Our October 2018 e-Newsletter asked the following question:
[b]Do you think the weight limit for light sport aircraft should be raised from the current 1,320 pounds to 3,600 pounds?
Here are the results:[/b]
Yes: 79%
No: 21%
Here are the additional comments:
• 2000 lb maximum
• Good idea.
• FAA rules on recreational pilots and aircraft is too restrictive, thus causing prices of new avionics to be too high to afford. All aspects of recreational aircraft have to loosen up.
• LSA was created to ease the way to flying by requiring much less training. Without that additional training a pilot could get into a lot of trouble with a larger aircraft.
• Safety is compromised as now. Builders left out many safety features to stay within the limits.
• 2,400 pounds, 3,000 pounds, or something. For simple (not-retractable, non-turbo, etc.) aircraft. I think the 150-mph (or 150-knots) figure makes sense too.
• Seems the new weight is more than most current certified aircraft.
• And allow sport pilots to fly them
• It only makes sense!!!! It’s about time.
• If that would classify many SEL aircraft as LSA then Pipers and Cessnas could be flown without a medical. Why bother with BasicMed?
• It means more people will be flying with more options of less expensive (older) aircraft. Unless you’re a current LSA manufacturer, this should be a good thing.
• 3,600 pound aircraft could be complex and require significant training.
• The current 1,320 is too close to the ultralight MTOW, which is just increasing to around 1,200 pounds (600 kg, European rules)
• On the surface yes, but I do not know what the trailing repercussions for the markets will be. Will the older airplanes suddenly have new life, and value? Will some of the current LSA’s get beefed up and gain more power and utility? In the long run I hope it will allow more people to gain access to the world of flying.
• A Cessna 150/152, Piper Tomahawk yes but not a Cessna 172 or a Piper Warrior
• Maybe should be high enough weight to ensure C-150/152s are included, and similar aircraft, but raising it to 3,600 is going to blur the lines between Light Sport Pilot and Private Pilot.
Also need to increase to 4-6 pilots/passengers & increase cruise speed to 170 Kts.
3,600 may be a bit high, but probably OK. There are a lot of great older airplanes that are just over the current limit, and that would make them usable. The 1,320 lb limit came from Europe. It may work for them, but why should we be stuck with it? After all, the USA has more airplanes and operations than the rest of the world combined. Let’s set our own rules as we see fit.
• 1800 lbs
• This puts it in the class of a Beech Bonanza carrying six passengers. This is a serious airplane and should have a higher standard.
• I think it would make the aircraft something other than light sport.
• Yes, if you want to save GA.
• It would be a huge boost to the GA industry development in addition to being able to build a safer aircraft in the light sport segment.
• I do not understand the rule in the first place. Can I fly at night? Can I carry more than one passenger? Can I fly into and out of class C airspace? Can I fly a complex airplane? If I am a private pilot flying under Light Sport, why can I not exercise these privileges? If they don’t fix the rule, then how many 3,600 pound untralites can you find?!
• Consistent with the philosophy of Basic Med: it makes flying more available and affordable so more people can enjoy it.
• This new limitation should include all legacy aircraft.
• I’ve been in this business 40 years and have seen what happens when you give inexperienced people the “permission” to work on their own airplanes. Granted, some are excellent, but I’ve certainly seen boneheaded things done even by experts. The weight increase doesn’t bother me, just what it will lead to.
• Yes raise it but to only like 2,400 lbs, 4-seater types.
• It is critical to the future of GA to make aircraft affordable and useful (e.g., able to carry some luggage and a passenger or two). The community is dying due to exorbitant prices and unrealistic regulations.
