Close

Member Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member? sign-up now!

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

Lessons of LSA

By Robert Goyer / Published: Jan 27, 2012
Rate it! 0% or 100%
LSA

While there have been challenges, the
successes of the LSA segment are noteworthy.
Is it time to apply the lessons of light sport to
larger airplanes?

(February 2012) On Oct. 4, 1982, the FAA did something that federal bureaucracies almost never do: The agency deregulated an entire segment of an industry that it previously oversaw. The legislation that did this, Part 103 of the FARs, defined ultralights (empty weight of 254 pounds, max stalling speed of 24 knots and a single seat, among other restrictions) as aerial recreational vehicles that required no certification and that could be “piloted” by a person with no training whatsoever.

The ultralight movement, which had started growing outside of government oversight before Part 103, expanded twentyfold seemingly overnight. Hundreds of manufacturers of ultralights arose, many with no previous aircraft design experience whatsoever, offering a wide variety of models. While some of those early designs were so good that they are still around today, a number of others proved downright deadly. With no mandated training and no good way for single-seater pilots to get training, the safety record of this new segment was predictably abysmal.

A year into the Part 103 experiment, the ABC news magazine show 20/20 aired a piece on the movement it called “Ultralights, Flying or Dying.” While the coverage was sensationalistic in every respect, it did capture an industry out of control with no statutory safeguards for consumers. Unfortunately, the 20/20 episode didn’t distinguish between responsible manufacturers and fly-by-night firms. Consequently, every one of them suffered.

It was Part 103 that had failed. With no rules to guide manufacturers and no safeguards to protect the consumer, people acted like people. A number of unscrupulous ultralight makers came out with colorful, cheap and flimsy designs, and many consumers, not knowing any better, practiced wishful thinking rather than healthy skepticism. Part 103 had been created not to benefit safety but for the FAA to be able to wash its hands of the segment. Safety hadn’t been worked into that equation and, as a result, many suffered.

Enter LSA
A decade ago, when FAA started work on a new category to encompass airplanes more substantial than ultralights but less so than most Part 23 airplanes, the agency was in no hurry to repeat the failure of Part 103. So it came up with not deregulation but an easier, industry-consensus path to certification. In 2004 it issued regulations creating the Light Sport Aircraft category and the companion Sport Pilot certificate.

Seven years down the line, the Sport Pilot certificate is a nearly unqualified success story, but the lessons of the Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) category are still unfolding. The FAA is making changes, the LSA industry is reacting, and the marketplace is taking a longer look at what this category is and what it means to customers and potential customers.

Comments (3) Post a comment

All Comments

Thomas Boyle's picture

The $100k LSA isn't at all silly. It is if you want carbon fiber, but not if you want a traditional airplane.

Look at Aerotrek - a factory-built kitfox with 100hp, folding wings, a 44" cockpit width, 105kt cruise, 580lb useful load, base price is $80k, add Dynon plus AvMap for another $2.5k. (I have no affiliation.)

If you are willing to look at something that's more of a grown-up ultralight, the Cheetah XLS is available for something like $50k.

And that's before we look at flex-wings, etc., or at kit-built designs like the Sonex or the Rans range or the Challenger.

Thomas Boyle's picture

On your comment about the "failure" of Part 103, it's interesting that I use Part 103 as an example of a success - and of caution. Success, because it demonstrates how a dangerous product can be regulated by the market, without government involvement. This is relevant in discussions of, for example, how the world could get along just fine without the FDA. BUT it also illustrates the dangers, because it takes time for the market to evolve a regulatory process, and you can have some very bad outcomes during the transition (what you refer to as the "failure"). In the end, Part 103 has allowed for a balance of considerations, with the balance determined by those involved rather than by butt-protecting regulators, and I think that's a good outcome. But, it allowed for too many deaths early on, and that's a steep cost. I prefer the outcome, by far, to what the rest of aviation (except Experimental and LSA in their way) have to deal with. But I recognize the cost, and applaud the FAA for looking for creative ways to get to the right outcome without such a steep cost. (It's also why I tell people that within the FAA may be some of the most progressive regulators out there: whatever forces within FAA led to Part 103 and to Experimental-AB and to LSA, we need a lot more of them - both in FAA and elsewhere in the government. Thoughtful deregulation is hard to find.)

cfcrawmer3's picture

Almost funny how the, built in China to lower production costs, Skycatcher's price now equals those of equally equipped European built LSA's, what with the Euro beating the heck out of the Dollar...just thinking!!

Top Rated

Your Comment
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use