ByDanJohnson.com

There’s been a hue and cry from the seaplane community over New Mexico’s proposed ban of all seaplane operations in the entire state! • Especially given next year’s rush of LSA seaplanes, this is doubly troubling. —DJ

The rationale for the ban, as put forward by the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, would seem to be the danger to boaters from seaplanes landing on water, and the introduction of non-native, invasive species of flora and fauna into waterways in the state.

The Recreational Aviation Foundation and other organizations got the word out to seaplane pilots to send in their comments on the proposal. That comment period ended October 30th, and we’ll eagerly await the final ruling.

EAA and publications have decried the proposal by noting the literally tens of thousands of non-winged watercraft that all potentially introduce invasive species into the water every day in every state in the union. Does New Mexico plan to ban boats, cars, boat trailers, even people’s shoes, as well?

And the accident question is somewhat laughable. Over the last 13 years, as EAA notes, there have been a total of six fatalities from seaplane/boat collisions. That’s not New Mexico, but nationwide. One wonders what other agenda the New Mexico department had in mind when it decided to spend time and money going after seaplanes. The official pending legalese stipulates that seaplanes be prohibited from any water operations — taxiing, landing or takeoff — in any state park. That effectively means the entire state since all waterways are controlled by the New Mexico State Parks Division.

Richard Rofe, the North American distributor of the sleek amphibious SLSA, SeaMax sent out the following notice, edited here for space, to pilots and the appropriate officialdom in New Mexico:

“To Whom it May Concern — I am a concerned citizen and member of the Sierra Club who not only loves our natural waterways and works to protect them, but also enjoys them via boats and airplanes. I find it hard to believe due to the very small and dwindling population of seaplanes in the US that restricting the waterways in New Mexico is a serious topic up for discussion and possible legislation. The harm that boats can cause to waterways, if not properly regulated, is greater by a magnitude of at least 1000. The amount of damage seaplanes could or would do, is severely limited based on their limited number alone. Yet the few that do exist come in very handy during emergencies and surveying remote areas and offer the ability to reach locations that are hard to access by traditional means. It is also very important to note that seaplane pilots are overall an educated and environmentally concerned group that need the waterways to remain healthy more than the average citizen. I would prefer to see government work with, and not against, groups like this to educate versus restrict. I highly recommend education vs. the blanket closure of waterways as a way of protecting our delicate environment in New Mexico and the rest of the United States.”

In the lakes of upstate New England, you’ll often find signs, placards and brochures warning of introducing invasive species to the water, with detailed instructions on how to make sure boaters don’t inadvertently do so. Sometimes there’s even a volunteer or official manning a booth to make sure you’re not doing harm by inspecting your boat, kayak, canoe, trailer and so on.

Jim promises to update this post once this issue is finalized one way or the other. —DJ

Compress Post ...

Two publications — GA News’ “The Pulse” and AvWeb reported on a letter from Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) urging FAA to help airports encourage auto gas supply. While his reasoning has a political quality (no surprise in this election-charged atmosphere), the point for LSA enthusiasts is that this could help increase availability of Mogas at airports. Since the Rotax and Jabiru engines that power the vast majority of LSA actually prefer automotive fuel as experts say it burns cleaner and provides a more efficient use of fuel — plus it costs significantly less! — congressional pressure on FAA could be a game changer.

The downside is that many in aviation’s more influential ranks are focused on withering supplies of 100LL Avgas and for unexplained reasons, some continue to resist supplying Mogas at airports. Waxman’s letter refers to a report by FAA’s Unleaded Avgas Transition Aviation Rulemaking Committee report released in February 2012. “This report outlines steps to identify, test, and certify an unleaded ‘drop-in’ replacement fuel by 2018,” the Congressman wrote, “but it does not identify any efforts to reduce the use of leaded fuel before such a replacement fuel becomes available, even though, according to the report, it may be 11 years or more before the new fuel will be phased in.” So, no action for six years and possibly no replacement until 2023. That doesn’t sound very promising for all those aircraft that can’t run on less than 100LL

While our LSA can run on 100LL, they’d just as soon be fed Mogas (even the lowest priced “regular” 87-octane is sufficient for the 80-hp engines) so more airports with auto gas would be beneficial. Waxman also wrote, “Airports face significant barriers to offering fuel alternatives, which include lack of pilot education, uncertainty about liability coverage, and concerns about the supply of high octane unleaded fuels that are ethanol free.”

The reference to ethanol-free (“E0”) fuel is worthy as many older engines need non-alcohol go-juice. As the Aviation Fuel Club — which was specifically referenced in Waxman’s letter — has observed, airports might find a lucrative source of additional revenue by offering E0 fuel to non-aviation buyers, such as marine enthusiasts, outdoorsmen who enjoy off-road vehicles, vintage car and motorcycle hobbyists, and many others for whom the ethanol fuels are incompatible. Going to the airport to buy E0 fuel would also bring more folks within sight of aviation.

Regretfully, Waxman’s letter many not get much near-term action. Along with many other government agencies, FAA seems to be obsessing over the impending sequestration that could cause budget cuts and the $15-billion-dollar agency already feels underfunded and overburdened. As I’ve reported, FAA wants to audit LSA producers but lacks the resources needed to do this swiftly, which may cause long delays in new models coming to market (putting a damper on one of the most dynamic aspects of the LSA movement… new model development). Fuel ranks higher on the agency’s priority list, I’m sure, but while FAA rule-writers are already looking many years down the line for a 100LL replacement, here’s a way the agency could take action sooner, with little budget strain, and it could help LSA operators a great deal. Let’s hope they see the wisdom of this and that FAA helps LSA fans get lower-priced, better fuel (that has less environmental concerns than does leaded 100LL) at an airport near them. It’s all-too rare that Congress does something worthwhile so here’s one action that shouldn’t increase the deficit and requires little federal spending. With all eyes on the election and that often-referenced “fiscal cliff,” do you suppose anyone in DC sees the wisdom of mogas at airports? I hope so!

Compress Post ...

News from Russian sport aircraft producers is rare. Though the old USSR had a vast military aircraft complex that hasn’t translated to recreation aircraft the way it did in the formerly Soviet Czech Republic, where many of our LSA originate. However, that doesn’t mean efforts are absent. We’ve seen some uptake of LSA (like Pipistrel) into Russia but here I’ll portray an unusual Russian development. It may not find a U.S. market but I find it intriguing.

The designer, Anatoly Geralevich Szukov, calls his work the result of “garage aviation,” a surprisingly American term (think: Apple computer coming from Steve Jobs’ garage) for a very different project… from Russia. Instead of meaning a source of innovation, however, Szukov uses the garage term because his development allows people to store their aircraft in a normal garage. Szukov’s U.S.-based contact didn’t provide an English name for Szukov’s company (though if you read Russian you might deduce it).

Szukov’s “Bug” line of trikes are commonly powered by a Russian injected VAZ 21083 78-hp engine though he offers other powerplants Americans would recognize such as the Rotax 582. Besides the Ruskie engine, Bug’s distinguishing characteristics are four wheels, side-by-side seating (almost never seen in a trike), and a variety of chassis bodies. Oh… and catch that highly unusual ring-wing design.

Why four wheels? The company states, “Classical, traditional three-wheeled chassis ultralights [have been] used for many years. However, land-based vehicles with three-wheeled chassis and front wheel steering [are] unstable on uneven ground and in turns, and are prone to rollover.”

Szukov identifies his trikes as “BUG-41” (a single seater), “Bug-42” (a two seater), “Bug-43” (surprise! …a three seater). He also refers to “Bug-44,” (photos) which is apparently all of the preceding based his four-wheeled “trolley” or chassis. Szukov’s website says four wheels adds only about 37 pounds including the steering mechanism and provides much better ground stability. He also feels it is more intuitive to a beginner than traditional wrong-way trike steering and that the added structure is safer when involved in an accident.

“Four-wheel carts [compared] to the three-wheeled device significantly improved stability at launch and landing,” he wrote. “Significantly, this property of trikes is shown at takeoff and landing on unprepared sites, especially in rural areas.” Szukov adds his belief that the four-wheel carriage increases comfort, allows easier and safer training, and lowers the center of gravity, resulting in increased stability and safety compared to classic trikes where the passenger is above the pilot.

The Bugs share many advantages with more conventional trikes, or weight-shift LSA in FAA parlance: easy transport, smaller hangar use, versatility, low cost, and more. Szukov sees a good future for his creations in many parts of the world, and indeed, trikes have found markets in many emerging countries.

If you want to find out more, the Russian language website has challenges but Google Translate will do a fair job. Otherwise you can write the factory or their Atlanta, Georgia-based Russian contact, Victor Vaiovod.

Compress Post ...