light sport IFR

[KSCessnaDriver]

The word coming from the ASTM meetings is that they are going to require a placard for all light sport aircraft to say "Flight in IMC Prohibitted". At present there are no ASTM standards for IFR certification of a light sport aircraft, so the manufactures have no standards to build the aircraft for IFR use. If the ASTM had not done this the FAA most likely would have written a regulation to control this, taking away the ability to file IFR in VMC conditions. By taking this measure it still leaves the chance for ASTM to come up with standards, which I hear will happen. It is just a matter of when. Tom

My problem is this: The new standards shouldn't apply to anything that has already proven compliance with the standards. You can't take a plane that was built in 2007, under the standards at that point, and force it to comply with new standards created in 2010. There are many, many planes out there today that don't comply with 14 CFR 23, but yet they are still flown. All that is required is compliance with the regulations at the time of certification.

My problem is the fact that they seem to be trying to force new standards on already compliant airplanes.

[3Dreaming]

Remember if operating as a sport pilot there is NO special VFR. I know you fly other aircraft as well. I think Special VFR is just that VFR, and not light IMC. Tom

I hope the wording is such so as to still allow Special VFR.

IOW, when the visibility in Class D airspace is below 3 miles and or the ceiling is less than 1,000', that might be construed as "IMC", at least for that airspace.

Here's hoping the new regs make things simpler, not more complicated!

[tadel001]

Just to clarify a few things:

1) ASTM's proposal for a placard will have no effect on aircraft certified by the FAA before this proposed standard becomes effective. In other words, if you are IFR now, you will still be IFR.

2) The committee is looking for problems. The FAA is not going to issue a regulation right now that says S-LSA can't be flown in IFR. First, they would likely need to go through the proposed rule making unless they were basically declaring this an emergency. That isn't going to happen.

3) The lack of an IFR standard by ASTM is ego and turf war driven. The standard is not difficult. Whether the members of the committee who may have something to lose or gain will vote for it, depends on their interest.

4) As for Special VFR, a properly rated pilot can fly an LSA in Special VFR. That will still be possible under the proposed IMC Prohibition. IMC is not non-VFR (If that makes sense). The limitations on what the aircraft can do (or cannot do) are established at the time the aircraft is given an airworthiness certification. It either says Day VFR, Day/Night VFR, Day/Night IFR or IFR. It all depends on what the person seeking the airworthiness certificate from the DAR asked for and what the DAR gave. Keep in mind the FAA does not have to certify according to the ASTM standards. They could choose to ignore what ASTM says and go another direction.

[garyo1939]

The way I understand it the IFR prohibitted is a stop gap to keep the FAA from doing it for us. They are still working on the standards. An old LSA if brought up to the current standards should be OK I would think.

What IFR prohibited? There is nothing that specifically prohibits IFR flight currently, unless I missed something. The problem is getting the manufacture to write the manual's to allow for IFR flight.

Most importantly is the fact that Rotax does not allow IFR flight with it's engine unless it is the $15,000 more certifed one they sell as well. Then the manufacuter would have to give his blessing as well as the equipment manufactuers for the cockpit. Then of course you would have a PP license IFR certified and a current medical to fly it. Did I mess up or forget anything?

[tadel001]

LSAs with that have already been issued an airworthiness certificate that permits IFR flight are grandfathered in since they airworthiness has been issued (remember that is aircraft specific, not model specific). A sport pilot can fly an IFR LSA in compliance with the SP rule. However, the added benefit is that a IFR pilot can also fly the LSA in IFR conditions. Just because its airworthiness cert permits IFR flight does not limit the ability of an SP to fly it.

[znurtdog]

BUMP... Any more news related to ASTM, IFR and LSA? It's my understanding that it is the MFG that decides IFR yay or nay. Even for the engine, once installed by the MFG it's their baby now..

[Fleming Aviation]

It's my understanding that an ASTM committee addressed this at Sun-n-Fun. I heard the same thing, it's up to the MFG, but don't have anything official.

[Jack Tyler]

Interesting discussion. And the topic strikes me as a very small tail wanting to wag a large dog - where is the user demand for filing and flying in the System? Clarification on how an LSA can be used for IFR training in VMC conditions is one thing. Certifying for use in IMC ('Certified for IFR flight') is quite another. Whether we imagine action being taken by the FAA and/or the ASTM Committee, to whom do we think they would be responding re: standards for flight in IMC? Aside from a very few LSA owners who might wish to have the option to remain instrument rated and file for flight in the system with his/her S-LSA, I don't see where the demand comes from. And absent a demand from customers, LSA mfgrs. won't see a compelling reason for this, insofar as I can see, as it extends their liability in other respects.

A big miss in the discussion - IMO anyway - is that an S-LSA can be reclassed as an E-LSA, in which case many regulatory handcuffs are removed, among them legal flight in IMC is possible (presuming the FARs are otherwise complied with). Yet another advantage for moving an S-LSA to the Experimental class, to the extent such genuine demand exists.

[Fleming Aviation]

For me it's simple, to give our students training for their Instrument Rating in our LSA's. While there is no regulatory requirement that we take students into IMC, I believe it is irresponsible not to do so. Currently we can do the instrument training as long as we stay VMC, but the students need to feel the clouds. For LSA manufacturers targeting the training market, this should be a consideration - to offer an airplane that can provide Sport Pilot, Private Pilot and Instrument Rating training.

Then there is also the challenge of getting the FSDO to accept Instrument Rating checkrides in an LSA but that's another discussion.

[dstclair]

I do not have anything official but I have seen a draft proposal from an S-LSA manufacturer that allows IMC provided certain conditions apply and equipment is installed. This particular manufacturer is proposing a two-tiered approach:

* Enroute - allows the plane to be flown through a layer the navigate IFR on top VMC. VFR conditions must prevail must exist and be forecast at destination.
* IMC - full IFR/IMC approach/departure/enroute

In addition to 91.205, the S-LSA will need backups of key instruments, 2 static sources, backup power, etc.

The pilot will, obviously, need to have the appropriate ratings and currency.

The enroute approval might be enough for me to 'unlapse' my medical

Of course, there is a whole other discussion on what navigation equipment satisfies 91.205 and it is no certainty that the manufacturer will actual issue the proposal.

[AJChenMPH]

Dragging this back to the top...any more updates to this, or are we still at status quo?

I'm one of those in the minority where I'm shooting for my PPL with an instrument rating, but want a small 2-seat IFR-legal plane as my personal plane (I'll rent something if I need more seats or payload capacity), as it meets my mission requirements (primarily the Sunday afternoon joyride, the odd cross-country trip for work on my own, some personal travel with my wife or a friend, no kids, etc.). On the "certified" side, I'm only aware of the Liberty/Discovery XL-2; on the LSA side, I know Tecnam, Evektor, and AMD/Zenith have IFR-legal models. (Edit: are any of those approved for E10 use? This is getting more and more complicated...!) Any others I'm missing?

Thanks...

[Jack Tyler]

Andy, some time back I was planning to build a RV-12 which, by definition, would have been an experimental. I was planning to add the necessary VOR receiver & CDI and fly it, when it seemed to make sense from a wx perspective, in light IMC on an instrument flight plan. I reviewed the plan with the Orlando FSDO rep who specialized in experimental issues and he agreed this would be allowed in the same way that's true e.g for an RV-6. Since it's possible to change a S-LSA as an E-LSA, I wonder if this couldn't apply to any S-LSA. Of course, whether it is a 'good' choice is another matter.

[CTLSi]

......

[drseti]

To fly under an IFR flight plan or fly in IMC the PIC must be a PP with an IR.

That, and a current medical, of course. (Not that I can figure out why a lapsed medical certificate would make my IFR skills suddenly evaporate... But there never was any logic to the 3rd Class medical requirements!)

[drseti]

I plan to upgrade my radio to a Garmin navcom and train in non IMC in my CTLSi

Good plan. I put an SL30 with a nav antenna and CDI in my SportStar, which makes it a good IFR in VMC training package. An LoA is required, of course.