|
|
Post by jetcat3 on Sept 12, 2016 22:33:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cole505 on Sept 16, 2016 5:34:29 GMT
I wish they would rise the weight limit! Maybe some day...........
Ray👍🏻🇺🇸😎✈️🐾
|
|
|
|
Post by rainstorm on Apr 24, 2017 0:58:48 GMT
Really appreciate the post. I'm not sure of the process to submit an exemption for the P2008 for a max weight waiver and for single lever constant speed prop.'s. Clearly the max weight waiver should be first and easiest and facilitate the prop.
It is common knowledge that the P2008 is certified to a higher gross weight in other markets, same plane. In aviation, the A5 is the LSA version of the Eclipse, we could show the FAA their safety waiver was right and perhaps subtley remind them they should do it to a fleet that is deployed and growing. Hard success story for them to tell with the weight increase in the only plane that doesn't go into rate production (my prediction). So if Icon could get an exception for the purpose of safety, the P2008 should be able to make than argument for a higher gross weight to allow parachutes in all of the P2008's. This is already in line the the max gross for the P2008 in other markets therefor the aircraft requires only a placard. A blanket LSA weight increase would be great but our planes would require no testing or modifications in any way, just paperwork. The FAA would like this as well since it removes a liability burden.
I would be willing to work with whomever is interested in spear heading this. I was a very senior executive in the worlds largest aircraft manufacturer so know some of the ropes but think if we focused on one plane, for primarily one reason (safety), we would be successful. My proposal would be to increase the gross weight of the P2008 to the same level in Europe if the owner uses that weight increase to install a parachute. Perhaps the wording could be to allow the owner to add the parachute but the argument is weak and that part would be easy to enact afterward due to establishing the precedence for common weights on the same aircraft. While this may not work for or be attractive for everyone it certainly would allow us to cite precedence (which law is all about) which is weight for safety. We have no flight tests or anything else to perform, thats all been done, this would be a letter in the logbook. It would also set a second precedence for allowing certified differences on the same airframe certified by EASA to be applied to LSA'S, useful for everyone. I would not want to pursue anything but the narrow weight waiver for safety for the P2008 to begin with though. With the FAA it is baby steps and safety. If you tackle the whole LSA issue at once years, this could be months. I'm sure there are refinements to this argument but it should be able to be short and compelling and right now the new administration, whatever your thoughts of them, are touting regulation elimination where it makes sense and they are looking for "wins".
On the second one, single lever constant speed prop, every P2008 912iS out there is ready now for that (I have the data if interested) and if we are successful with the above the precedent for this is also being set in Europe. One lever, no mixture or prop, simpler, safer, more efficient and the new prop actually goes into feather mode and rough calculations would take our glide ratio's from 12:1 or so to 20:1 or so due to elimination of the flat plate drag of a windmilling propellor on a failed but not seized engine. Once again safety and precedence.
It would seem Tecnam would take this up but for those of us that own the Mercedes of LSA's it's in our self interest to spearhead this. Anyone in? Mark if you read this forum is Tecnam in?
|
|
|
|
Post by mackattack on Apr 27, 2017 17:01:59 GMT
And the 120-knot speed limit while we are at it ... EAA has allegedly been shopping the issue with the FAA. But he Icon was a unique animal in that there was a heavy lobby effort by a couple Congressmen and the WH told the FAA to cave for Icon. They made it pretty clear to the LSA manufacturers that such a waiver will not happen again because they felt jammed.
The FAA folks generally are of the view that with the Part 23 re-write, that such aircraft should just go ahead and get certified ... but I don't think they quite get the cost implications of certifying such an aircraft, even with ASTM-like standards - e.g., you'd need a G1000 panel which is far more expensive.
Some folks on the forum have written letters; I commented on the Part 23 re-write encouraging the FAA to run with a simpler set of standards for 2-place aircraft but they elected to drop that part of Part 23 in the final rule ...
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by chilla on Apr 28, 2017 2:13:08 GMT
While we're dreaming, why not ask to be allowed to fly LSAs IFR.
|
|
|
|
Post by rainstorm on Apr 28, 2017 5:10:26 GMT
I believe the ruling is we can fly IFR in VMC if you are an instrument rated pilot. Very useful for getting in and out of complex airspace.
|
|
|
|
Post by cole505 on May 6, 2017 7:26:35 GMT
Like you guys have already stated the P-2008 is already certified to a higher weight 1650 lbs in europe! An de-rated to to 1320 lbs to accommodate us lsa rules. The P-2008 is already here! Enjoy! It would be nice to have the blessings of all agencies too!
Ray & Lucy 🐾😊😎🇺🇸👍🏻✈️
|
|
