David Roberts wrote:Clarification will appear in the NPA, and essentially a mandatory requirement has to be in the form of, e.g. an AD or life limit for a part.
Good for the <1,200 crowd. Small step in the right direction for everyone else. The 10 years on seatbelts are a life limit, the 5 years on magnetos and 6 years for prop overhaul and 12 years on engines are all life limits. Unless it allows inspection-and-repair-as-neccessary (IRAN) at these life limits, the EASA regulation will remain detrimental to safety. Many parts have significant infant mortality (many who has ever replaced a vac pump or an alternator can attest to this, and engines fail a lot more in the first 100 or so hours after new or overhaul).
CS-VLA (Very Light Aeroplanes) MTOW 750 kg, Day-VFR (although I know that at least two types have night VFR allowed by Special Conditions), Vs <= 45 knots CAS. Non-aerobatic. Max two seats
CS-LSA (Light Sport Aeroplanes) MTOW 600 kg, Day-VFR, Vs <= 45 knots CAS. Non-aerobatic. Max two seats, Non-turbine. Non-pressurised
Are the certification requirements for CS-LSA less onerous or cheaper than for CS-VLA? Is there any recognition of foreign certification? Is there going to be some new category of pilot licensing in Europe which will allow pilots to fly only up to CS-LSA?
If not, I don't see the point in CS-LSA, you could just certify the aeroplane to CS-VLA.
I suppose the question is why did the Eurocrats spend time and effort to bring in CS-LSA? It can't have been for their own amusement, surely?
Are the certification requirements for CS-LSA less onerous or cheaper than for CS-VLA?
Probably, but that sort of depends on your starting point.
Is there any recognition of foreign certification?
Not really
Is there going to be some new category of pilot licensing in Europe which will allow pilots to fly only up to CS-LSA?
No, nothing resembling the US Sport Pilot licence or medical requirements
If not, I don't see the point in CS-LSA, you could just certify the aeroplane to CS-VLA.
If your LSA would pass the VLA requirements you could
I suppose the question is why did the Eurocrats spend time and effort to bring in CS-LSA? It can't have been for their own amusement, surely?
The was/is significant excitement in certain quarters in the US over the whole LSA thing. There are lots of LSAs available, with most of them coming from European manufacturers. A lot of those manufacturers wanted to be able to sell those LSAs into the European market too.
In many ways the VLA category is much better than the LSA category, but the category has not resulted in the same number of new aircraft/activity.
Ian
The dirt is full of people who wanted bragging rights Blog: Unicom Twitter: Flyer Magazine or me Visit FLYER'sFacebook page
The whole purpose of LSA in the US was to introduce a straight forward 'entry level' aircraft. The design code does not require the same level of verification by the authorities - the manufacturer states the design is compliant with the code, similarly the QA/C requirements rest with the manufacturer. The licensing regime does not require a formal medical and there is a reduced training requirement.
In short it is a package. Even better the pilot requirements are transferable to existing aircraft which meet the LSA standard, so Aeroncas, Pipers etc have a new set of potential pilots
That package has actually worked very well with over 2000 aircraft sold - the vast majority of which come from Europe - but naturally cannot be sold here!!!
The European 'answer' is to impose all of the usual restrictions in terms of pilot licensing, maintenance etc upon a package which was explicitly designed to not have them. Hence the comparative 'lack of difference' in the LSA and VLA design requirements. As always the 'aircraft shall not fly....' attitude of the regulators removes most of what would be the advantages of the US LSA approach - which is fairly similar to the brevet du base sort of approach the French have but directly linked to simple aircraft.
FLYER Exhibitions
Login / Register