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

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

<*> 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/