Piper LSA?

[drseti]

Training syllabi should be amended to include training on how not to land an airplane via the top of the cockpit.

Not necessary. It already says in my POH that landing inverted voids the warranty.

[KSCessnaDriver]

Its ironic, the FAA requires us to learn many safety procedures in our training, pass a written test and a checkride, yet won't raise the weight limit high enough for even basic safety features to be added to these planes.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this. If you end up upside down, its probably due to your own fault. I can think of very few ways to get an airplane upside down on the ground, without it being the pilot's own fault.

And again, if you don't like them, fly something else.

[comperini]

Its ironic, the FAA requires us to learn many safety procedures in our training, pass a written test and a checkride, yet won't raise the weight limit high enough for even basic safety features to be added to these planes.

The weight limit has already been increased once. Originally, the FAA proposed LSAs with a max weight of 1,232 lbs. In the final rule, that number was increased to the current 1,320 lbs. No matter what the limit is set at, there will always be people who want something a little heavier, or faster than what the current rules are. The FAA had to draw the line somewhere, especially since they needed to define a type of aircraft that Sport Pilots could fly.

[KellyZ]

KSCessnaDriver - check-out accident report ERA10LA098

It doesn't say how these people got out of the aircraft.

[Murrell]

If You have studied your safety lessons well, you will remember the rule;

When all else has failed, and you are at the first stage of prayer,

Check Safety Belts
Turn off Master Switch
Shut off Fuel
&&&&&
OPEN & BLOCK DOORS OPEN, This info. is for Both High & Low wings
{ in a serious crash, if there are any doors left, they are probably jammed shut }

Murrell

[KSCessnaDriver]

KSCessnaDriver - check-out accident report ERA10LA098

It doesn't say how these people got out of the aircraft.

Yet they survived. If the plane was basically able to spin to the ground, recover, hit trees, and the people survive, I'd tend to think its a fairly safe airplane.

If You have studied your safety lessons well, you will remember the rule;

When all else has failed, and you are at the first stage of prayer,

Check Safety Belts
Turn off Master Switch
Shut off Fuel
&&&&&
OPEN & BLOCK DOORS OPEN, This info. is for Both High & Low wings
{ in a serious crash, if there are any doors left, they are probably jammed shut }

Yup, but you'd want to consider the type of airplane your in prior to opening the door in flight. For instance, in a Diamond DA-20, doing so would probably kill you quicker than whatever situation you were encountering. The canopy opens at the rear, and would likely be sheared off by the airspeed, taking who knows how much of your airplane with it (likely the horizontal stabilizer). [/quote]

[Bill]

Guess I'm glad I chose to buy my Ercoupe. The cockpit structure is strong enough to support the airplane - upside down.

There was an Ercoupe involved in an off-field landing last fall near Albany, NY. The plane flipped over - and the pilot walked away (presumably after he crawled out) without injury. I'll admit that all incidents/accidents are different; fortunately this one ended in a positive.

[designrs]

For those of you concerned with rollover protection,
I heard of an incident where a Tecnam Sierra P2002
rolled over on contact with the ground.
Pilot reportedly walked away.
Very strong Grumman style canopy and windshield structure on this plane.
Canopy can also be opened in flight.

[LightSportFlyer]

For those of you concerned with rollover protection,
I heard of an incident where a Tecnam Sierra P2002
rolled over on contact with the ground.
Pilot reportedly walked away.
Very strong Grumman style canopy and windshield structure on this plane.
Canopy can also be opened in flight.

Thats true and the Sierra is one of just a couple low wing Lsa's with a reinforced canopy. If they can do it and still have a decent payload ( which it does ) then other LSA manufacturers should be made to as well.

The LSA movement is all about bringing in brand new pilots and many of these planes will be used mainly for training. Seeing how these planes are so much lighter than a PP trainer like a Skyhawk, and weigh nearly half as much, they will get blown around more and the potential for a flipover is there.

The combination of green pilots and AC very light on their feet is potentially a tricky one and thats why I mentioned low wing LSAs in particular could benefit from some inexpensive safety improvements - starting with canopy reinforcements and roll bars.

I hope the avaition world is proactive and makes these changes before serious accidents happen and it doesn't take the lawyers to wake the industry up.

[LightSportFlyer]

Its ironic, the FAA requires us to learn many safety procedures in our training, pass a written test and a checkride, yet won't raise the weight limit high enough for even basic safety features to be added to these planes.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this. If you end up upside down, its probably due to your own fault. I can think of very few ways to get an airplane upside down on the ground, without it being the pilot's own fault.

And again, if you don't like them, fly something else.

Hmmm, power loss on take off with a forced landing perpendicular into the rows of a plowed field. And even if the situation was the pilots fault doesn't he still deserve the best shot possible at surviving ?

I do like alot of these unprotected LSAs and want to fly them, but not without these kinds of obvious safety features.

[Super Cub]

I feel that Piper buying into CSA is big. Dan Johnson's site is saying that Piper hasn't confirmed the deal. The Sportcruiser has been a hard LSA to sell for several years now due to bankruptcy rumors. It's a well built plane that flies really nice. Thursday morning at Sebring will tell the story when the new PIPER SPORTCRUISER is unveiled.

[KSCessnaDriver]

Hmmm, power loss on take off with a forced landing perpendicular into the rows of a plowed field. And even if the situation was the pilots fault doesn't he still deserve the best shot possible at surviving ?

I do like alot of these unprotected LSAs and want to fly them, but not without these kinds of obvious safety features.

What "obvious" safety features would you like to see on these unprotected planes, and what kind of useful load are you willing to loose in order to install them? Secondly, what all planes are on your list of unprotected planes?

[LightSportFlyer]

Hmmm, power loss on take off with a forced landing perpendicular into the rows of a plowed field. And even if the situation was the pilots fault doesn't he still deserve the best shot possible at surviving ?

I do like alot of these unprotected LSAs and want to fly them, but not without these kinds of obvious safety features.

What "obvious" safety features would you like to see on these unprotected planes, and what kind of useful load are you willing to loose in order to install them? Secondly, what all planes are on your list of unprotected planes?

Changing the foward opening canopy, thought I made that clear already. If the weight limits can't be changed then one way to work around adding weight is to carry less fuel, not that attractive an alternative.

Just shows how this whole lsa concept wasn't thought through as much as it could of been. Like I said it was meant to be done fast on the cheap and micro lights were already in production in Europe - apparently they were the first choice.

My list of unprotected planes obviously includes low wing lsa's with forward opening canopies and no rollover protection like the Sting, Falcon, etc - just open your mind and look around.

In your car do you feel its safety features so infringe on your ability to enjoy the ride that you cut out the seat belts, headrests, airbags, antilock brakes, and crumple zones built in that have saved hundreds of thousands of lives over the decades since the automakers were required to install them ?

[KSCessnaDriver]

Changing the foward opening canopy, thought I made that clear already. If the weight limits can't be changed then one way to work around adding weight is to carry less fuel, not that attractive an alternative.

Fair enough. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Just shows how this whole lsa concept wasn't thought through as much as it could of been. Like I said it was meant to be done fast on the cheap and micro lights were already in production in Europe - apparently they were the first choice.

Again, the LSA standards and sport pilot certificate were not designed to build new airplanes. They were designed to bring a very large segment of previously unregulated Part 103 ultralights, which didn't actually meet the Part 103 requirements. You should feel fortunate that the weight cutoff is 1,320 pounds. It was originally going to be 1,232 pounds, but there was enough protest in the name of safety to bump it up the 1,320. The weight won't be moved again, there will be too many companies against it. It wouldn't surprise me to see more regulation of Sport Pilots come in the future, along with the possibility of requiring some form of medical certification beyond what we have today. But I digress.

My list of unprotected planes obviously includes low wing lsa's with forward opening canopies and no rollover protection like the Sting, Falcon, etc - just open your mind and look around.
In your car do you feel its safety features so infringe on your ability to enjoy the ride that you cut out the seat belts, headrests, airbags, antilock brakes, and crumple zones built in that have saved hundreds of thousands of lives over the decades since the automakers were required to install them ?

Sure, they help with safety. But your comparing apples to oranges again. I haven't seen an S-LSA out there that doesn't have seatbelts. I look at it this way. The odds of being in a crash are fairly low. Couple those odds, with the odds of having the aircraft end up in a rollover that isn't instantly fatal, due to impact forces, and I don't think the odds are high enough to make it worth putting the feature there. But, that's just me

[dstclair]

I really hate to take the bait but....

I'm guessing that the DA-20 is deathtrap as well. I know its a rear-opening canopy but the same roll-over situation would apply. The DA-20 is also a primary trainer. Can't see how the insurance companies would allow Diamond to produce these or the FAA to approve them....

And remember, there is no weight restriction for the DA-20, other than manufacturer design goals.

Also, the Sting's cockpit is reinforced for roll-over protection.

You can also get the Amsafe airbags for most LSAs for added safety.

With the canopy style aircraft, roll-over is a risk to exiting the aircraft. Each pilot can make their decision on whether the risk is signficant to them. Other aircraft designs have their risks as well. Pick the one(s) that work for you.

In LightSportFlyers case, I don't think there is a design that provides the safety margin he wants.