LSA 'Maximum Empty Weight' clarification

[jnorris]

But, this also begs the question regarding switching from SLSA certified to Experimental LSA. You can't just switch a certified airplane over to Experimental, can you do that with an SLSA??

Two points: First, you CAN switch a standard category aircraft to experimental. You just can't switch it to experimental AMATEUR-BUILT, which is what most people want to do. You can switch a standard category to experimental exhibition, experimental R&D, or a number of other purposes (non of which are as desirable as amateur-built).

Second, the regulation that allows experimental light-sport aircraft airworthiness certificates (14 CFR 21.191(i)) specifically allows a SLSA to be converted to ELSA (21.191(i)(3)). The primary purpose of this rule is to allow "orphaned" aircraft (ones for which a manufacturer no longer exists exists for continued airworthiness in accordance with 21.190 and 91.327) to be operated.

 

[StewartB]

Joe,

Good info, as usual. Thank you.

Stewart

 

[Steve Pierce]

OK, now that I got some sleep I reread all the posts on this thread and the one I linked. Sorry for my ignorance. I thought there were two different formulas being used to figure the maximum empty weight of a two place 100 hp S-LSA. I see that is not the case.

 

[Steve Pierce]

dskseller, Have you talked to anyone at Legend about your airplane? I know Darren, Tim and Pat and they are always easy to get a hold of for me. Also is your Airworthiness Certificate signed by the MIDO?

 

[WWhunter]

Just curious.....how much of this BS could have been avoided if they would have just included basic 4-seaters in the no medical needed category. Ie...172, Cherokee 140 etc..
I personally think it would have made life much easier for everyone.

 

[mvivion]

Joe,

I'm aware of the standard category limitations on switching to Ex, and am aware you can go to Exp Flight Test (for a while) or Exp exhibition from std. category. You can go Restricted category as well, but these aren't practical changes for most folks.

But, you did answer my question, which should have been worded "Are the rules regarding switching categories different for LSA?" Sorry I wasn't clearer with my question.

MTV

 

[Steve Pierce]

My understanding is if the type certificate holder goes under and the TC is no longer supported then all those airplanes from that manufacturer goes E-LSA.

 

[behindpropellers]

My understanding is if the type certificate holder goes under and the TC is no longer supported then all those airplanes from that manufacturer goes E-LSA.

So if Legend goes under and the TC is not sold/transferred, your airplane becomes experimental?

 

[Steve Pierce]

Yep, that was the answer I got when I asked the guy that works for the EAA and handles LSA stuff that I met at Sun & Fun this past year what was going to happen in a few years when most of these LSA manufacturers go belly up. He said the FAA wrote that in the LSA rules because they didn't want to have to deal with orphaned airplanes like ours.

 

[jnorris]

So if Legend goes under and the TC is not sold/transferred, your airplane becomes experimental?

There are no type certificates for SLSA. These are not TCed aircraft. They do not hold standard airworthiness certificates. They hold special airworthiness certificates in the Light Sport category (Ref: 14 CFR 21.190)

If the manufacturer goes belly-up, the rules allow for another entity to take over the continued airworthiness support for the aircraft. This "person acceptable to the FAA" would then take over where the manufacturer left off and the aircraft could remain in the light-sport category. But if no entity steps forward to take over the continued airworthiness support for the aircraft then it could no longer be operated in accordance with 21.190 and 91.327. Thus it would either be grounded or would have to be switched to ELSA.

 

[dskseller]

S-LSA vs. E-LSA

bought an S-LSA, not interested in E-LSA - too much unknowns, especially resale....getting more angry by the minute...

 

[StewartB]

Joe,

So what does a guy like dskseller do? You stated earlier that since an airworthiness certificate had been issued it would take an FAA action to revoke it. So this guy bought a plane with an airworthiness certificate that's valid until revoked. Is his mechanic correct in denying him a sign-off since the weight is in excess of the published rule? The weight hasn't changed since the airworthiness certificate was issued, so is a mechanic correct by denying continued airworthiness based upon an error made by a manufacturer and overlooked by the certification official?

I wonder if the manufacturer would sign it off. At this point I'd think they have a well thought out response for such an inquiry.

Stewart

 

[Steve Pierce]

dskseller, Can you answer my questions? If I spent all this money on an airplane that is supposedly not legal to fly I think I would be talking to the manufacturer rather than ranting on an internet forum. I notice you joined SC.org a few days ago. Todd Simmons, the president of Cub Crafters makes one of three posts on SC.org and it is to clarify the maximum empty weight of the S-LSA which Joe Norris with the EAA had already done and then s few posts later Doug Keller who designed the CC Sport Cub says he has heard that the Legend Cubs are overweight and then we have dskseller. I might be wrong and I hope I am but it smells like the "yellow paint and black lightening bolts" lawsuit to me.

I don't understand it if that is the case. I maintain and rebuild airplanes for a living. My friends maintain and rebuild airplanes for a living. We help each other. From what I have seen the CC Sport Cub is modern version of a Cub with modern materials and design. A very nice airplane that seems to perform well. The Legend Cub appears to me to be a J3/PA11 with a wider fuselage and 2 doors and the same technology Piper used 60 years ago which can be seen as good and bad. If the Legend is overweight and not legal this has been an interesting way of getting the word out.

 

[Richgj3]

I will add a few questions also to dskseller. First, where did you find an IA who actually knew the Light Sport Consensus Standards?

Seriously, most of them don't. Second, what is the serial # of your airplane? Where are you based? According to FAA records there are no Legend Cubs registered in IL and the ones registered in Del. Corps are not due for annual. So you must have it at another location. Or my search skills are poor, which is entirely possible. If it happens to be at Spruce Creek where there are quite a few, or another airpark, I may be able to help you find someone that can help you.

Also, I'm surprised you have not contacted the folks who sold you your airplane. They can be very helpful.

Finally, the operating limitations document in your airplane specifies what inspections must be done for Continued Airworthiness. Whatever it says is what your IA/AP should do. It does not require a recertification to Consensus Standards every year, just as a Standard Category Airplane does not require re-certification to Part 23 standards every year. What is required of a Part 23 airplane is that it be inspected in accordance with an FAA approved checklist. What S-LSA operating limitations usually say is that it must be inspected in accordance with a check list provided by the manufacturer. This is what my an IA used for my first condition inspection and the A&P used for my second one.

Now that you've had your airplane for close to a year, tell us what you think of it. What kind of flying do you like to do? Most of the other folks on this board couldn't wait to talk about their new airplanes.

Rich Giannotti (my real name)

 

[redrooster]

Good post, Rich. Kinda what I was thinking.... it was up to Legend to certify the new airplane to LSA standards. It should be up to the IA (or the holder of whatever new inspector license it is required for these S-LSA's) to inspect for airworthy condition, not to second-guess Legend & the original compliance inspector.

Rooster

 

[Sam Beckett]

I sit in thy background biting thy tonque!



Sam


8)

 

[Frank T]

OK...I'll throw this question into the mix. There is currently a CC Sport Cub listed on one of the Insurance Salvage Sales. It has damage to the fuselage, wings and a lot of other components. The disclaimer from the Insurance Co. says no repair scheme has been approved by the MFG and the aircraft will require an entire new fuselage.

I talked to someone at CC re: parts availability for the Sport Cub and was told they don't have any spares, and that their production line takes priority. I can understand that they would not have a fuselage, but I was told there were no wing parts etc. available, and that any parts required would have to be ordered and I would have to wait until their next run of parts (the fuselage might be a long wait). I was also told their engineering dept. was so overloaded that getting a repair scheme out of them was basically wishful thinking.

With this info, what was a new Sport Cub with DAMAGE, appears to have instantly become abandoned by the MFG, even though still in production.

WHY WOULD ANYONE BUY A SLSA with NO SPARES SUPPORT.

Here's a question for Joe...could this fuselage be repaired and the certification be changed to ELSA?

Frank

 

[jnorris]

Here's a question for Joe...could this fuselage be repaired and the certification be changed to ELSA?

Frank,

Yes, the aircraft could be re-certificated as ELSA under the provisions of 21.191(i)(3).

 

[jnorris]

Is his mechanic correct in denying him a sign-off since the weight is in excess of the published rule?

Stewart,

A mechanic is not required to sign off anything that he/she does not feel is "airworthy". It is this mechanic's perogative to deny his/her signature if he/she feels that there are issues that need to be addressed. An IA won't sign an annual for a TCed aircraft if he/she feels that the aircraft does not meet its type certificate. This is the same basic issue.

That being said, I have to ask the same question as someone else did; How did this mechanic know about the minimum useful load standard in the first place? It's obvious that the manufacturer AND the FAA representative who signed off the aircraft didn't know about it!! I have not talked to many mechanics who are familiar with any of the regulations that pertain to LSA, let alone the standards. It's quite a coincidence that a person who happens to own a LSA that doesn't meet the standard happens to pick one of the few mechanics in the country to happens to know about the standards! (That sounds like my luck actually!!! LOL)

At any rate, the aircraft owner's only option would be to find a different mechanic. There is nothing that would force this mechanic to sign off the aircraft if he/she is not comfortable doing so.

 

[StewartB]

Joe,

A lot more know about it now. Since the regs are defined, published, and accessible, that isn't a bad thing.

How could a manufacturer not know the standards that define the product they're selling? That's inexcusable.

Stewart

 

[jnorris]

How could a manufacturer not know the standards that define the product they're selling? That's inexcusable.

Stewart,

This whole SLSA thing is new to everybody, so there's a steep learning curve (FAA, manufacturers, DARs, everybody). I've seen some amazing things when I've gone out to do inspections on SLSAs. I went to inspect one aircraft and found that the applicant (a dealer in this case, which is often the case with these aircraft) didn't even have a copy of the standards to refer to! He had no clue whether the aircraft met the standard or not. He was relying on the manufacturer to build the aircraft in compliance, which I suppose is as it should be. But the manufacturers in many cases don't know the exact details of the standards either. Many are foreign and are not realizing that the US LSA standards aren't always the same as the standards they've been building aircraft to for their home markets.

There's lots of educating that still needs to be done.

 

[ksecub]

Hello Steve,

I appreciate you telling everyone that I designed the Sport Cub, as much as I want to say that myself, it is simply not true. I played a part as a consulting engineer to Cub Crafters, but in no way designed the whole airplane. I worked on the wing design, the loads reports, and the static test proposals. Cub Crafters has an established engineering department and I don't think they would appreciate me taking credit for all their hard work.

Secondly, I have no affiliation with dskseller. I don't know who this person is. I guess it is possible that it could be a Cub Crafters employee or representative, but I don't think so. I would like to state for the record that in all my dealings with Cub Crafters, I have been very impressed with their professionalism, attention to detail, and the company in general.

I don't think I understand your negative comments about Cub Crafters making a statemnt regarding the LSA rules. LSA rules are not well policed by the FAA and I think fourms like this are an excellent way to inform and disinform the general public. I have heard from a munber of sources that a lot of, if not all Ledgend Cubs are overweight and do not meet the LSA rules. If these allegations turn out to be true, I can't belive Cub Crafters has not done more to expolit it. If someone does not follow the rules (I have no proof that Legend Cub does not follow the rules, only rumors) then they should be held accountable for it. Just think of the reprocusions of this if it turns out to be true. Perhaps a Legend Cub owner can step in as show us his/her weigth and balacne from the factory.

Bare in mind that I have an agenda simlay by being a consultant to Cub Crafters and therefore should not be taken too seriously.

Thanks,
Doug

 

[Steve Pierce]

Doug, Thanks for setting us all straight on your role in the design of the Sport Cub. A Cub Crafter's employee told me that you designed it and that the Carbon Cub was somehow payment for the work that you did. Never accused anyone of having any affiliation with anyone, I just pointed out some things I thought odd. If the Legend Cubs don't meet the LSA rules then I am sure the hammer will fall. Will Todd continue to contribute to the forums here on supercub.org? Maybe dskseller can post his weight and balance.

 

[mvivion]

I don't know about anyone else, but this whole subject has been a real eye opener for me, even though I'm not in the market for a new SLSA.

Yet another "strange" FAA rule, that someone or nobody selectively enforces it seems.

At least, not yet.

This certainly should be a case of "Buyer Beware" for anyone considering purchasing one of these machines, and the more people who know about the certification rules, the less folks may get burned IF a manufacturer (ANY manufacturer) really is building non compliant SLSA aircraft.

MTV

 

[behindpropellers]

Two more questions:

1. If you build an ELSA does it have to conform the to ASTM standards?

2. Todd- I noticed you guys just came out with the "Sport Cub S2", were the previous sportcubs within the weight regulations?

Tim

 

[jnorris]

If you build an ELSA does it have to conform the to ASTM standards?

Tim,

The answer to your question is "maybe". If your ELSA is an existing unregistered aircraft that you're going to bring into the ELSA category before 31 January 2008 under the same rules that allow the existing ultralight trainers to be converted (21.191(i)(1)), then no it does not have to meet the consensus standard.

However, if you have bought a kit from a manufacturer who has based the kit on an existing SLSA prototype to be certificated under 21.191(i)(2), then yes it does have to meet the standards at the time of certification and you'll have to have a statement of compliance from the manufacturer (FAA Form 8130.15).

 

[bob turner]

Lemme get this straight - if you buy a Cuby from Wag Aero and put it together, it is straight experimental, and you can fly it as a sport pilot.

Same basic idea, but from Legend, and you wind up with an ELSA, and it has to be certified by Legend?

So 51% sometimes is different from 51% at other times?

Or is this the same logic that says you cannot use PMA parts in an experimental Cub.

Or did I miss the whole idea . . .

 

[willyb]

LSA Maximum Empty Weight clarification

OK I'll say it.This IS a "yellow with black lightning bolts" ploy to attack a competitor.This crap started before Oshkosh and the person or persons responsible for it should be ashamed.

They should be more ashamed for using this website in this manner.It is an insult to all the decent people out here.

I responded to this because I have had competitors in business do this kind of thing to me.It is unethical and if you chose to do business with people who will employ these tactics you will get burned.
Bill

 

[Crash]

Re: Legend in excess of 890

I have been lurking on the sidelines for a couple of years - lot's of great information gleaned from this site to date.

This issue spurred me to officially jump in.

I currently own a Legend Cub that has an empty weight in excess of 930+ lbs empty weight, and the paperwork says S-LSA and ASTM certified. Does anyone else have a Legend that has an empty weight above 890? Now what?

dskseller, It seems odd to me that Todd Simmons (President of Cub Crafters) joined the site on September 5th and you joined on September 6th with a VERY serious allegation against Cub Crafters #1 compititor, Legend Cub.

An allegation that could potentially "un-hooked" many sales for Legend Cub.

Would you please let us know a little more about yourself so we can believe you.

First, what is the N number of your Legend Cub?

Second, why did you re-weigh a new plane that came with a certified factory weight and balance sheet?

Will you post the weight and balance sheet with the certified individual who weighed it signature?

Thank you.

Crash

 

[StewartB]

Crash,

I don't see where the guy ever said he re-weighed his plane. The issue is that some planes received airworthiness certificates even though they were manufactured over the legal weight. Read the thread and you'll find an informative post by Joe Norris that explains what has happened. Legend wasn't singled-out. Dskseller provided an isolated example. For me, the link to Legend Cub is insignificant. The discussion is more theoretical and has been one of the best discussions I've seen on this site in years. Oddly, the guys who have obvious allegiance to Legend have said nothing to dispute the overweight airplane issue. Rather, they attempt to discredit CubCrafters with cheap, political-style mudslinging. Their posts have damaged my perception of Legend Cub more than anything else in this thread.

I live in a professional world that is dictated by "conforms to" and "in compliance with" language. It is my job to know the applicable standards and apply the correct products. My negligence to do so would cause great economic harm to my company. If I bid a job in compliance to the specified standards and am beat by somebody that is not in compliance? I don't sit quietly. I bet when you don't either. Like Doug Keller said, I'm surprised CC hasn't jumped all over this. Perhaps that's an indicator that Legend doesn't have a big problem at all. Regardless, the discussion has been educational and I've enjoyed Joe Norris' participation very much. To have such a resource participate on this site is the best thing this site has to offer. For those of you who want to stifle the discussion? I hope you fail.

Stewart