I like to compare LSAs with the netbooks of 5 years ago. They were supposed to be affordable portable computers good enough for light tasks such as reading emails & visiting Facebook. The problem was that they were not profitable: the more you sold the more money you lost. Microsoft, Intel & AMD all had to lower their margins to make it work. Not exactly a recipe for growth. Now netbooks are gone.

Similarly, I don't think Cessna, Piper, Diamond or Cirrus can make a healthy profit selling sub-150K airplanes. After all, this is one of the reasons they are moving into small jets: more expensive & profitable airplanes.

Like for computers, if you have less money you have to buy airplanes used or assemble them yourself.

This is a blanket statement and while true in many cases, planes that are unique like the SeaMax M-22 Amphibian are interesting to anyone wanting the freedom to fly anywhere, on small amounts of auto or av gas with luxurious cockpits, glass panels with traffic and weather, the ability to operate from land, water, grass or snow. A normal land based LSA might not be very interesting but show me a flying boat that can do all that for 150k!

I must vehemently disagree with Mr. Goyer. (As far as I remember, this would be the first time doing so!) Is the LSA industry healthy? No way. Does it have great potential to still bring many new pilots into aviation? ABSOLUTELY!

Check out the partnership between Bristell USA LP and Aviation Access Project. Combine perhaps the best non-Cub-like LSA out there with a fractional ownership/management/community building model and we can have some action at local airports again!

AAP/Bristell allows you to buy 1/8 share in new well-equipped airplane for less than the cost of the average new car. (Around 25k.) Flight training to Sport Pilot is INCLUDED in the price. (Or transition training if you are a pilot but new to LSA.) Throw in a monthly maintenance fee that covers everything except gas (which runs about half the price of the average new car payment and is HUNDREDS less per month than you pay solo), professional management that takes the hassles out of ownership, and the sense of community the AAP is trying to create, and you have a recipe for something people want to do, can afford to do, and can do without as much hassle as they may think. Face it, my tired out 150 (which I love!) does not attract new people to aviation. A sporty cruiser with an iPad interface and leather seats does.

Don't give up on LSA! There will be a market shakeout, fewer makers building more planes, and if the AAP Flight Center concept catches on, it will change the economies of scale of the whole industry. When Rotax can afford a price cut on their engines, Dynon on their displays, and when mogas gets common at airports, everything changes. FOR THE BETTER!

I've invested a year of my life and every last cent of my disposable income helping to build AAP. Others have done so as well. As have the core group of Bristell dealers and servicers in the USA. Give us a chance to prove Robert wrong. www.aviationaccessproject.com

The problem is that LSA is a two headed mule. If the goal was to stoke new aircraft development and sales, lowering costs through simplified regulations (e.g. ASTM) was one half of the solution.

Part two was the need to widen the customer base. Instead, the FAA constrained the LSA segment to ultralight limits and the narrow market segment that came with it. They did so to limit the impact of their experiment and as today's anemic LSA market illustrates, they achieved exactly that. The only offsetting factor was the arbitrary redirection of non-class 3 medical pilots into this narrow class of craft.*

If the goal had instead been to revitalize GA, then manufacturers should simply have been enabled to build whatever the broadest segment of buyers wanted and let the market establish what that was. My bet is that it will not look like an LSA. I invite your writers to speculate on what it would be. I expect something more along the lines of a modernized, lower cost Skyhawk, aiming to be aviation's model T.

* The whole drivers license medical + LSA was IMO a horse brained government attempt to duct tape together two unrelated ideas. Medicals should be required or not, but tying that question to a type of aircraft or instrumentation requires mental gymnastics to justify and continues to feed the consumer skepticism of the legitimacy and viability of the LSA industry.

If ASTM is to reduce costs, let it apply to the most popular segment of the market. Then detach the medical issue to widen pilot population within the same segment. Then I might have hope... and perhaps even an airplane.

Frankly, I don't think anyone tried hard enough to make it work. I think the FAA's bureaucrats resented losing some control over their licensed pilots. The manufacturers did scant research regarding aircraft the fliers wanted. Then as usual the overly inflated prices for aircraft made recycled milk jugs, plastic bags and old bed sheets and TV antennas discouraged a lot of us. Not the least most aircraft were imported. Little initiative on the part of U.S. Manufacturers to make some really simple and innovative products.

As such we now stand around wringing our hands sobbing and wishing we had taken the bull by the horns, stood up to the bulling FAA and done something good. My hat's off to kit manufacturers like Vans, Quad City and others who saw the light. Razberries to Cessna, Piper and other snobbish manufacturers to staid or frightened to make it work.

Again, here we go …more of the same (and tired) ongoing “discussions” within our “Industry” on “what to do?” …about the graveyard spiral General Aviation finds herself in. And again, for whatever reason, the overwhelming impression continues to be that “they” …the “Industry” …our “Associations”, groups, clubs, memberships etc. …the “Feds”, you, me, us …”we” …just don’t seem to get it !

Once again ...Please forgive the following re-cap and redundancy of a couple previous rants, in this and previous “comment sections” …but I (still) just can’t seem to put this in any other way;

The original purpose ...the “concept” of if you will, for the birth and growth of the Experimental Aircraft community for instance, over the last several decades, which later evolved into the “Light Sport” genera and “Industry” of the present, was to allow for the “Average Joe” with a wife and kids to be able to, over a period of about a year or so, build himself a nice, simple (with at least 2 seats as flight is a thing that’s got to be shared!) airplane at a reasonably (read: sane!) monetary expense that would allow said “Joe” and family & friends to both proliferate (breathe new life into GA) and enjoy the wonderful world of Flight! But! …let’s take a hard look at what “we” (US General Aviation) have allowed to happen…

Let’s see …the “new & improved” C-172-SP, recently reviewed in Flying magazine: a basic, single engine, 4 place, fixed gear, fixed prop, simple low HP “Light Airplane”. One whose basic airframe has been around for over half a century and whose R & D, tooling and most all other initial development costs have long since been paid for many times over, decades ago (essentially a (very) old airframe design with a few tweaks, and upgraded to some modern avionics (which also SHOULD cost substantially less than their steam gauge, analog counterparts) …all this for ONLY $300,000+ ?!?!?

Oh, but you can get the venerable old “new & improved” Piper Archer for about the same price! ...But wait! …you can get the shiny new aforementioned Cub Crafters Carbon Cub; an even simpler TWO place, basic, fixed gear, fixed prop, low HP “LIGHT SPORT” airplane” with a basic avionics package for the bargain price of just under 200K!!

Of course, Cessna has finally (sort of) thrown a bone to the fledgling new “Mom & Pop” Flight School in the form of a 21st. Century “Trainer”; the C-162 Skycatcher! ...available for the much more REASONABLE? “base price” (just recently increased!) of 150K! ...which means they should be able to afford at least 3 or 4 of em! The C-172 was available, in 1980, IFR equipped, for the low 30's (aprox. 90K in today's dollars) In 1979 the C-152 went for just under 20K (55K today).

...As for the all of those available "Kits" out there today ...Realistically, even a modest, two place, fixed gear/prop with a basic IFR panel (that by reg, one mostly can't actually utilize for it's designed purposes) 140+ kt airplane most often sports (pun intended) a finished price of close to 100K ...many other almost twice that! But don't forget ...ya still have to build it yourself!

Now, throw in the over inflated (and ever increasing) costs of hanger, fuel, insurance, maintenance and all those other “miscellaneous” operating expenses and ask yourself; How can even an “Upper” Middle Class, “Above” average Joe afford/justify such a purchase (especially after tacking on all those actual operating expenses) How can such a sums for such airplanes ever be (reasonably) justified?? And we ( and APOPA & EAA ) wonder why new pilot certification is half what it was just two decades ago?? Why (aircraft) rental rates have gotten beyond the reach of most would be Sunday Flyers? What could possibly be causing this decline in our beloved activity?!?

Please forgive me, as I really don't wish to sound sarcastic but it's just mind-boggling to a (simple minded?) guy like myself how casually, and with such cavalier you, and so many other "representatives" of the Aviation Industry quote prices for an average Light Sport (or any other 2-4 place "Light Airplane") ...What a perfectly reasonable price ($150-200K) to pay for a (new) "Light Sport" airplane ...or the $300+K for a "moderately tricked out Cessna 172" ...I mean, what's wrong with that ...isn't that just about right ...why ain't everybody buyin' em?!?

A previous Quote from Mr. Goyer in a previous (related) article; "is not that flying costs too much but that flying the kind of airplane that they really want to be flying costs too much" ???

Most of Europe and all of present day Asia have no such thing as “General Aviation” …solely because of the PROHIBITABLY EXPENSIVE costs. Their citizens have long been coming here to pursue that dream we’ve all taken for granted! (but even that may change …read: practically grind to a halt, now that the new draconian EASA Flight Crew licensing regs have kicked in) Active participation in our wonderful world of “Flight” here in the USA has always been (relatively) on the expensive side, and up until now remained the best (and only) place on the planet to do so.

But take another really honest look at the math. Even if we allowed for an additional 50% (a very conservative/generous estimate) to account for the uncontrolled explosion of all the greed laden “Product Liability” lawsuits many (airplane manufacturers) have had to endure these last couple of decades (the ONLY thing Cessna, Piper etc. can legitimately claim to have been “victimized” by) …we should, at most, be looking at somewhere around $130 – 140,000 for our present day (fully equipped) C-172. (a SIMPLE, 4 place 120+ kt. airplane) AND approximately half that (at best) for an LSA .…hmm.

Are we REALLY reaching for ..."wishing" for too much here?!?

In the late 70's I struggled to put myself through school (let's not even get started on the costs of a college degree these days!) and pay for my flight training (mostly through loans) to pursue a dream of being a Professional Pilot. Now 37 years later, after having been fortunate to have flown everything from parachutes to 747's, this subject has been a particular heartbreak for me ...as I seriously doubt I could succeed in that endeavor today ...and wonder how any of today's young folks, or even us "older guys" (of even “above average” means) ever could as well.

I’m afraid these greedy times we’re a livin’ and the EXPONENTIAL rate at which that expense is accelerating, will only serve to hasten the time when the final nails are driven. We’re rapidly destroying “General Aviation” in this country …making it solely a “Rich Mans sport”.

“Why” …the rapidly decreasing pilot population? …the rapidly downward spiral of total logged hours? …a Pilot shortage?? …sluggish sales factors?? …very, very sad indeed.

What’s wrong with the LSA picture???

Please ...PLEASE ...Let's ALL get real!

An LSA can be sold for under 60,000$. But if you want an LSA from a big name with a big advertising budget, big PR, big sales team, big overheads, etc., it's going to cost you over 120,000$. There might be a market for an LSA at 60,000$ from a big name, but not for 120,000$ even from a big name. In addition, it is the same effort to sell a 12o,ooo$ aircraft as it is to sell one costing 4 times as much. So, big companies move away from an non-existent market (the 120,000$ LSA) and the public does not buy from a small company. So the LSA segment is in a critical condition. Simple economics and market forces.

I'm with dmossav8r.

LSA has created a candy store for pilots, but the "big iron" crowd - which seems to include Robert - just keeps proclaiming the death of LSA.

Critical condition? An industry that makes the early kitplane movement look stillborn - a movement that led to Oshkosh and the current size of EAA - in critical condition?

Sure, it's a niche market. We already knew that there are very few people who want to buy an airplane just for flying around in, that isn't really useful for travel (see "ultralight"). LSA is just heavy ultralights, after all. What LSA proved is two things: a) Part 23 regulation is a HUGE barrier to the introduction of new aircraft, and b) there are plenty of people willing to manufacture airplanes as a cottage industry, turning out just a few planes a year - and it seems to pay well enough that they keep doing it. They're not getting rich, but that's the nature of cottage industries. And, for pilots - there has never, ever, ever been as much choice! It's a smorgasbord - it's hard to even begin to choose!

It turned out that LSA didn't lead to the rebirth of general aviation all by itself.

But to call one of the biggest successes since kitplanes - possibly a bigger success than kitplanes - a "failure" is ridiculous.

Sure, there are probably dozens of ways to improve things from here - but what a spectacular start!

I would dearly love to see our aviation writers start asking the right questions, not "how did this fail?" or "why is aviation doomed?" but "in what ways did this succeed - and what can we learn from that?" and "what else do we need to do, to bring dramatically larger numbers of people into aviation?" (Hint on that last one: utility, value, ease of entry - all absent from all classes of GA today - but the avionics folks are working on that in recent times.)

Enough with the negativity, already.

Count me among the apparent minority who believe LSA and Sport Pilot have worked in the manner intended and in a mostly positive way, just not in the numbers we all hoped to see.

The SP ticket provided a viable alternative for me to stay flying following a cancer scare in 2006, when I was 30 years old. While my cancer was easily treated and is seldom fatal, I didn't want the hassle of battling with Oklahoma City to get my 3rd Class medical back. I also don't mind flying low and slow.

Fortunately, at the time I lived in a major metropolitan area that had two options for LSA training and rental. That wasn't the case once I moved back to NM, and I spent over three years with a certificate I couldn't use, until a dedicated LSA operation finally opened in 2011 in Santa Fe.

Thanks to LSA, now I get to fly a composite-bodied, glass panel aircraft that sips fuel, all for a wet hourly rate significantly less than the cheapest, clapped-out C150 available in the area. (The flip side is that I have to drive 110 miles round-trip to do it.) The business I rent from has survived almost two years, and per the owner is making money. In fact, it will soon expand into a larger hangar and is looking to add another LSA by the summer. Aspiring pilots ranging from 20 years of age to over 60 are training for their sport tickets; some are going for their PPLs, too.

That's a win for the industry. It's lamentable there aren't more examples, but I can't blame the FAA and the industry for their efforts.

One curiosity, since an LSA cannot fly IFR, why put all the expensive avionics in it? I would consider an LSA basically a Sunday afternoon airplane for local area flights. Why not just put a compass, airspeed and altitude indicator, 1 radio, and transponder in them? If a pilot wants more, he can simply bring a handheld GPS along.

If a CTLS could be configured this way, how much would it cost?

There's a lot in your clear-eyed if sobering piece to commend, Robert, but as a fellow editor (for LSA) I have to disagree with the severity if not the entire tone of your piece.
LSA is indeed struggling like all of aviation, and to some extent reeling from the recent "crackdown" from FAA audits.
Yet the big shakeout everyone's been predicting, literally, since the very beginning of the movement 7 years ago has still not happened. Why is that?
Are LSA, as you and others here comment, really too slow, too cramped, too expensive and the rest of it?
Or could part of the problem, along with the stifling economic realities, be the entrenched GA mindset that still pines away for those glory days when a good percentage of the pilot population could in fact afford to own an airplane as an individual? And also afford to fly it? Whereas now we just can't say that because it's no longer true, except for upper middle class and beyond incomes.
Without meaning to flat out disagree with you, I prefer to say that LSA offer roomy (compared to many many four-seat GA craft) cockpits, comfort, lots of (often extraneous, agreed) digital electronics, and certainly fun flying.
I've flown from NY to Oshkosh round trip twice in an Evektor Harmony with certainly no less comfort than the same trip done in a very cramped (but yes, very fast) Mooney.
Our average fuel burn was under 5 gph at 115 knots cruise. My butt never got sore either, though it was certainly a longer trip both ways at that speed than it would have been in the Mooney.
LSA offers a different kind of flying. It's not a return to Cub/Taylorcraft/C-172 flying, though there are similarities depending on which model you focus on.
We have to realize GA flying as we knew it is dead. LSA is not though - not by a long shot.
Yes, it is most decidedly an industry in search of a robust market. FAA and the economy are hurting it. Manufacturing realities are hurting it too. You make many good points around that.
Ask Randy Schlitter of Rans Aircraft (4,000 light aircraft produced over 30 years) if you can build a $60K LSA airplane and make any money on it. He'll flat out tell you no. He tried it and nobody came banging on his door. If he can't do it, I'd guess no one can, unless our national currency continues its collapse and we start all over on the gold standard!
LSA is a unique and many-splendored sector of flying.
Two weeks ago, in the runup to Sebring, I thermaled a ship I'd never flown, the Pipistrel Sinus motorglider, in raggy, choppy, tiny cores for half an hour. Never gained more than a thousand feet at a time, but the ship (with engine shut down) was so easy to wrap around into a quick bank, centering up with very little rudder and holding the turn without having to work at all, that I instantly felt at home in it. The Sinus has a 30:1 glide ratio and just over 200 fpm minimum sink. It cruises, at 3 gph, at 110 knots. It's easy to fly. It's a heck of a lot of fun to fly. It costs around $125,000. For me, that's a lot of money. For four or eight partners, it's as cheap, or cheaper, than owning a car.
I've joined a gaggle of Legend Cubs from Texas to Sun 'n Fun and had a wonderful time of leisurely sightseeing, loose formation, and lots of pilot camaraderie.
That Cub flight wasn't in freeway Fast Lane mode, eyes glued to dials to squeeze out every last tenth per gallon of fuel efficiency. Yes, it was slow. Yes, it was also a return to the kind of flying many people left behind in the 60s.
In these last 3 weeks surrounding the Sebring LSA show, I flew or rode in a Pipistrel Sinus motorglider ($125,000), Phoenix motorglider ($160,000), Tecnam P92 taildragger (low $100Ks), SeaRey amphibian ($125,000 and much less in kit form - 500 are currently flying), 108mph Revo Monster hang glider/trike (that was a hoot!), Cessna 152 (very cheap to own, very very cramped inside, very old-smelly, very anemic in climb and cruise performance compared to most LSA), Flight Design CTLSi ($130K+), Flight Design CTLS on floats ($even more), and another couple I can't remember just now (it was a long trip and I'm bushed.)
And what do I remember most about those flights?
Certainly not how much those airplanes cost. That's simply the reality of the aviation world today. No, what comes to mind is the sheer fun of flying around in the most diverse, prolific (design-wise), beautifully group of airplanes for the civilian market we've probably ever seen.
If I could ever make up my mind to just own one of those aircraft or any of the nearly 130 designs that have passed ASTM certification, I would seek out a partnership and be glad to share not only in the expenses, but the potential community spirit that can arise from joint ownership.
We've made GA a kind of military or college cram course experience in this country for too many decades: get your ticket, get in, take your lesson, get out, cram cram cram, get one rating after another, spend more and more money, then ultimately fly once a month or maybe twice, for 50 or 100 hours per year, mostly alone or with one other person. That's the statistic. Most airplanes sit in a hangar most of their lives. That's no way to treat an airplane.
So I say, man, this All-American rugged individualism thing is really messed up when it comes to flying.
The most exhilarating flying I ever did was hang gliding. And though it was always solo, at day's end we typically sat around a fire drinking a beer somewhere below a mountain or at a tow site, reveling in our experiences, sharing what we'd learned, enjoying each other's company and eager for more the next day.
LSA recaptures some of that excitement and good cheer company, but we're still trying to see the marketing side through yesteryear's lenses.
What needs to be killed, from my admittedly, unabashedly cheerleading perspective, is the attitude that we've got to own everything ourselves. Looking into concepts such as the new Aviation Access Project mentioned above (which offers 1/4, 1/8 and even 1/16 shares in aircraft...any aircraft, not just LSA), or Lets Fly.Org, or AOPA's Aircraft Partnership Program, we have the opportunity right now to whip the "too expensive" prejudice and embrace LSA for what they are: aircraft that are not in fact, as a class, hard to "handle in wind" (any more than a J3 Cub is, and in fact considerably better in many cases than at least some heavier, but less nimble, GA planes...case in point: I landed recently in a 19 mph direct cross wind...in a motorglider with a 49-foot wingspan! True story - aerodynamics have come a long way); nor too cramped (I'll take most of the 40 LSA I've flown over a Cessna 150, 172 or Piper or Mooney any day...some LSA have 50" and greater cockpit width); nor modest in performance (unless all you care about is speed - many LSA climb in excess of 1,000 fpm, have superior short field chops, handle as well as or better than any GA plane I ever flew, have superior stall recovery and spin resistance, and many have 700 to 1000 mile ranges on a tankful...don't get me started!)
But the point is not to argue with your conclusion that LSA is dead, but just say I disagree. I think you're premature to say that, though no observer could fault you for your prognostications: there is a lot to be concerned about for sure.
My point is to say we've got a wonderful bounty right under our noses, and all we need do is see it for what it is, not what we thought or still think it should be.
LSA is an incredibly diverse, well made, safe, fun, versatile sector of aviation that deserves more market support than it's getting. General civilian flying itself is on its back, not just LSA. Whether in this armed camp world we now live in, that can change, is a larger, more troubling question, in my opinion.
But for the fun flying that we can be doing, right now, let's look at the European "club" approach to flying, where people socialize around the aircraft they rent and co-own, rather than maybe running into someone at the field and sharing a quick cup of coffee before racing out the the flight line to do 2o solo touch and goes.
Let's get out of our fixation on sole ownership and rediscover not only the considerable joys of recreational flight but also of pilot community.
My closing arguments: a well-respected, long time aviation figure who has many ratings and has been winging around since the 1970s in GA, hang gliding and ultralight flying, recently bought into a four-way partnership on a new Flight Design CTLSi (with fuel injected Rotax 912iS engine). His other partners are a long-time jet airline/freight pilot; a 30-year GA pilot who is developing an amphibian LSA for the US market; and another GA pilot with many years flying experience.
All of them could probably have popped for the full cost. None wanted to. All of them could certainly have bought an older, used GA airplane.
But all of them wanted the enjoyment of flying that particular, new, sleek, efficient, comfortable, well-built, proven fun-flying airplane. It's got a 1000 mile range by the way. And none of them seems to mind that the extra hours on a long trip will give them more opportunities to enjoy the ever-shifting landscape below.
Isn't that why we got into flying, many of us, in the first place?
These partners share all the expenses: hangaring costs, annual costs, insurance, eventual engine replacement etc as a monthly payment. Each then just pays his own individual flying costs, mostly gas. It really is about the same as owning a car. Scheduling conflicts so far are rare and easily done through online software like Flight Schedule Pro that many flight schools use. No hassles, no confusion, very tidy...and each feels they enjoy the pleasures of full airplane ownership...because they do!
So really now, is LSA dead? Or is it our imagination and willingness to adapt that's on life support?
Thanks for the stimulating article Robert, and all the great comments above.

Dan Johnson of the Light Aircraft Manufacturers' Association has a response to this editorial on his blog at bydanjohnson

In the LSA market, 'fixed wing' aircraft sales rank 3rd in sales volume of the 4 cat/class options availabe. PPC & WSC sales have continued to grow annually by double digit percentatges for the last 6 years with #4, rotorcraft, gaining fast on fixed wing sales. So, I'm not sure how Mr Goyer can use fixed wing sales as an indicator species for the entire industry - regardless of cost. However, if we are truly asking the question of why people are buying fixed wing LSA's, it might be more revealing to simply compare demand for Composite vs Metal airplanes - or something that actually scratches the surface of true market research.

The old-timers in the GA world are a laugh. So defensive and scared of LSA. A. LSA is alive and well and has the most advanced NEW aircraft being made today. B. Flight Design has over 1500 planes in private hands and are selling more than they can make of their new model the CTLSi. C. Leaded gas dooms the old timers and they don't know it. The LSAs with rotax and soon hybrid continentals are already able to run on unleaded mogas. All you 172 owners are facing a world without fuel sooner than you think. LSA has NOTHING to do with the fact a lot of the old timers lose their med certs. By the way my CTLSi cruises at 120kts all day at 3.5gph mogas. My top speed is the same as the 172. And I can land in any 20kts crosswind just the same as any old tin can can. The only real problem with LSA is it threatens the old timers - but guess what? Who cares...