Possible LSA weight exemption on certian legacy aircraft?

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:26 pm

3-333 wrote:As for deposit financed development what are your thoughts?

IMHO, when a company is involved in IR&D (independent research and development), those efforts should be financed by the investors, not the customers. As it stands with most aviation efforts, the customers end up being the investors (often without realizing it). Problem is, those customers don't acquire an equity stake in the company, only the potential liability. That's not my idea of the way to run a company!

I've been involved in four start-ups. None was consumer-financed, although one was, in a way, customer-financed. (The customer was NASA, and the start-up money came from SBIR grants.) My most successful venture (not my current flight school, that's for sure!) boot-strapped itself with entry-level products, developed out of pocket while I held a day job, until I had acquired enough capital to develop our big money product line -- which then paid for itself (as well as paying for my first airplane, hangar, and private airport!) That product, for those who care, was the world's first commercial home satellite TV receiver -- my claim to fame and fortune. But fame is fleeting, and the fortune is all spent! Of course, that was in a different economy, in a different location (Silicon Valley), at a different time (the boom years of the 1970s). I'm not so certain that approach is possible anymore -- quite a pity, actually.

My only venture in the aviation industry was my flight school, and its business plan is summarized in this flowchart:
http://avsport.org/graphics/flight_school.pdf
which is hardly the way Icon (or any aircraft manufacturer, for that matter) approaches things.

3-333 · Post by **3-333** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 4:53 pm

I LOVE the flow chart!! Everybody should read it!

dstclair · Post by **dstclair** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:30 pm

I admit this is probably non-productive but I can't resist....

In regards to US products, keep in mind that BRP (the maker of Rotax) is 50% owned by Bain Capital (yes, THAT Bain Capital and is Boston-based), 35% owned by the Bombdier family (Canadian) and 15% by a Quebec-based pension fund. Yes, the product is made in Austria but the profits go to the US and Canada.

So is the Rotax engine US or foreign? Don't answer, please!

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:37 pm

dstclair wrote:50% owned by Bain Capital

That's scary, Dave. It means BRP could theoretically be broken up, and the pieces sold off. So, Rotax could end up being owned by... just about anybody!

fredg · Post by **fredg** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:52 pm

"It means BRP could theoretically be broken up"

Paul, this is true for many companies, one way or another. I think the good news is that, as long as they make a product people want to buy and they can sell it at a profit, they are worth more together than broken up.

Since I own a Rotax engine, I'm hoping they stay solvent.
Fred

dstclair · Post by **dstclair** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:06 pm

drseti wrote:
dstclair wrote:50% owned by Bain Capital
That's scary, Dave. It means BRP could theoretically be broken up, and the pieces sold off. So, Rotax could end up being owned by... just about anybody!

Certainly a possibility. Keep in mind BRP was a spin-off from the mothership (Bombadier) and generated some serious $$$ for the 3 owners. Would be perfectly logical for Bain to further repackage their 50% if the ROI dips below investor expectation.

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:04 pm

deltafox wrote:you reminded me very much of "I'm going to stop this car right now if....!"

Actually, it's "OK, kids, don't make me pull this forum over!"

dstclair · Post by **dstclair** » Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:10 pm

Continuing off topic. Bain has a history of holding onto profitable investments for quite awhile like Staples, Dominoes, Burger King and many other US well-known brands. They've held BRP for nearly ten years (so far).

dstclair · Post by **dstclair** » Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:41 pm

Back on topic -- sort of.

Was speaking with someone very close to both the FAA and ASTM. The topic of MTOW came up (for S-LSA, in general) and this person mentioned that the FAA had no fundamental issues with increasing MTOW for defined safety equipment; but the FAA has no interest in determining what this equipment or weight allowances should be in the LSA area. ASTM would need to define what that would be (chutes, air bag seat belts, etc.). Of course, this will take "two years or more" for the ASTM to produce a standard.

I have no speculation if the safety equipment would include the A5 wing design (or anything else for that matter)

Jack Tyler · Post by **Jack Tyler** » Thu Aug 23, 2012 8:39 am

That comment - that the FAA has no direct interest in issues related to LSA standards - makes sense. They have agreed to let ASTM establish and then maintain adjustments to the LSA-related standards. The FAA is solely in the role of reviewing and accepting what is proposed. Slipping into the kitchen to contribute to what 'should' be proposed is like touching the Tarbaby. The FAA would not want to 'own' the LSA standards which it did not have an exclusive hand in developing. To say issues like MTOW increases for safety 'equipment' lies in the ASTM's hands is to restate what we already know to be true. But there's a fly in the soup (staying with the kitchen analogy for a moment)...

Most of us are not aware of how ASTM standards are evaluated and modified as they relate to LSA a/c. More specifically, how difficult they are to modify. There are ~250 volunteer members of the F37 Technical Committee which holds responsibility for all the LSA-related standards (design, manufacturing, quality systems, etc.) As a rule, they meet bi-annually and only a minority of these members actually attend. Any proposal to modify any standard must meet with 100% acceptance by the Committee. A single negative 'vote' (comment) on a proposal must be worked through a review process by the full Committee to either reach resolution or to accept the proposal despite the negative comment by that one committee member.

This is not an administrative/technical 'system' which is designed to be immediately flexible and responsive to innovation, it seems to me.

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:59 am

Jack Tyler wrote:This is not an administrative/technical 'system' which is designed to be immediately flexible and responsive to innovation, it seems to me.

True, and probably a good thing. Like our federal government, the system has lots of built-in inertia, which protects us all from frequent and frivolous changes. It takes quite a while to turn the locomotive around. In the political arena, the result is that no one administration can do serious, irreparable damage. In the ASTM context, it means we can have confidence that rules will not change abruptly, instantly negating today's business decisions. Think of this as the same kind of inherent stability which we like to see built into our airplanes!

jnmeade · Post by **jnmeade** » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:13 am

drseti wrote:
Jack Tyler wrote:This is not an administrative/technical 'system' which is designed to be immediately flexible and responsive to innovation, it seems to me.
True, and probably a good thing. Like our federal government, the system has lots of built-in inertia, which protects us all from frequent and frivolous changes. It takes quite a while to turn the locomotive around. In the political arena, the result is that no one administration can do serious, irreparable damage. In the ASTM context, it means we can have confidence that rules will not change abruptly, instantly negating today's business decisions. Think of this as the same kind of inherent stability which we like to see built into our airplanes!

Huh? The tectonic simile is that we resist stress until we get an earthquake. Government changes by revolution (the Chinese model).
If somebody has a better idea, let's implement it today. Too bad for people who made decisions based on bad data. Let them adapt or die.
The very thinking being espoused has us holding on to the need for Class III medicals for people flying small GA planes recreationally.
As soon as we had the avionics to control them, we built airplanes that are inherently unstable because of the benefits.
Fewer and broader regulations.
But will we get it? Ask about integrating UAS in the national airspace and you'll hear all about fewer and broader regulations.

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:09 am

I'm certainly not opposed to fewer and broader regulations, Jim. But, I'm in favor of a measured, systematic approach, rather than abrupt and chaotic change-for-the-sake-of-change. I do believe the ASTM approach strikes a reasonable balance.

drseti · Post by **drseti** » Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:25 am

3Dreaming wrote:I think Icon may have some competition. Take a look at the Akoya from Lisa Airplanes. They have a really nice looking airplane.

Had, Tom. This is from today's AOPA eBrief:

French aircraft builder Lisa Airplanes, which showcased its luxury amphibious Akoya light sport aircraft at EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wis., in July, has entered court-supervised receivership after investors failed to fulfill a financing commitment, the company said in a news release.

3Dreaming · Post by **3Dreaming** » Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:46 pm

drseti wrote:
3Dreaming wrote:I think Icon may have some competition. Take a look at the Akoya from Lisa Airplanes. They have a really nice looking airplane.
Had, Tom. This is from today's AOPA eBrief:

French aircraft builder Lisa Airplanes, which showcased its luxury amphibious Akoya light sport aircraft at EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wis., in July, has entered court-supervised receivership after investors failed to fulfill a financing commitment, the company said in a news release.

I was sorry to hear that. If you look a little farther into the press release it may not be as bad as the little clip you quoted. I hope they get their financing lined out. It really looks like a nice airplane.