Weight Limitation Leads To Interesting Argument, Part One

by ANN Correspondent Dave Slosson

Established and announced at EAA AirVenture 2004, the Sport Pilot rules and regulations have continued as written, with few modifications. For the purpose of this discussion, we will only concentrate on a few provisions, although many others factor in and will be brought into the arguments as appropriate. See one previous commentary on sport pilot here.

The first provision is the definition of a light-sport aircraft, and quoting from the rule: (bold emphasis mine)

Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:
(1) A maximum takeoff weight of not more than--
(i) 660 pounds (300 kilograms) for lighter-than-air aircraft;
(ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on water

in conjunction with the certification provision below:

§21.181 Duration.
(a) * * * (3) A special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category is effective as long as-
(i) The aircraft meets the definition of a light-sport aircraft;
(ii) 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;
(iii) The aircraft has no unsafe condition and is not likely to develop an unsafe condition; and
(iv) The aircraft is registered in the United States.

What we will explore in this article are the rules, the intent of the rules, the unintended consequences of the sum of the rules, and should they be considered for changes.

As a bit of necessary background, the light-sport rules were developed, initially, as a means to address the two-person or "fat ultralights" that were being used as part of 14 CFR part 103, but were unregulated.

So, from the Preamble to the Final Rule:

Purpose of this rule:

• Increase safety in the light-sport aircraft community by closing the gaps in existing regulations and by accommodating new advances in technology.
• Provide for the manufacture of light-sport aircraft that are safe for their intended operations.
• Allow operation of light-sport aircraft exceeding the limits of ultralight vehicles operated under 14 CFR part 103, with a passenger and for flight training, rental, and towing.

Also from the Preamble:

There is room for debate and disagreement, and the FAA is prepared to make changes when appropriate. But in the FAA's judgment, these standards strike a balance in favor of safety while allowing freedom to operate.

In discussion with Michael Gallagher, who was the Director of the Small Aircraft Directorate (sounds redundant, doesn't it?) until just before the final rule was issued, he said the intent of the rule was about recreation and fun, not transportation. Mike was in a lot of the committee discussions after the NPRM was closed and the many responses were in hand. The original NPRM suggested 1232 pounds max gross weight, which is an ultralight category in Canada. The weight was increased to 1320 pounds, or 600 kilos, in the final rule after suggestions regarding a ballistic parachute system.

Again from the Preamble:

The gross takeoff weight includes the added weight of two passengers, ten or more gallons of fuel, one or more pieces of luggage, and a ballistic parachute carried on an aircraft. This weight allows the aircraft to be constructed with stronger materials, to use stronger landing gear, and to use a heavier and more powerful four-stroke engine.

Why a weight restriction anyway? In talking with Tom Peghiny (right) -- former Chairman of the airplane subcommittee to develop voluntary standards for light-sport construction after the rule was finalized, and now the president of Flight Design USA. In short, Tom says, the rulesmakers had to start somewhere. He felt that weight was a determining factor as it is a quantifiable metric to define the category, the same as stall speed and maximum speed.

The big question, he said, was how do you quantify easy-to-fly in a regulatory manner?

Again from the Preamble:

Second, there are situations where a line must be drawn. For example, the case can be made that the maximum weight or speed could be somewhat higher or lower than what is being adopted. In these situations, the FAA is not establishing this rule with the intent of including or excluding specific aircraft. Instead, the FAA is trying to objectively determine where the line should be drawn while considering the appropriate level of safety and the complexity of the operation.

And,

The proposal was based on the three factors--(1) special light-sport aircraft would be very basic in design and construction:...

So that's the intent and the opinions of why the gross weight was set as it stands. There are many currently certified Standard Category aircraft that fall under the 1320 gross, and many other simple, noncomplex aircraft that fall over the gross, but not by much. There are Aeroncas, Luscombes, and Pipers in both the approved category and the unapproved category.

No Cessnas are in the approved category. (You can view the Standard Category list here.)

In tomorrow's second half of this story, we'll consider a very specific case involving one pilot, who holds multiple STCs... including one intended to allow a specially-built Cessna 120 to fully comply with the LSA rule. So, why doesn't it?

FMI: www.sportpilot.org/learn/final_rule_synopsis.html