Piper LSA?

[LightSportFlyer]

Isn't it interesting how certified low wing GA planes like Beechcraft, Cessna's low wing Corvalis, all the Cirrus models, Mooney, and Piper - NOT ONE of them has a forward opening canopy. And probably for the very reasons I've described, evidently the LSA pilots aren't entitled to the same protection.

None of which were designed with a specific weight limit in mind. Most of which were designed tens of years ago. Even the Columbia/Cessna 400/Corvalis is approaching 15 years old. The Beechcraft/Mooney/Piper lines are all more than 30 years old. Lots has changed since then. Is it fair to compare a weight limited airplane designed under the ASTM design standards to those designed under CFR14-23 or ever older CAR-3 standards? Probably not

Yup, its all the sue for anything and everything mentality. Its that mentality that brings people to think they have to have a solution for each and every possible situation, no matter how unlikely they are. If we could get away from that mentality, through tort reform, we could significantly lower the costs of airplane and many other items sold today. But, we would rather spend the money to put somewhat useless items on an airplane and buy insurance to protect against lawsuits. While GARA tried to help in this way, it still probably hasn't gone far enough to protect liabilities of builders/designers.

Point taken about GA planes having been around longer than LSAs. Its too bad all that safety learned over the years in the GA world couldn't of been applied to the LSA concept at the very beginning - it would of made them so much better.

But like I said earlier I believe the powers to be wanted to stimulate GA fast and on the cheap and importing micro lights from Europe fit the bill.

As for tort reform being the answer to lowering the cost of everything we buy, sorry but NO WAY will I ever agree with that in aviation or anything else. Having had a family member be the victim of medical malpractice and watching her die a slow and horrible death I will never be convinced that not holding someone fully accountable for their actions, or in aviation for the products they manufacture, will somehow motivate them to provide superior service and products.

That will only make the situation worse as corporations will now realize they can put more money in their pocket and get away with it too.

We can keep debating this forever but I think the trend is moving in the right direction. Some LSA manufacturers, like # 3 Tecnam, fortunately see such safety as worth it and already have designed rollover protection into their low wing LSAs.

No matter what you or I think all its going to take is just ONE bad rollover accident with serious injury or death and like I said - the lawyers will be all over this and the LSA manufactures will finally be forced to comply. It happened in the auto industry and it'll happen with LSAs too, its just a matter of time.

[pequeajim]

LightSportFlyer:

With all due respect, count the number of people agreeing with you, and the number that disagree. That should give you a hint as to if you should hijack a thread and continue argue with those who were discussing another topic?

I don't believe you are trolling, but people with a lesser constitution might accuse you of it.

Kind regards
Jim!

[LightSportFlyer]

LightSportFlyer:

With all due respect, count the number of people agreeing with you, and the number that disagree. That should give you a hint as to if you should hijack a thread and continue argue with those who were discussing another topic?

I don't believe you are trolling, but people with a lesser constitution might accuse you of it.

Kind regards
Jim!

I made a simple point about something that obviously needs improvement - someone else chose to made an arguement out of it. I am not here to try and "convince" your kind of anything, you obviously have your mind already made up.

How terrible of me trying to improve a product and save people's lives.

Kindest regards to you as well Jim !

[Mark Gregor]

There has been talk that light sport manurfacturers may get an increased MTOW if they install certain safety features.

For example a parachute allows a 75lb MTOW increase.
Incorporated and approved cabin safety structure xxlb. increase.

This could be applied to many possibilities.
What do you all think of this idea?

Jake

[Pawlander]

There has been talk that light sport manurfacturers may get an increased MTOW if they install certain safety features.

For example a parachute allows a 75lb MTOW increase.
Incorporated and approved cabin safety structure xxlb. increase.

This could be applied to many possibilities.
What do you all think of this idea?

Jake

I think you will find there is no discussion of this at the FAA. They are just at the conclusion of a year-long NPRM and the new rules will be released shortly. A synopsis of those new rules has been posted elsewhere on this board. None of the proposals - those being adopted and those that were dropped - included a consideration of increasing MTOW.

People who were involved in working with the FAA when the light sport rules were adopted have said the rationale the FAA used to expand the MTOW to 1,320 was to allow for installation of BRS systems. Not likely that excuse can be used again.

[KSCessnaDriver]

People who were involved in working with the FAA when the light sport rules were adopted have said the rationale the FAA used to expand the MTOW to 1,320 was to allow for installation of BRS systems. Not likely that excuse can be used again.

Yup. And, now that there are tons of company's out there that have made airplanes that fit the current standards, you have a whole bunch more people against changing the MTOW limits. If it changes, they essentially get to redesign an airplane, and end up trashing the consumer value of the airplanes they have already made, neither of which a company is going to want to do.

[Mark Gregor]

I do not dissagree with the above posts. It would not be fair to the current manufacturers sustantially change the rules at this point.

But dont you think many of the current light sports could easily handle a small additional weight for safety enhancements?
This would also give manufacturers an incentive to develop additional safety enhancements for thier current or new designs. What could be bad about that?

Many are flying at higher weights in other countries already.
Several are developing floats for which are allowed additional take off weight.

I have no idea if there is any real substance to this but Im not seeing any real dissadvantages. Im sure some of you with more experience have more to add that I have not thaught of.

Jake

[LightSportFlyer]

Your comments are right on Jake. IMO the current light sport weight limit got very close to getting it just right but unfortunately fell just about 100 lbs or so short. Increasing it by that small amount would of allowed the manufacturers to use traditional aircraft engines, like the O-200 or IO-233 that weigh only about 50 lbs more than a Rotax and we wouldn't have to worry about them adversly affecting payload. Plus they have a much wider service network than the Rotax, still a drawback after 5 years being on the market.

The other 50 lbs could of been used to add additional safety features as you noted. Its funny you can increase the weigh for an LSA with floats but can't use the extra weight to add additional safety features in a regular LSA.

They came so close to really getting it perfect.

[FastEddieB]

Back to the canopy thing...

...just think of the cars on the road that have "forward opening" hoods.

Do they routinely fly open on their own?

No, because there's a secondary latch.

I think any plane that has a canopy or even a door that could become problematical if opened in flight should have a secondary latch to avoid disaster.

I've posted elsewhere about the drama that can ensue when a Sky Arrow canopy is not latched properly. A secondary latch would have been a nice safety feature in that case.

[dstclair]

I've had a latch come open in flight myself on my Sting S3 but fortunately I've got 3 latches: one on top and one each on the sides. The copilot side popped open twice. There was a noticeable sound when it unlatched but the canopy was still well secured. It was easily relatched.

After the second time, I talked with the distibutor and did some investigating. The latch itself has a small nook that looked fine to the eye but obiously wasn't holding. I spent five minutes with a round file to deepen the nook just a bit and no issues for the last 18 months.

[rsteele]

I've personally had a car hood fly open at about 30MPH. Scared the **** out of me, but I was able to pull over without incident. Bent the hood a bit though.

I'm aware of a couple of instances of the forward opening canopies of 601's opening in flight. The latch has been redesigned a couple of times. I think part of the issue is you just can't make those bubbles thick enough to be rigid without adding a lot of weight. Because they are thin, they move around a lot in the catches which make it hard to insure they are closed properly. Some people use third safely latch, a good idea in my book.

I know one guy couldn't maintain altitude with the canopy open. It goes up to 30+ degrees from horizontal and causes a LOT of drag. This guy landed in a field with damage to himself and plane. All the others AFAIK, were able to land in a controlled manner at airports. The upward force on these unlatched canopies is enormous. There's no hope of closing one in flight.

Ron