Page 2 of 3
Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:22 pm
by 3Dreaming
Warmi wrote:On interesting thing about LSA weight limits, I wasn't aware of, is the fact that in addition to a gross weight ( 1320 lbs ), there is also a maximum empty weight limit for SLSA.
I was inquiring about BRS equipped Arion Lighting and was told that due to that LSA max empty limit, they cannot install BRS on the LSA version and the way to solve it would be have them factory build E-LSA, identical to the LSA version, but equipped with BRS - to me this sounds just like six of one, half a dozen of the other type of difference - waste of everybody's time due to overly bureaucratic rules.
Anyway, on a related note - is it true that if one is flying E-LSA , it is required to ident as experimental when talking to a tower ?
What overly bureaucratic rules?? The maximum empty weight limit is a requirement of the consensus standards established by ASTM, not the FAA. The ASTM F37 committee is made up from people within the light sport aircraft industry.
Yes, the proper way to announce yourself at a towered airport if you have an experimental airworthiness certificate is by saying "experimental" followed by your registration number.
Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 6:49 pm
by FastEddieB
Warmi wrote:
Anyway, on a related note - is it true that if one is flying E-LSA , it is required to ident as experimental when talking to a tower ?
Pretty sure any time contact is initiated with ATC you must inform them of your Experimental status.
Edited to add: I may be wrong about that. This, from my Sky Arrow's Operating Limitations:
Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 6:51 pm
by Warmi
Not sure what is the purpose of that limit thought ... it is limiting options for folks who want to configure their LSA in the way that suits them while still staying with overall performance envelope established by LSA rules ( and thus forces them to play E-LSA games )
Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 6:52 pm
by Warmi
FastEddieB wrote:Warmi wrote:
Anyway, on a related note - is it true that if one is flying E-LSA , it is required to ident as experimental when talking to a tower ?
Pretty sure any time contact is initiated with ATC you must inform them of you'r Experimental status.
Are there any specific requirements for SLSA ? Doesn't seem to , since I keep hearing all sorts of idents ( Remos, Sportcruiser, generic light sport etc)
Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 7:00 pm
by FastEddieB
Warmi wrote:
Are there any specific requirements for SLSA ? Doesn't seem to , since I keep hearing all sorts of idents ( Remos, Sportcruiser, generic light sport etc)
Not that I'm aware of.
Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 7:04 pm
by 3Dreaming
Warmi wrote:Not sure what is the purpose of that limit thought ... it is limiting options for folks who want to configure their LSA in the way that suits them while still staying with overall performance envelope established by LSA rules ( and thus forces them to play E-LSA games )
The purpose is to insure that a 2 place airplane can carry 2 ASTM standard people and minimum fuel, and still be within legal operating weight.
Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:31 am
by MrMorden
FastEddieB wrote:Warmi wrote:
Anyway, on a related note - is it true that if one is flying E-LSA , it is required to ident as experimental when talking to a tower ?
Pretty sure any time contact is initiated with ATC you must inform them of your Experimental status.
Edited to add: I may be wrong about that. This, from my Sky Arrow's Operating Limitations:
Hmm...so it sounds like you are in better compliance if you say "Experimental 12345" instead of "Sky Arrow 12345" in pretty much all situations, correct?
Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:52 am
by rsteele
Keep in mind that the "experimental" is only required when announcing to ATC. On CTAF more meaning is conveyed using type/description. Also it's only required to be announced, not necessary used in every call, so using first time call "experimental flutterbus 123ab" and afterward "flutterbus 123ab" conveys more meaning.
Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:29 am
by FastEddieB
MrMorden wrote:
Hmm...so it sounds like you are in better compliance if you say "Experimental 12345" instead of "Sky Arrow 12345" in pretty much all situations, correct?
To cover the bases and err on the side of caution, whenever I call any ATC facility, my first call includes both Experimental and Sky Arrow. For instance:
"Knoxville Approach, Experimental Sky Arrow 467SA 22 miles south..."
I do get queried pretty regularly on what a Sky Arrow is, and reply it's an Italian Light Sport. I also will usually give the FAA designator, which is "SKAR", in case they need it for a "strip".
Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:46 pm
by foresterpoole
You know those radio calls were something I did, but never realized why I did it. Normally I'll announce "xxx traffic Technam123xy". When I was getting my Cross country training the CFI said to use "light sport 123xy" for flight following, never questioned it and I've never read anything in the POH like what you have shared. It appears (correct me if I'm wrong), that if it's an S-LSA it's OK to use Technam or Cessna as an identifier, if it's experimental then you have to use experimental???
Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:11 pm
by rcpilot
foresterpoole wrote:You know those radio calls were something I did, but never realized why I did it. Normally I'll announce "xxx traffic Technam123xy". When I was getting my Cross country training the CFI said to use "light sport 123xy" for flight following, never questioned it and I've never read anything in the POH like what you have shared. It appears (correct me if I'm wrong), that if it's an S-LSA it's OK to use Technam or Cessna as an identifier, if it's experimental then you have to use experimental???
Well, I bought an E-AB Zenith 601 for training. My instructor always referred to it as "red and white light sport". Never had any issues even when we flew to the local Class D and he would say light sport [tail#]. However, the first time we went to a Class C and he said "light sport [tail#] the controller did ask what kind of light sport. Zenith wasn't enough and we had to go with Zenith CH601. Subsequent to that while I was studying for my tests I saw the same reference to using "experimental" in your calls and I started to do that. On our next trip to the Class C I said "experimental[tail#] and received no requests for more information about the plane.
Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:13 pm
by FastEddieB
rcpilot,
I'd be curious whether your Operating Limitations has the same or similar language as mine.
It seems like boilerplate, but may just apply to E-LSA conversions or maybe just my plane.
Andy, does your new Operating Limitations have the same paragraph as mine re: identifying as Experimental?
Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:21 pm
by FastEddieB
Found this in the AIM 4-2-4:
"Civil aircraft pilots should state the aircraft type, model or manufacturer’s name, followed by the digits/letters of the registration number. When the aircraft manufacturer’s name or model is stated, the prefix “N” is dropped; e.g., Aztec Two Four Six Four Alpha.
EXAMPLE−
1. Bonanza Six Five Five Golf.
2. Breezy Six One Three Romeo Experimental (omit “Experimental” after initial contact)."
Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's
Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:59 pm
by zaitcev
Where I sit, the maximum speed of LSAs is a worse problem than the maximum gross weight. The speed is what makes me consider a Mooney and Bonanza. I fly solo most of the time anyway.
Upping the gross weight of LSAs would make them more desirable for me, but that is not enough for my mission. Perhaps if I move East where distances are smaller. Not in New Mexico.
Re: Part 23 rewrite and LSA's
Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:23 am
by MrMorden
FastEddieB wrote:MrMorden wrote:
Hmm...so it sounds like you are in better compliance if you say "Experimental 12345" instead of "Sky Arrow 12345" in pretty much all situations, correct?
To cover the bases and err on the side of caution, whenever I call any ATC facility, my first call includes both Experimental and Sky Arrow. For instance:
"Knoxville Approach, Experimental Sky Arrow 467SA 22 miles south..."
I do get queried pretty regularly on what a Sky Arrow is, and reply it's an Italian Light Sport. I also will usually give the FAA designator, which is "SKAR", in case they need it for a "strip".
Here is my typical ATC exchange:
ME: "Atlanta Approach, Flight Design 509CT is ten miles west of Winder, 4000ft, VFR to Paulding County, request flight following."
ATC: "509CT, squawk 1234... say again aircraft type?"
ME: "Squawk 1234. Identifier is foxtrot-delta-charlie-tango."
ATC: "Thank you...509CT, radar contact 14 miles southwest of Winder, Atlanta altimeter 29.92"
ME: "29.92, 509CT."