Post by rainstorm on Apr 24, 2017 2:02:58 GMT
This started in the news thread and it is hard to copy over so I copied the article which prompted my response and edited for this thread.
www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/Its-Time-to-Raise-the-LSA-Weight-Limit-226868-1.html
Background, it is common knowledge that the P2008 is certified to a higher gross weight in other markets, same plane. The FAA has already set a weight for safety precedence but arguable for an untested in the real world paper design with a few prototypes airborne. In aviation, the A5 is the LSA version of the Eclipse, we could develop our own waiver proposal and show the FAA their safety vs weight 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 for safety, namely to allow parachutes in all of the P2008's. This is already in line the the max gross for the P2008 in other markets therefore the aircraft requires only a waiver. 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 weaker 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. 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".
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? Tecnam would immediately benefit in sales from this, seems like a win-win-win with the owners-manufacture-FAA.
www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/Its-Time-to-Raise-the-LSA-Weight-Limit-226868-1.html
Background, it is common knowledge that the P2008 is certified to a higher gross weight in other markets, same plane. The FAA has already set a weight for safety precedence but arguable for an untested in the real world paper design with a few prototypes airborne. In aviation, the A5 is the LSA version of the Eclipse, we could develop our own waiver proposal and show the FAA their safety vs weight 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 for safety, namely to allow parachutes in all of the P2008's. This is already in line the the max gross for the P2008 in other markets therefore the aircraft requires only a waiver. 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 weaker 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. 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".
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? Tecnam would immediately benefit in sales from this, seems like a win-win-win with the owners-manufacture-FAA.