Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Cessna SkyCatcher completes ASTM complia...

I'd certainly disagree with that statement. I presume from your
statement that your idea of "direction of what LSA were meant to be in"
is the fun barn-yard flying. That is one direction of aviation that LSA
was supposed to go but you are forgetting that LSAs were also meant to
bring more people into aviation by making flying more affordable. The
fact is that most people who have time and money to fly live in urban
areas and fly out of rather urban airports where trikes and PPCs are
aren't particularly practical. The type of flying that is done by urban
pilots often lends itself to wishing to add on the privileges of a PPL,
especially instrument privileges. To lower the cost of flying, this
type of pilot will need an alternative trainer at the local FBO which is
increasingly is using extremely expensive G1000 Cessna 172s. If you are
going to replace these planes with another plane that fits the same
training niche, the plane needs to be capable of doing same type of
training, including instrument training. Otherwise, adding and LSA
means adding a additional specialized plane that your school may not be
able to afford. To be practical for the school, the plane needs to be a
direct replacement of a current aircraft for the purposes of training. IMHO

Helen

Abid Farooqui wrote:
> Because it takes you completely diametrically in the opposite direction of what LSA were meant to be in.
> I can assure you that many in FAA share my opinion and so does NTSB from the looks of it. This trend is the proverbial we are shooting ourselves in the foot strategy. We just don't know it yet.
> This is just my opinion and my prediction, don't take it as gospel. I am just a normal run of the mill guy here.
> Abid
>
> --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, Jay Maynard <jmaynard@...> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 02:33:16AM -0000, Abid Farooqui wrote:
>>
>>> I think its extremely foolish for us to take LSA and go in this IFR
>>> direction. I know some manufacturers want to but if you want that fly a
>>> Part 23. There is no reason to jump ASTM standards into replacing Part 23
>>> or JAR. I believe this whole direction will eventually come to its logical
>>> demise.
>>>
>> Why? Why should an LSA not be as capable as a part 23 airplane? My Zodiac
>> certainly is.
>>
>> I get a lot of folks saying that we shouldn't expect LSAs, or experimentals,
>> to be held to the same safety standards, or have the same capabilities, as a
>> Part 23 airplane. That makes no sense to me. If they're not as capable as a
>> Part 23 airplane, then they'll always be second-class citizens, and THAT
>> will do more damage to the LSA concept (or the experimental concept) than
>> anything else.
>> --
>> Jay Maynard, K5ZC, PP-ASEL, CFI-SP http://www.conmicro.com
>> http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
>> Fairmont, MN (KFRM) (Yes, that's me!)
>> AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC http://www.tronguy.net/N55ZC.shtml
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/