flying under LSA rules, may I fly st night?
Hi George: I fear I’ve been a bit misleading to some readers on this night-flying matter. If I understand you correctly, you hold a current Commercial Pilot certificate with a medical asking about flying a Light-Sport Aircraft at night. In that case, yes, you may fly a properly-equipped LSA at night if the manufacturer has so stipulated in the operating limitations, and if the LSA is equipped according to FARs (which is fairly modest). However, if you lack a medical, then you may not fly an LSA at night, although the aircraft may be capable and properly equipped.
What if he has BasicMed? Couldn’t he fly a properly equipped LSA at night?
Hi Laurie: Yes, it seems likely that a BasicMed user with a Private or better could fly a properly equipped at night but that could depend on the exact outcome of that medical examination.
What is on the Basic Med that is not on the 3rd class medical?
Keith: Here is FAA Basic Med website.
Thank you Dan for the update! I think these rule changes will be a great improvement and good for the industry! I would love for the Van’s RV series of aircraft to be classified as LSA, however this may be wishful thinking based on their Stall speed. I personally feel as if the LSA regulations should be formulated to match what a Pilot flying under Basic Med can do! I would have no problem going to my doctor for a physical, however with the medicine I am on can not pass a Medical. I just do not understand why the FAA restricts LSA to ridiculous regulations however allows someone to fly anything with a simple physical, because they passed a Medical 30 years ago. I do understand that PPL requires more training however it comes out to maybe 5-10 hours of dual instruction compared to what the average sport pilot requires… *END RANT*. Anyhow, I would like to see Basic med and LSA on a level playing field… as I do not see them as being very different.
Hello Dan, I am a LSA pilot and fly a Piper J3 Cub as LSA. I would like to have a Cessna 150 / 152 etc….
Do you think these airplanes may become Light Sport ?
Those Type Certificated models will not change to LSA, although it is conceivable that FAA may allow someone using a Sport Pilot certificate to fly them. It is too early to know this. I imagine those aircraft would have to meet the Power Index definition, which is not finished yet.
The J3 IS a LEGAL certified LSA aircraft !! the 150 is not and that is all about the added complication i.e. Flaps.
Warren: Assuming you refer to a J-3 Piper Cub, that vintage model is not a “certified” LSA (no such animal exists), although it might be operated by someone possessing a Sport Pilot certificate, IF the particular airplane falls within the description of a LSA. You are evidently aware the Cessna 150 does not (it weighs too much), but it having flaps has no bearing whatsoever.
Hi Dan,
I’ve also wondered and have had other sport pilots ask me if my LSA is equipped for night VFR why can’t there be a mandatory training number say 5-10 hours, and an endorsement by a CFI similar to a tail wheel endorsement for a sport Pilot wanting to fly night VFR. Of course keeping night currency just as a private pilot would. Has the commitee considered this as an option.
Hi Rich: Night operations in LSA are not an ASTM committee matter; this is FAA’s jurisdiction. However, you can get a logbook endorsement for night ops just as you can do so for flight into controlled (B, C) airspace or using repositionable landing gear on a seaplane, and other skills. This has always been one of the great features of the Sport Pilot certificate. Always check with your insurance company; in some ways they have more say than FAA.
Dan, I believe you are incorrect. The Sport Pilot regs prohibit night operations and don’t allow for an endorsement. The reg does allow for Class B, C with an endorsement.
A sport may not act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft:
At night.
In Class A airspace.
In Class B, C, or D airspace, at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace, and to, from, through, or at an airport having an operational control tower unless you have met the requirements specified in §61.325.
Yes, Charles, you are right. I was thinking a Private or better exercising Sport privileges.
I am a private pilot, but have let my 3rd. class medical lapse. I’m flying an Ercoupe under Sport Pilot rules. Are you saying, since I’ve obtained my Private Certificate, that I can fly at night??????
Hi Mark: OK, I admit I got my wires crossed it here. To fly at night under the current regulations you must have a Private or better with a medical. I so often think in terms of the aircraft that I confused myself. LSA may be used at night by a Private or better but someone with a Sport Pilot certificate or operating as one (no medical) cannot fly at night.
How about a return to allowing IFR certification? Instrument flight training could benefit if LSA were available and allowed, and instrument pilot certification usually produces a safer pilot. “Light” IFR usage also would enhance useability and, hence, marketability. Nobody does “hard” IFR in single-engine planes so don’t need any changes to IFR rules or “special” IFR restrictions or operating limitations on LSA….
Hi David: This has been explored at some length (over a three year period) but the ASTM committee was unable to come to consensus. The definitions are trickier than they sound. However, a renewed interest may yet stimulate action in this regard. The fact remains that nothing in regulation prohibits a LSA from being used to fly IFR, even IMC. The ASTM committee chose to discourage this until a standard was ready, but that is not regulation. See this article for more detail on IFR in LSA.
When will you guys work to make a medical easier to get? I’m a private pilot and am currently grounded because I take insulin. My sugar is under control. Years ago a commercial medical was good, we need to make this same medical good for LSA
Hi Steve: You do not need an aviation medical to fly a Light-Sport Aircraft. You cannot have been denied a medical but if that’s not the case, and if you have a valid state driver’s license, then you need nothing else.
I am very interested in Sport Pilot planes being more useful. Please keep me in the loop!
Thanks, William. Just keep clicking back. We’ll update again when more progress can be reported. Be patient.