Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Sport Pilot Questions

 

Hi Richard/fish,
You have multiple things wrong here. Let me try and correct

For what an Exp-AB aircraft can do look at your operating limitations of that particular aircraft. Experimental aircraft in general are not allowed to fly over densely populated areas except for the purposes or taking off and landing.

Not exactly.  My ops limits allow it as long as I maintain sufficient altitude to allow for an engine failure and not hurt anyone on the ground.  (Something like that.  That's the basic verbage.  My disclaimer as to perfect accuracy..  It's the number 9 on your ops limits, I think.)

J3 can be flown by a Sport Pilot???? Since when? Is a J3 cub meet the definition of a LSA??

Yes, a basic J3 meets the SP rules.  Slow, less that 1320#, etc.

Jim

__._,_.___

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

__,_._,___

Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Sport Pilot Questions

Hi Richard/fish,
You have multiple things wrong here. Let me try and correct

For what an Exp-AB aircraft can do look at your operating limitations of that particular aircraft. Experimental aircraft in general are not allowed to fly over densely populated areas except for the purposes or taking off and landing.

J3 can be flown by a Sport Pilot???? Since when? Is a J3 cub meet the definition of a LSA?? You sure you are not thinking an LSA variant of the Cub? In any case a Part 23 certificated aircraft like a Piper can be flown over populated areas, yes. Pilot cert has not much to do there.

Regular maintenance for a S-LSA is defined in its maintenance manual. For an Exp-AB you aunt can do all your maintenance regular or otherwise. You will need a qualified person (a Repairman cert for that Exp-AB qualifies) to sign off a condition inspection every year however. Basic problem seems like you (fish) need to find the differences between an Exp-AB that meets the definition of a LSA, a Part 23 type certificated aircraft that happens to meet the definition of a LSA, an E-LSA and a S-LSA aircraft and learn those. There are better resources than me to explain all the details so I'll just leave it at that.

ELT in a S-LSA or E-LSA aircraft is only needed for "airplanes". Not PPC, not WSC. If installed ELT needs to be checked each year.

Transponder needs a check every 2 years by an avionics licensed A&P or station.

A transponder -is required- of any powered aircraft with an engine driven electrical system operating within mode C veil and within class B and C airspace of course or over (not under unless you are also in mode C veil) class C airspace.

Class D only requires radio.

Do read the FARs however because there really is no substitute, certainly not internet opinions. This is all free opinion/advise and worth what you paid for it.
Abid
http://www.evolutiontrikes.com
http://www.apollo-fox.com

--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Williams" <rkwill@...> wrote:
>
> fish,
>
> my responses are interspersed and prefixed by <rkw>
> I hope this answers your questions.
>
> R. Williams
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: "fishmaster232" <fishmaster232@...>
> To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:20:02 -0000
> Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Sport Pilot Questions
>
> >  
> >
> > Can a experimental amateur built fly over densely populated areas ?
> <rkw>
> allowed for takeoff and landing operations, the rest of the details depend on the type of aircraft
> (powered parachute, WSC, etc + S-LSA or E-LSA)  See AC 8130.2f change 5 and the NPRM signed into law (published in the federal register) late last week.
>
> >
> > Can a Sport Pilot Fly over same in like a J3 ?
>
> <rkw> see above
>
> >
> > Is there a list of "regular maintenance" A SP/Owner of the craft is allowed to perform on his plane ?
>
> <rkw>
> it does not depend on the licensing of the owner, rather on the registration of the aircraft.
> for S-LSA it depends on what the manufacture has written in the POH or similiar document.
> for E-LSA anyone can perform regular maintenance,  it does take a A&P or the '16 hour repairman/inspection course' to sign the log indicating the aircraft is again airworthy after any major maintenance, far 43 defines what is regular maintenance and what is major maintenance.
>
> >
> > Does the AP who performs the annual check your ELT and is one required for personal not for hire flights with passengers ?
>
> <rkw>
> Every two years, the ELT, if installed, has to be checked.
> Every two years, the transponder, if installed, has to be checked.
> These two items require more test equipment than the typical A&P has.
>
> Sport Pilots can not perform any 'for hire' operations.
>
> (I'm a bit vague on the following two lines)...
> any E-LSA does not require a ELT,
> S-LSA (except WSC) has to have a ELT.
>
> For any LSA that is flying in tower controlled airspace (class b,c,d), a transponder is required (unless prior arrangement is made with the specific airport).
>
> as a suggestion, you should read far 61(pilot requirements) and far 91(airspace, etc) and for maintenance questions,  far 43.
>
> The S-LSA aircraft are built under the 'concensus standards', so specifics about equipment installed, maintenance requirements, etc are governed by those standards. 
> The ASTM has the concensus standards documents available, for a price.
>
> The grandfathered E-LSA aircraft are built under no standard, so they have whatever the builder decided to install.
>
> The (kit) E-LSA aircraft are built exactly like the matching S-LSA aircraft, so are built under the 'concensus standards', but; the owner, after the aircraft is registered/airworthied, has a rather free hand on maintenance. 
>
> With any S-LSA aircraft, major maintenance does have to be inspected.
> Who can perform the maintenance, who can inspect the maintenance, what is major maintenace are all selected by the manufacture and are listed in the POH or similiar document.
>
> With any E-LSA aircraft, major maintenance does have to be inspected. 
> Either by an A&P or the owner with the 16 hour repairman/inspection class or the person with the ~120 hour repairman/maintenance class.
>
> AC 8130.2f change 5 has the final say about flying over congested areas.
> There have been so many changes happening to AC 8130.2f, that I will leave it for you to read the details.
>
> All the LSA aircraft require an annual inspection.
> Any LSA aircraft that are used for training also requries an inspection every 100 hobbs hours.
>
> The NPRM that was just signed into law late last week has the following change(s), amongst others:
> The regulations allowing the transitioning of 'fat' UL vehicles into grandfathered E-LSA aircraft are being deleted from the FARs.
>
> >
> > I know these answers are in my FAR but asking here is easier than looking all that up. :)
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Rod
>

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

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:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
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/

Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Sport Pilot Questions

On 12:29 PM 1/31/2010, Richard Williams wrote:
>for E-LSA anyone can perform regular maintenance, it does take a A&P or the '16 hour repairman/inspection course' to sign the log indicating the aircraft is again airworthy after any major maintenance, far 43 defines what is regular maintenance and what is major maintenance.

On an experimental, no A&P or repairman rating is required, for "major" maintenance (owner can sign). the ONLY time you need one of those people, is to perform the required annual condition inspection.

Remember, Part 43 does NOT apply to experimentals, with the exception of Appendix D, which is the annual condition inspection.

>Every two years, the ELT, if installed, has to be checked.

Every YEAR the ELT must be inspected (not two years)

>S-LSA (except WSC) has to have a ELT.

Only airplanes.

>For any LSA that is flying in tower controlled airspace (class b,c,d), a transponder is required (unless prior arrangement is made with the specific airport).

No transponder required for class D.

--
Bob Comperini
e-mail: bob@fly-ul.com
WWW: http://www.fly-ul.com

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

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:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
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/

Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Summay of new SP rule changes

Hi Richard,
I think the sets are gone but now you have
"The agency maintains the proposed endorsement to operate an aircraft with a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS is justified and is adopting this change"

The keyword being "aircraft" now not airplane. I will confirm this but this means trikes like P&M Quik, QuikR and our (Evolution Trikes) Revo that can reach 100 knots straight and level will require an endorsement. Will know more definite things later. This is suggested in the summary as well by Paul Hamilton.
Abid

--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Williams" <rkwill@...> wrote:
>
> Abid,
>
> As I read the federal register for the NPRM results, it seems the referenced link as a couple of errors.
>
> for instance:
> Withdrawn: Add a requirement for student pilots to obtain endorsementsidentical to those proposed for sport pilots in §61.324 (portion ofproposal 17)
>
> My understanding is that proposal is included in the final changes.
>
> Other than that, it seems to be a very good summary of the final changes to the FARs for this NPRM.
>
> Here is the relevant text from proposal 17:
> "         As stated in the preamble to the NPRM, the rule will ensure that newly
> certificated sport pilots will be able to continue to operate aircraft in which they have
> exercised pilot-in-command privileges as student pilots.
> The FAA therefore has decided to adopt the change as proposed
> with regard to those endorsements addressing VH.
> Since the FAA has decided to withdraw the proposed elliptical-wing endorsement for sport
> pilots, the agency is withdrawing the proposal to require a corresponding endorsement for
> student pilots. See discussion in III.D."
>
> Here is the relevant text from section III.D
> "The FAA does not believe that receiving training in an airplane with a VH greater
> than 87 knots CAS will adequately prepare a sport pilot to operate a low-speed, high-drag
> airplane with a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS without additional training. The
> agency maintains the proposed endorsement to operate an aircraft with a VH less than or
> equal to 87 knots CAS is justified and is adopting this change"
>
> Also of interest, and where the confusion originated is this bulleted item in section II
> "• Withdrawn: Add a requirement for student pilots to obtain endorsements
>   identical to those proposed for sport pilots in §61.324 (portion of proposal
>   17)"
>
> What was actually withdrawn is the endorsement for elliptical chutes (61.324) and the make and model endorsement.
>
> R. Williams
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: "apollonorthamerica" <apollonorthamerica@...>
> To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:20:06 -0000
> Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Summay of new SP rule changes
>
> >  
> >
> > http://beasportpilot.com/category/new-faa-rules/
> >
> > Abid
> > http://www.apollo-fox.com
>

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

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:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
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/

Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Summay of new SP rule changes

Abid,

As I read the federal register for the NPRM results, it seems the referenced link as a couple of errors.

for instance:
Withdrawn: Add a requirement for student pilots to obtain endorsements identical to those proposed for sport pilots in §61.324 (portion of proposal 17)

My understanding is that proposal is included in the final changes.

Other than that, it seems to be a very good summary of the final changes to the FARs for this NPRM.

Here is the relevant text from proposal 17:
"         As stated in the preamble to the NPRM, the rule will ensure that newly
certificated sport pilots will be able to continue to operate aircraft in which they have
exercised pilot-in-command privileges as student pilots.
The FAA therefore has decided to adopt the change as proposed
with regard to those endorsements addressing VH.
Since the FAA has decided to withdraw the proposed elliptical-wing endorsement for sport
pilots, the agency is withdrawing the proposal to require a corresponding endorsement for
student pilots. See discussion in III.D."

Here is the relevant text from section III.D
"The FAA does not believe that receiving training in an airplane with a VH greater
than 87 knots CAS will adequately prepare a sport pilot to operate a low-speed, high-drag
airplane with a VH less than or equal to 87 knots CAS without additional training. The
agency maintains the proposed endorsement to operate an aircraft with a VH less than or
equal to 87 knots CAS is justified and is adopting this change"

Also of interest, and where the confusion originated is this bulleted item in section II
"• Withdrawn: Add a requirement for student pilots to obtain endorsements
  identical to those proposed for sport pilots in §61.324 (portion of proposal
  17)"

What was actually withdrawn is the endorsement for elliptical chutes (61.324) and the make and model endorsement.

R. Williams



---------- Original Message -----------
From: "apollonorthamerica" <apollonorthamerica@yahoo.com>
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:20:06 -0000
Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Summay of new SP rule changes

>  
>
> http://beasportpilot.com/category/new-faa-rules/
>
> Abid
> http://www.apollo-fox.com

__._,_.___

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

__,_._,___

Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Sport Pilot Questions

fish,

my responses are interspersed and prefixed by <rkw>
I hope this answers your questions.

R. Williams



---------- Original Message -----------
From: "fishmaster232" <fishmaster232@live.com>
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:20:02 -0000
Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Sport Pilot Questions

>  
>
> Can a experimental amateur built fly over densely populated areas ?
<rkw>
allowed for takeoff and landing operations, the rest of the details depend on the type of aircraft
(powered parachute, WSC, etc + S-LSA or E-LSA)  See AC 8130.2f change 5 and the NPRM signed into law (published in the federal register) late last week.

>
> Can a Sport Pilot Fly over same in like a J3 ?

<rkw> see above

>
> Is there a list of "regular maintenance" A SP/Owner of the craft is allowed to perform on his plane ?

<rkw>
it does not depend on the licensing of the owner, rather on the registration of the aircraft.
for S-LSA it depends on what the manufacture has written in the POH or similiar document.
for E-LSA anyone can perform regular maintenance,  it does take a A&P or the '16 hour repairman/inspection course' to sign the log indicating the aircraft is again airworthy after any major maintenance, far 43 defines what is regular maintenance and what is major maintenance.

>
> Does the AP who performs the annual check your ELT and is one required for personal not for hire flights with passengers ?

<rkw>
Every two years, the ELT, if installed, has to be checked.
Every two years, the transponder, if installed, has to be checked.
These two items require more test equipment than the typical A&P has.

Sport Pilots can not perform any 'for hire' operations.

(I'm a bit vague on the following two lines)...
any E-LSA does not require a ELT,
S-LSA (except WSC) has to have a ELT.

For any LSA that is flying in tower controlled airspace (class b,c,d), a transponder is required (unless prior arrangement is made with the specific airport).

as a suggestion, you should read far 61(pilot requirements) and far 91(airspace, etc) and for maintenance questions,  far 43.

The S-LSA aircraft are built under the 'concensus standards', so specifics about equipment installed, maintenance requirements, etc are governed by those standards. 
The ASTM has the concensus standards documents available, for a price.

The grandfathered E-LSA aircraft are built under no standard, so they have whatever the builder decided to install.

The (kit) E-LSA aircraft are built exactly like the matching S-LSA aircraft, so are built under the 'concensus standards', but; the owner, after the aircraft is registered/airworthied, has a rather free hand on maintenance. 

With any S-LSA aircraft, major maintenance does have to be inspected.
Who can perform the maintenance, who can inspect the maintenance, what is major maintenace are all selected by the manufacture and are listed in the POH or similiar document.

With any E-LSA aircraft, major maintenance does have to be inspected. 
Either by an A&P or the owner with the 16 hour repairman/inspection class or the person with the ~120 hour repairman/maintenance class.

AC 8130.2f change 5 has the final say about flying over congested areas.
There have been so many changes happening to AC 8130.2f, that I will leave it for you to read the details.

All the LSA aircraft require an annual inspection.
Any LSA aircraft that are used for training also requries an inspection every 100 hobbs hours.

The NPRM that was just signed into law late last week has the following change(s), amongst others:
The regulations allowing the transitioning of 'fat' UL vehicles into grandfathered E-LSA aircraft are being deleted from the FARs.

>
> I know these answers are in my FAR but asking here is easier than looking all that up. :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rod

__._,_.___

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

__,_._,___

Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Open Cockpit Days at the Pueblo Weisbrod Aircraft Museum in Pueblo, CO

WHO: The Pueblo Weisbrod Aircraft Museum WHAT: is sponsoring Open Cockpit Days. Four aircraft in 2010 will be opened to the public. There is no additional cost to sit in the aircraft cockpit. The taking of pictures is encouraged. The aircraft on the schedule for Open Cockpit Days are: 13 February 2010 T-28 Trojan USAF/US Navy Trainer 15 May 2010 P-80 USAF jet fighter of the Korean War 7-8 August 2010 B-29 Superfortress World War II Bomber 14-15 August 2010 B-29 Superfortress World War II Bomber 13 November 2010 C-47 World War II transport aircraft.   WHERE: at the Pueblo Weisbrod Aircraft Museum located on the grounds of the Pueblo Memorial Airport (PUB). The museum is located 6 miles east of Pueblo Colorado on US Highway 96/US Highway 50 East. WHEN: from 10 AM to 4 PM. COST: $7 for persons aged 10 years of age and over. Active duty military admitted free with valid military ID. There is no additional cost to sit in the cockpit of the aircraft. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Aircraft on display are subject to change without notice. Call ahead if you have any questions or wish to confirm the aircraft that will be open. The museum has approximately twenty three aircraft and missiles on display with approximately half the aircraft located in a 20,000 square foot hangar. Ground breaking for an additional 20,000 square foot hangar is scheduled for February or March 2010. CONTACT INFORMATION: Contact the Pueblo Weisbrod Aircraft Museum at (719) 948-9219 or by email at service@pwam.org . Visit the museum website at www.pwam.org . Feel free to share this information with anyone you think might be interested. Jason Unwin Education Officer Pueblo Weisbrod Aircraft Museum www.pwam.org

__._,_.___

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

__,_._,___

Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Some nice triking video links

Here are some videos and award winning DVDs available about flying trikes on adventurous journeys in a trike around the world, trans-continental flights, flits in Monument valley etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXAngQtirh8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glVFOSgNBXE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3bsUJet_es

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E_KByRhi10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL5avPDde1E

(Indonesia from above)

Abid
http://www.evolutiontrikes.com

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

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:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
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/

Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Summay of new SP rule changes

Nice link.... thanks

On Jan 31, 2010, at 9:20 AM, apollonorthamerica wrote:

 

http://beasportpilot.com/category/new-faa-rules/

Abid
http://www.apollo-fox.com

__._,_.___

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

__,_._,___

Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Summay of new SP rule changes

http://beasportpilot.com/category/new-faa-rules/

Abid
http://www.apollo-fox.com

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

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:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
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/

Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Sport Pilot Questions

Thanks Bob and Jim !

--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Bair" <jimbair@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Rod, my comments inline:
> Can a experimental amateur built fly over densely populated areas ?
>
> Depends on how the ops limits are written but generally, yes. I have
> owned both exp am built and ELSAs. Both can be flown over densely populated
> areas, but with someplace to go in the event of an engine failure that I
> don't endanger people on the ground.
>
> Can a Sport Pilot Fly over same in like a J3 ?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
> Is there a list of "regular maintenance" A SP/Owner of the craft is
> allowed to preform on his plane ?
>
> Basically routine sort of stuff that doesn't affect the airframe or engine
> in a major way. Oil changes, tires, brakes, etc. Common sense sort of
> stuff. And other stuff you can do, too, but with the supervision of a
> trained mechanic. Different people will interpret it slightly differently
> depending on what they are comfortable doing. Some people can't change a
> tire on a car.
>
> Does the AP who preforms the annual check your ELT and is one required for
> personal not for hire flights with passengers ?
>
> Yes.
>
> I know these answers are in my FAR but asking here is easier than looking
> all that up. :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rod
>
>
>
> _._,_.___
>

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

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:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
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/

Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Sport Pilot Questions

Hi Rod, my comments inline:

Can a experimental amateur built fly over densely populated areas ?

Depends on how the ops limits are written but generally, yes.  I have owned both exp am built and ELSAs.  Both can be flown over densely populated areas, but with someplace to go in the event of an engine failure that I don't endanger people on the ground. 

Can a Sport Pilot Fly over same in like a J3 ?

Yes.

Is there a list of "regular maintenance" A SP/Owner of the craft is allowed to preform on his plane ?

Basically routine sort of stuff that doesn't affect the airframe or engine in a major way.  Oil changes, tires, brakes, etc.  Common sense sort of stuff.  And other stuff you can do, too, but with the supervision of a trained mechanic.  Different people will interpret it slightly differently depending on what they are comfortable doing.  Some people can't change a tire on a car.

Does the AP who preforms the annual check your ELT and is one required for personal not for hire flights with passengers ?

Yes.

I know these answers are in my FAR but asking here is easier than looking all that up. :)

Thanks,

Rod

_._,_.___

__._,_.___

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

__,_._,___

Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Sport Pilot Questions

On 05:20 AM 1/31/2010, fishmaster232 wrote:
>Can a experimental amateur built fly over densely populated areas ?

Check your op limits. The answer is generally yes.. Some early E-LSAs were given op limits that prohibit it. Those can be changed.

>Can a Sport Pilot Fly over same in like a J3 ?

With a standard category airworthiness certificate? yes.

>Is there a list of "regular maintenance" A SP/Owner of the craft is allowed to preform on his plane ?

On an experimental, you can do whatever you want. On a SLSA, the manufacturer tells you what you can do. On a standard category plane, Part 43 tells you.

>Does the AP who preforms the annual check your ELT and is one required for personal not for hire flights with passengers ?

For personal flights...an ELT and its annual check is required on all airplanes except single seat planes. The regs don't state that the annual check has to be done by anyone with a rating, although it is normally done with the annual.

--
Bob Comperini
e-mail: bob@fly-ul.com
WWW: http://www.fly-ul.com

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

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:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
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/

Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Sport Pilot Questions

Can a experimental amateur built fly over densely populated areas ?

Can a Sport Pilot Fly over same in like a J3 ?

Is there a list of "regular maintenance" A SP/Owner of the craft is allowed to preform on his plane ?

Does the AP who preforms the annual check your ELT and is one required for personal not for hire flights with passengers ?

I know these answers are in my FAR but asking here is easier than looking all that up. :)

Thanks,

Rod

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

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:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
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/

Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes

On 12:21 AM 1/30/2010, Richard Williams wrote:

>It is good that the max altitude limit is now 10k or 2k above the ground, which ever is higher, however; certain commenters gave convincing arguments that it should be anything below class A airspace, especially as rec pilots are not so limited and we are all required to have training in hypoxia, etc.

Rec pilots also have the same 10,000/2,000 limit, which is one reason the FAA probably didn't want to give SP any more than "rec" without changing Rec. Ironically, the FAA themselves PROPOSED 10,000/2,000 in their original Sport Pilot NPRM. They "removed" the 2,000 part in the final release of SP, only to bring it back again, with this change.

--
Bob Comperini
e-mail: bob@fly-ul.com
WWW: http://www.fly-ul.com

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

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:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
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/

Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes

No.  This stuff was in their regular e-news as well as their magazines.  You can find the old AOPA stories in their archives by doing a search for flight training NPRM. All over AvWeb too.  BTW, if you aren't subscribing to AvWeb, you are missing out on a lot of stuff though.  The AOPA and EAA e-news are all copy cats of AvWeb which was the original e-newspaper for pilots and the alphabet stuff is all slanted as well unlike AvWeb.  For timely, unbiased news, every pilot should be subscribing to AvWeb IMHO.

Helen

On 1/30/2010 11:14 AM, Richard Williams wrote:

Helen,

It must be your instructor status,  cause my AOPA and EAA did not see fit to inform me of those NPRMs.

R. Williams



---------- Original Message -----------
From: Helen Woods <Helen_Woods@verizon.net>
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 07:47:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes

>  
>
> I would dissagree about that.  My mailbox was full of requests to respond to the "Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School" rule, actually both of them (there was one that became final this year and another that was an NPRM this year.  I got info from AvWeb, AOPA, EAA, and a ton of requests to respond from NAFI and SAFE.
>
> Now back to the business at hand of sorting out this confusing new rule...
>
> Helen
>
> On 1/30/2010 3:21 AM, Richard Williams wrote:

Fellows,
>
> I read the results of the NPRM as published in the federal register.
>
> Most of the results were acceptable, except for two things.
>
> 1) The SP instructors (part H) are still the step children rather than being included in the GA (part K) regulations.
>
> 2) a sport pilot still has to carry around photocopies or pilot logs of all their endorsements, rather than having them included as part of the sport pilot certificate.
>
> It is good that the max altitude limit is now 10k or 2k above the ground, which ever is higher, however; certain commenters gave convincing arguments that it should be anything below class A airspace, especially as rec pilots are not so limited and we are all required to have training in hypoxia, etc.
>
> After reading it twice, i'm still not sure what the final rule is regarding time under the hood for aircraft that can fly S&L at greater than 87knots.
>
> I do think the faa/agency reasoning for their final decision on some of their proposals in the NPRM is very weak.
>
> I noticed the faa/agency ignored several excellent comments, by stating the comments were not within the scope of the current NPRM.
>
> Given the way the commentary of the faa/agency is written, I think they heard plenty of complaint about their phase 'the faa disagrees' and actually responded in a more informative manner.
>
> BTW:
> you may notice the faa now calls itself the 'agency'.
>
> You may also notice that the NPRM was getting all the limelight, while
> “Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School” final rule, (74 FR 42500, Aug. 21, 2009).
> was slipped through behind our backs.
>
> R. Williams
>
>
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: Robert Rankin <onerobertoh@yahoo.com>
> To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:40:41 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes
>
> >  
> >
> >

Wow, after all the adds and deletes, you need an interpreter to determine the actual changes. > > > > --- On Fri, 1/29/10, Jerry <jself1@carolina.rr.com> wrote: > > > > From: Jerry <jself1@carolina.rr.com> > > Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes > > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Friday, January 29, 2010, 9:37 PM > > > >   > > > > The FAA has published the final Light Sport Rules Changes in the Federal Register. > >   > > http://federalregis ter.gov/OFRUploa d/OFRData/ 2010-02056_ PI.pdf > >   > > Jerry in NC

__._,_.___

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

__,_._,___

Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes

Helen,

It must be your instructor status,  cause my AOPA and EAA did not see fit to inform me of those NPRMs.

R. Williams



---------- Original Message -----------
From: Helen Woods <Helen_Woods@verizon.net>
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 07:47:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes

>  
>
> I would dissagree about that.  My mailbox was full of requests to respond to the "Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School" rule, actually both of them (there was one that became final this year and another that was an NPRM this year.  I got info from AvWeb, AOPA, EAA, and a ton of requests to respond from NAFI and SAFE.
>
> Now back to the business at hand of sorting out this confusing new rule...
>
> Helen
>
> On 1/30/2010 3:21 AM, Richard Williams wrote:

Fellows,
>
> I read the results of the NPRM as published in the federal register.
>
> Most of the results were acceptable, except for two things.
>
> 1) The SP instructors (part H) are still the step children rather than being included in the GA (part K) regulations.
>
> 2) a sport pilot still has to carry around photocopies or pilot logs of all their endorsements, rather than having them included as part of the sport pilot certificate.
>
> It is good that the max altitude limit is now 10k or 2k above the ground, which ever is higher, however; certain commenters gave convincing arguments that it should be anything below class A airspace, especially as rec pilots are not so limited and we are all required to have training in hypoxia, etc.
>
> After reading it twice, i'm still not sure what the final rule is regarding time under the hood for aircraft that can fly S&L at greater than 87knots.
>
> I do think the faa/agency reasoning for their final decision on some of their proposals in the NPRM is very weak.
>
> I noticed the faa/agency ignored several excellent comments, by stating the comments were not within the scope of the current NPRM.
>
> Given the way the commentary of the faa/agency is written, I think they heard plenty of complaint about their phase 'the faa disagrees' and actually responded in a more informative manner.
>
> BTW:
> you may notice the faa now calls itself the 'agency'.
>
> You may also notice that the NPRM was getting all the limelight, while
> "Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School" final rule, (74 FR 42500, Aug. 21, 2009).
> was slipped through behind our backs.
>
> R. Williams
>
>
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: Robert Rankin <onerobertoh@yahoo.com>
> To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:40:41 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes
>
> >  
> >
> >

Wow, after all the adds and deletes, you need an interpreter to determine the actual changes. > > > > --- On Fri, 1/29/10, Jerry <jself1@carolina.rr.com> wrote: > > > > From: Jerry <jself1@carolina.rr.com> > > Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes > > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com > > Date: Friday, January 29, 2010, 9:37 PM > > > >   > > > > The FAA has published the final Light Sport Rules Changes in the Federal Register. > >   > > http://federalregis ter.gov/OFRUploa d/OFRData/ 2010-02056_ PI.pdf > >   > > Jerry in NC

__._,_.___

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

__,_._,___

Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group my take on the rule

It looks to me like not much has changed. The meat of the original
proposal that was to bring sport pilot in line with the training
structure for all the rest of the ratings by having categories, classes,
and DPEs all got dumped. For us flight instructors, that rather sucks
as CFI renewal and Gold Seal status are based on ratings given and we
get 0 credit for students we bring up to the same PTS standards but who
then get a category or class privilege rather than a rating. We can
live with it though.

One good thing that has changed is that sets have been dumped. We still
have endorsements for Vh of 87kts or more, tail wheel, and proficiency
checks but individual set endorsements are gone. Looks like we'll need
an endorsement for Vh 87kts or less too as it does state that someone
who trains on the faster plane still can't fly the slower without
additional training.

It also looks like the FAA had different people working on different
sections of this proposal who weren't speaking with one another as
evidenced by the rules on log books and instrument flight. For the log
books, they state that sport pilots and instructors will need to
continue to carry their log books or evidence of their privilage
endorsements such as a xerox copy since they nixed the change to give
sport pilots category and class rartings that would be printed on their
certificates. Then in another section they state that they plan to
upgrade sport pilot certificate to print sport pilot privileges on the
back. Sounds to me that once this happens that this might serve as the
"other evidence" and functionally do away with the log book requirement
that they said they were keeping.

In another section they nix the instrument training requirement and
explain that there were good reasons for this ranging from no safety
need to subpart K instructors not having been trained on instruments
themselves. Then in another section, they put the instrument
requirement back in a precrosscountry requirement in aircraft with a Vh
of greater than 87kts or more.

They did dump the 5 hour in set requirement for sport instruction which
I'm certainly grateful for. That was ridiculous the way they have been
implementing it. When I bring a new subpart H instructor on, he is
required to have 5 hours in set if his students wakes up in the morning
thinking he wants to get a sport pilot rating but not if the student
wakes up that morning wishing to pursue a private pilot rating!

And of course the big thing is that they didn't do didly to address the
subpart K instruction credit problem. So I guess we're back to square 1
on that. For those of you who are instructors on this list who would
like to see this changed, I urge you if you are not already NAFI member
to please join. Bob Snyder, who is an extraordinary subpart K
instructor on my staff, is running for the NAFI board in April and needs
your votes. NAFI's president is already pro-subpart K and with Bob on
the board I think we should be able to get the lobbying power of NAFI
behind our efforts to get this problem fixed. NAFI also offers a number
of good benefits to instructors such as a CFI insurance, a good
magazine, and the Master Flight Instructor Program that allows you to
simultaneously become nationally accredited and renew your CFI. (The
program was recently reworked and is now very friendly towards those of
us teaching on the sport level.) Oh, your membership is tax deductible.
Ballots for Bob will be arriving in the April edition of their magazine,
Mentor. http://www.nafinet.org/

Helen

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

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:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
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/

Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes

I would dissagree about that.  My mailbox was full of requests to respond to the "Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School" rule, actually both of them (there was one that became final this year and another that was an NPRM this year.  I got info from AvWeb, AOPA, EAA, and a ton of requests to respond from NAFI and SAFE.

Now back to the business at hand of sorting out this confusing new rule...

Helen

On 1/30/2010 3:21 AM, Richard Williams wrote:

Fellows,

I read the results of the NPRM as published in the federal register.

Most of the results were acceptable, except for two things.

1) The SP instructors (part H) are still the step children rather than being included in the GA (part K) regulations.

2) a sport pilot still has to carry around photocopies or pilot logs of all their endorsements, rather than having them included as part of the sport pilot certificate.

It is good that the max altitude limit is now 10k or 2k above the ground, which ever is higher, however; certain commenters gave convincing arguments that it should be anything below class A airspace, especially as rec pilots are not so limited and we are all required to have training in hypoxia, etc.

After reading it twice, i'm still not sure what the final rule is regarding time under the hood for aircraft that can fly S&L at greater than 87knots.

I do think the faa/agency reasoning for their final decision on some of their proposals in the NPRM is very weak.

I noticed the faa/agency ignored several excellent comments, by stating the comments were not within the scope of the current NPRM.

Given the way the commentary of the faa/agency is written, I think they heard plenty of complaint about their phase 'the faa disagrees' and actually responded in a more informative manner.

BTW:
you may notice the faa now calls itself the 'agency'.

You may also notice that the NPRM was getting all the limelight, while
“Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School” final rule, (74 FR 42500, Aug. 21, 2009).
was slipped through behind our backs.

R. Williams








---------- Original Message -----------
From: Robert Rankin <onerobertoh@yahoo.com>
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:40:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes

>  
>
>

Wow, after all the adds and deletes, you need an interpreter to determine the actual changes. > > --- On Fri, 1/29/10, Jerry <jself1@carolina.rr.com> wrote: > > From: Jerry <jself1@carolina.rr.com> > Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com > Date: Friday, January 29, 2010, 9:37 PM > >   > > The FAA has published the final Light Sport Rules Changes in the Federal Register. >   > http://federalregis ter.gov/OFRUploa d/OFRData/ 2010-02056_ PI.pdf >   > Jerry in NC

__._,_.___

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

__,_._,___

Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes

Fellows,

I read the results of the NPRM as published in the federal register.

Most of the results were acceptable, except for two things.

1) The SP instructors (part H) are still the step children rather than being included in the GA (part K) regulations.

2) a sport pilot still has to carry around photocopies or pilot logs of all their endorsements, rather than having them included as part of the sport pilot certificate.

It is good that the max altitude limit is now 10k or 2k above the ground, which ever is higher, however; certain commenters gave convincing arguments that it should be anything below class A airspace, especially as rec pilots are not so limited and we are all required to have training in hypoxia, etc.

After reading it twice, i'm still not sure what the final rule is regarding time under the hood for aircraft that can fly S&L at greater than 87knots.

I do think the faa/agency reasoning for their final decision on some of their proposals in the NPRM is very weak.

I noticed the faa/agency ignored several excellent comments, by stating the comments were not within the scope of the current NPRM.

Given the way the commentary of the faa/agency is written, I think they heard plenty of complaint about their phase 'the faa disagrees' and actually responded in a more informative manner.

BTW:
you may notice the faa now calls itself the 'agency'.

You may also notice that the NPRM was getting all the limelight, while
"Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School" final rule, (74 FR 42500, Aug. 21, 2009).
was slipped through behind our backs.

R. Williams








---------- Original Message -----------
From: Robert Rankin <onerobertoh@yahoo.com>
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:40:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes

>  
>
>

Wow, after all the adds and deletes, you need an interpreter to determine the actual changes. > > --- On Fri, 1/29/10, Jerry <jself1@carolina.rr.com> wrote: > > From: Jerry <jself1@carolina.rr.com> > Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com > Date: Friday, January 29, 2010, 9:37 PM > >   > > The FAA has published the final Light Sport Rules Changes in the Federal Register. >   > http://federalregis ter.gov/OFRUploa d/OFRData/ 2010-02056_ PI.pdf >   > Jerry in NC

__._,_.___

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

__,_._,___

Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes

Wow, after all the adds and deletes, you need an interpreter to determine the actual changes. --- On Fri, 1/29/10, Jerry <jself1@carolina.rr.com> wrote: From: Jerry <jself1@carolina.rr.com> Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com Date: Friday, January 29, 2010, 9:37 PM   The FAA has published the final Light Sport Rules Changes in the Federal Register.   http://federalregis ter.gov/OFRUploa d/OFRData/ 2010-02056_ PI.pdf   Jerry in NC

__._,_.___

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

__,_._,___

Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes

The FAA has published the final Light Sport Rules Changes in the Federal Register.

 

http://federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2010-02056_PI.pdf

 

Jerry in NC

__._,_.___

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

__,_._,___

Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Story from EAA's E-Hotline

Hello The big bucks for the chasers is large corporations Try getting 20 million out of a stone with 20 000 If you think you will lose the 20 000 can become zero pretty fast  As soon as the legal council for MRS dearly beloved finds out the pot at the end of the rainbow is an empty paint tin the pay on win deal is withdrawn..... Peter   --- On Tue, 1/26/10, dangrunloh <dgrunloh@illicom.net> wrote: From: dangrunloh <dgrunloh@illicom.net> Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Story from EAA's E-Hotline To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 11:27 AM   --- In Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com, "Lyle Cox" <LyleCox@... > wrote: > .liability is a big one. When Piper can get sued and lose because the courts found the J3 had a faulty design after 50 years.makes ya wonder. The General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 changed that for all new airplanes. The limit is now 18 years for manufacturers. Unfortunately it may shift lawsuits more toward mechanics instructors schools etc. http://www.avweb. com/news/ avlaw/181905- 1.html http://law.freeadvi ce.com/aviation_ law/aviation_ law/gara1. htm http://www.aviation lawcorp.com/ content/gaiimune .html http://avstop. com/History/ needregulations/ act1994.htm > > From: Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Peter Walker > Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 5:22 PM > To: Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com > Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Story from EAA's E-Hotline > > > > Hello > Health care is one issue but liability is a far greater one. I was developing an engine and the third question after specs and cost was what is your liability cover As a non US based business the expense of that cover is minor Here in Australia you spill coffee and get a burn its no ones fault but yours. Warning or not > As if 50 000 000 cover makes a better engine or guarantees after sales service > Peter > > > --- On Sun, 1/24/10, Norman Smit <nsmit@...> wrote: > > From: Norman Smit <nsmit@...> > Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Story from EAA's E-Hotline > To: Sport_Aircraft@ yahoogroups. com > Date: Sunday, January 24, 2010, 10:59 AM > > A big part of why US manufacturing struggles to compete with overseas countries is simply because in the US companies are expected to subsidize health care. In Europe, every citizen's taxes pays for health care and with a much larger base, you have lower costs and industry isn't responsible for carrying workers' health care. Here, corporate America disproportionately carries that burden. As long as the US clings to a model that dates back to the middle of last century when most people worked in large, structured industry, it will be less and less cost competitive. >

__._,_.___

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

__,_._,___