Weight Limitation Leads To Interesting Argument, Part Two

by ANN Correspondent Dave Slosson

In yesterday's story, we outlined the legal specifics of the light sport aircraft rule, and delved into the reasoning behind some of the rule's seemingly arbitrary guidelines... including the maximum gross weight specification of 1,320 lbs.

So now comes the case of David Lowe, private pilot, A&P/IA and multiple STC holder. David decided to build from scratch a Cessna 120A model, full metal aircraft with standard gear, but at a reduced weight in anticipation of the sport pilot rule. Normally, a Cessna 120 weighs 1450 pounds gross... but David used thinner skins on parts of the aircraft that were not structural, added stringers where necessary for surface conformity, and eliminated the electrical system.

Visually, you cannot tell his from a standard Cessna-built 120, but his gross weight was originally 1232 and is now 1320 (as amended) with an empty weight of 828. He had heard what was proposed, and before the NPRM came out, had applied for his STC. The Atlanta ACO held the STC application until the NPRM came out to make sure there was no conflict between the two. Nothing in the NPRM dealt with downrating via STC a Standard Category aircraft, as:

From the Preamble again:

The FAA also stated that there would be little interest in "downgrading," as a special light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificate would have more restrictive operating limitations.

The agency did not foresee the desire to downgrade to sport pilot aircraft to be able to have a less-restrictive medical policy, especially with aging pilots. Since they were picturing these aircraft as two-person ultralights, that is understandable. So David Lowe obtained his STC between the NPRM and the final rule, SA02482AT. He worked on this with the intention of creating a route for the members of the Cessna 120/140 Association to continue to fly their machines in later years when obtaining a medical could be a problem, but driver's licenses would be current. At Sun 'n Fun 2002, he presented his STC to Mike Gallagher, who was surprised to see it. Mike shortly put out a memo to keep any other such STCs from being issued, as he knew it was outside the intent of the proposed rule. After the final rule was issued, it made David's STC useless for inclusion to be flown as a sport pilot. He has fought this rule since it came out in its final form, to no avail.

The Cessna 120/140 Association petitioned for reconsideration and was denied. In the denial, the FAA stated that safety is not necessarily enhanced because, "...the aircraft continues to have a demonstrated capability to operate at gross weights higher than those specified for, or appropriate to, operation by sport pilots. Additionally, to operate the aircraft with a pilot and passenger, sport pilots may be encouraged to carry less than adequate fuel reserves in order to meet the lower maximum gross weight restriction of the STC." Additionally, "The FAA agrees with the petitioner's contention that sport pilots must also meet the same standard to fly both a light-sport aircraft configured with a tailwheel and any other aircraft equipped with a tailwheel….The skills and ability of a sport pilot to operate a tailwheel aircraft that is originally type certificated with a maximum takeoff weight heavier than the weight limit set by the light-sport aircraft definition is untested."

So let's look at the perceived safety aspect of light-sport certificated Standard Category aircraft. As a measure of safety, I turned to Falcon Insurance, who is in the aircraft risk business and measures risk by hull losses and claims over the years. With all other values being equal other than the aircraft type, we compared insurance rates on many tailwheel aircraft and some other simple, noncomplex aircraft not capable of being included in the light-sport category strictly due to weight. The cheapest to insure was the Cessna 150, then the Mooney Kadet with a fixed trigear, then an Ercoupe, Cub, Cessna 140 and Luscombe 8. Put any of these on floats and the premium doubles, yet light-sport aircraft may have floats. The two Cessnas on this list and the Mooney are not light-sport capable. So there is nothing here that would validate a heavier aircraft is more difficult to fly than many Standard Category that fall under the light-sport provisions.

Falcon representatives also indicated they would not insure anyone in a tailwheel aircraft until they had a minimum of 25 hours tailwheel time. (Oh, and by the way, a Flight Design CT, since they're so much more expensive, are better than double the insurance of any of the above mentioned aircraft. Affordable, eh?)

David feels he has been lied to by many FAA officials in the last 6 years, including Marion Blakey, Mike Gallagher, and John Hickey (Director, Aircraft Certification Service). If you were in the Meet the Administrator forum on Thursday, July 31, you saw David (above) come across as a very disgruntled individual. If any of us had been treated the way he feels he has been treated for that many years, we'd probably come across the same way. He is passionate about his position, but unfortunately seems to have shot himself in the foot by his timing. He tipped his hand by giving Mike Gallagher the STC before the final rule was out.

Before we totally dismiss David Lowe and his STC, let's look at the provision that shut him out, the part about "since its original certification." Let's also consider the part about, The aircraft conforms to its original configuration, except for those alterations performed in accordance with an applicable consensus standard and authorized by the aircraft's manufacturer or a person acceptable to the FAA. An STC meets the second criteria without the "consensus" portion, which is unique to the light-sport aircraft rules. So David's revised aircraft would be an approved aircraft to fly under light-sport rules if it were not for the first provision about original certification. Tom Peghiny felt the caveat is in the final rule as the FAA didn't want people to modify previously certified aircraft then fly them as they were before the modifications.

However, consider the Jabiru 230/250 light-sport aircraft. The same airframe with the same engine is certified in Australia with four seats at 1540 pounds gross weight. It has a Jabiru 120 horsepower 6-cylinder engine. However, to make light-sport rules, the same composite airframe is shipped to the facility in Shelbyville, TN and the aircraft is built here under US certification with only two seats installed and lighter interior materials. It has three doors and advertises itself as the largest, most powerful light-sport aircraft. The aircraft is advertised as having a useful load of 760 pounds, and a "max straight and level speed of 155 miles per hour."

Sure sounds a lot like what David Lowe did, only under the guise of certification in Australia vs. certification in the US.

A Discussion with Pete Krotje, Chief Manager of Jabiru USA, confirmed these specs on their handout sheet. Jabiru is not alone in claiming higher max level flight speeds than the light-sport rules allow, but that's not the crux of this article. The Ecoflyer also advertises itself as the largest LSA with over 150 cubic feet of luggage space... big enough to sleep in.

In conclusion, just considering the definition of a light-sport aircraft and the "since its original certification" caveat, it appears there are some unintended consequences because of the medical certification issues tied in. The aircraft certified since the rule was finalized are nice, simple, two-seat aircraft that any pilot should be able to fly. However, one would have to be blind to consider a Flight Design CT or Jabiru 250 as a two-seat ultralight. These are fine aircraft for transportation, with several hours range at 130 mph (or better).

Therefore... I would suggest eliminating the weight restriction as a guideline, and leave it as simple, noncomplex, two-seat maximum aircraft.

The NPRM showed the third highest number of comments, behind towing (1298) and sport pilot certification (653), were maximum weight limits and sport pilot definition (489). Obviously, it was, and continues to be, a hot issue. There should also be a level playing field in relation to modifying a Standard Category aircraft to meet the light-sport rule or a foreign manufacturer modifying their previously-certified aircraft and passing it off as a light-sport because it was certified that way in the US. If Jabiru can do that with their 230/250, then David Lowe's modification should be valid for any other Cessna 120s or 140s other pilots want to modify under his STC... right?

As a self-regulating entity, it's not being handled well or fairly. Each aircraft should have to meet testing standards by a testing body to ensure max speeds, max weight, and other parameters can not be exceeded under normal operating conditions, or the light-sport rules are worthless. There is no reason a Cessna 150, one of the most-used trainers in the industry, is shut out of these rules when an aircraft such as the Luscombe, a tailwheel aircraft that is harder to fly and much more expensive to insure, is allowed. I'd suggest a maximum interior volume instead of the maximum weight, as that coupled with the max speeds and seats should limit the category. Also, there must be an easier route to follow for a pilot who lost his medical but has no problem with holding a driver's license. This factor is probably the biggest driver in the sport pilot/light-sport debate. Don't even get me started on the affordability factor.

(There is currently an NPRM on sport pilot rules, viewable here, but the weight rule is not being adjusted.)

FMI: www.sportpilot.org, www.usjabiru.com/j250.html