Thursday, July 30, 2009

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



Why is my Inbox getting stuffed with what amounts to a private interchange? C'mon guys - send each other email already.
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Cessna SkyCatcher completes ASTM complia...

 

Hi Jay,
I didn't mean to not answer your question regarding why a private IFR rated pilot should not be flying a LSA - IFR equipped
I feel I have already answered this before but I will lay out my opinion here again

1) Its completely opposite of keeping LSA simple, cheaper and safe

2) Its a way around Part 23 for manufacturers especially many European manufacturers. Its good for them mostly and very little good if any for US manufacturers who actually will get sued in US courts and will have to defend themselves. European manufacturers may be sued in the CZ Republic following CZ laws or simply sueing the dealers forn the aircraft but not the manufacturer here. Its about keeping the playing field level in liability for everyone. It doesn't matter if the pilot was legal or not, we all know that ambulance chasers will convince the families to sue as always and we know our juries hand out great (NOT) decisions in aviation accidents - case in point - Mn verdict against Cirrus (how ridiculous) and related to IMC accident btw as well. This has sent more manufacturing industry to China and overseas than most other things but we as a nation have are not awake yet

3) I am not against -training for IFR- in LSA equipped for IFR instruments for private license under supervision from a CFI to meet training demand. I am against giving more chances and -enabling- old bold medical less pilots who used to be IFR rated and IFR current at some point to fly an LSA in real IFR conditions. There has to be a bit of common sense here that has to come into play. Its also about keeping NTSB more at bay while the market develops and matures which it hasn't yet. IFR will become a contributing factor to decrease safety in LSA right this moment with NTSB waiting on the sidelines to jump in quite happily and tell us what should be cut out from our program. They have no such ambitions about Part 23 because its matured and established already.

Hope that makes some sense. I am not against avionics, instrumentation or any modern equipment. I am in fact all for it (you should see what we offer in our trikes which is more than many LSA airplanes do) but I don't think this is the time to be going to IFR for LSA as an industry yet for different reasons.
Abid

--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, "Abid Farooqui" <apollonorthamerica@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Jay,
> You are not going to convince me to get into a pissing match with you by calling what I fly fat ultralight so lets get over that because its useless and pointless. I never said it, meant it or thought it. So lets drop holier than thou shall we.
> Secondly why WSC don't get above 1100 pounds gross is because - they are WSC (Weight Shift Control) - key word being weight. I think that should be a good enough hint to clue everyone in as to why beyond a certain point its just not good to be in WSC category as we stand today. Hope that clarifies it.
> Abid
>
> --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, Jay Maynard <jmaynard@> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:42:28AM -0500, Jim Bair wrote:
> > > I hoped LSA wouldn't go the over $100,000 glass airplane route, too, but
> > > it did. The market will decide how cosmic people want to equip their
> > > planes. I have given 2 checkrides in LSAs equipped with autopilots hooked
> > > to GPSs. AArrgghhh.
> >
> > Yeah, and you thought mine was pretty nice, too. :-)
> >
> > As you say, the market will say where the LSA world goes. Yes, there are
> > indeed high-end cross-country cruisers. Legend Cub is selling lots of Sport
> > Cubs, too. People want both. Why shouldn't they be able to get it?
> >
> > Abid, the LSA world is more than just legal fat ultralights. If it wasn't,
> > then why did the FAA set the gross weight limit at 600 kilograms? How many
> > WSC or PPC aircraft come close to those weights? Why shouldn't a private
> > pilot with an instrument ticket and a medical be able to fly an LSA IFR?
> > What, exactly, is wrong with that concept? It only goes against "the spirit
> > pf LSA" if that spirit is limited to fat ultralights.
> > --
> > 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
> >
>



__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)