User Panel
Posted: 7/20/2023 11:50:44 PM EDT
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-proposes-rule-enhance-safety-and-performance-light-sport-aircraft
Wednesday, July 19, 2023 WASHINGTON – The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is planning to enhance the safety and performance of Light Sport Aircraft operations. The proposed Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification (MOSAIC) rule would put performance safety standards around larger aircraft that innovators are building by expanding the definition of Light Sport Aircraft. "This rule will encourage manufactures to make Light Sport Aircraft operations safer, more versatile and accessible while maintaining rigorous safety standards," said Acting FAA Associate Administrator for Safety David Boulter. Under the proposal, the aircraft’s weight limit is based on its stall speed. By permitting higher stall speeds, the proposal would bring within the Light Sport Aircraft regulatory framework aircraft weighing as much as 3,000 pounds. This more than doubles the weight of aircraft under the current definition of Light Sport of 1,320 pounds, allowing larger and stronger aircraft to qualify as Light Sport. The proposal would also expand the type of aircraft sport pilots can operate and allows them to use their aircraft for a wider range of operations such as some aerial work. Although sport pilots could operate aircraft designed with up to four seats, they would remain limited to operating with only one passenger. The public has 90 days to comment on the proposed rule once it is published in the Federal Register. The FAA will publish a final rule and respond to comments after the comment period closes. For those who like to read... https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-14425.pdf |
|
I guess it’s good thing, but LSA are already expensive anyway.
|
|
They need retracts and constant speed props, not more weight (although that would open up some options.) There are some really sweet euro LSA planes that don’t qualify here as LSA, and that really sucks.
|
|
|
Makes an annual San Fran to Hawaii flight much more feasible.
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted: Do you know a lot of Light Sport pilots looking to make a 2000+ mile, 20-ish hour flight over an ocean? Have you made that flight? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Sure. That's a long flight on the summer solstice, 3000 lbs should give you enough fuel, might need to be a Diesel though. Do you know a lot of Light Sport pilots looking to make a 2000+ mile, 20-ish hour flight over an ocean? Have you made that flight? Given it's a one way trip for a Light Sport pilot, and would be setting a world record for LSAs, no. But it's theoretically possible for an LSA pilot around the summer solstice, as at 120 kts, the flight can be made entirely in daylight. To return, the flight has to be made by a pilot w/ at least a Private rating, as much of the return flight would be in darkness. |
|
Quoted: Given it's a one way trip for a Light Sport pilot, and would be setting a world record for LSAs, no. But it's theoretically possible for an LSA pilot around the summer solstice, as at 120 kts, the flight can be made entirely in daylight. To return, the flight has to be made by a pilot w/ at least a Private rating, as much of the return flight would be in darkness. View Quote |
|
Quoted: They need retracts and constant speed props, not more weight (although that would open up some options.) There are some really sweet euro LSA planes that don’t qualify here as LSA, and that really sucks. View Quote "Additionally, this proposal includes expansions to certain proposed sport pilot privileges through training and endorsements for airplanes that hat have a controllable pitch propeller, for aircraft with a retractable landing gear, and to conduct night operations." I've just skimmed parts of the document, but it looks like they are considering allowing retractable gear and props that have an automated system controlling the pitch, along with removing the 'single recip engine' limitation. |
|
6. Engine and Motors (If Powered)
The current § 1.1 light-sport aircraft definition limits light-sport aircraft to those with a single reciprocating engine if the aircraft is powered. This requirement from the 2004 rule provided for a simple engine design that would be appropriate for operation by a sport pilot. With the performance expansions proposed in this rule for the design of light-sport category aircraft and the intention to decouple from sport pilot limitations, there is no longer a need to restrict light-sport category aircraft to a single reciprocating engine. This proposed rule would omit the single reciprocating engine limitation as an eligibility requirement in § 22.100. Accordingly, this proposed rule would allow light-sport category aircraft to be built with any number and type of engines or motors. The performance limitations for aircraft that a sport pilot may act as pilot in command of would not include the limitation on a single reciprocating engine if the aircraft is powered. Since this powerplant limitation was established in 2004, full authority digital engine control (FADEC) technology has evolved significantly. FADEC18 automates and simplifies the operation of a turbine powerplant. Today, many turbine-powered aircraft use FADEC automation to manage powerplant performance and simplify aircraft powerplant operations, reducing pilot workload. As a result, many turbine-powered aircraft are no longer directly associated with excessive speed or complexity. Advancements in simplified designs of turbine-engine technology have led to the use of small turbine engines in a variety of aircraft, including self-launching gliders. The FAA recognizes that because of automation, many modern turbine powerplants are now easier to operate than many existing piston-powered aircraft. Modern automated powerplants reduce the complexity previously associated with piloting aircraft that use powerplants other than non-turbine engines. The FAA also reasons that removal of a specific engine requirement will encourage ongoing development, innovation, and increased efficiency of various types of powerplants for aircraft. The FAA seeks to encourage flexibility for aircraft manufacturers to include simple-to-operate powerplants of any design that will provide benefits to include reduced cost, ease of operation, and reduced emissions—especially for electric-powered aircraft. In summary, limiting the number and type of powerplants for light-sport category aircraft is no longer necessary and any risk associated with their use would be appropriately mitigated by aircraft and pilot certification processes. View Quote 7. Use of a Controllable Pitch Propeller The § 1.1 definition of a light-sport aircraft currently requires a fixed or ground adjustable propeller if the aircraft is a powered aircraft other than a powered glider. The light-sport aircraft definition also requires that powered gliders have a fixed or feathering propeller system. These requirements from the 2004 rule provided for simple designs that would be appropriate for a sport pilot to operate. With the performance expansions proposed in this rule for the design and certification of light-sport category aircraft, as well as the decoupling from sport pilot aircraft limitations tied to the light-sport aircraft § 1.1 definition, there would no longer be a need to restrict propeller designs for light-sport category aircraft. This proposed rule would omit propeller limitations from the light-sport category eligibility requirements in § 22.100. Accordingly, this proposed rule would allow light-sport category aircraft to be built with any type of propeller design that meets an FAA-accepted consensus standard.19 Although the operation of controllable-pitch propellers and their associated systems can impose some additional workload on pilots, the FAA considers these propeller designs to be safe and reliable, as they have been used in general aviation aircraft for decades. While controllable-pitch propeller designs can increase workload because they require attention and adjustment by the pilot, the FAA considers the overall design of these systems to be relatively simple to operate and appropriate for inclusion in light-sport category aircraft. However, proposed § 61.316, which would provide the performance and design limitations for aircraft that may be flown by sport pilots, would retain some propeller limitations and training requirements for sport pilots. Specifically, for powered aircraft other than powered gliders, proposed § 61.316 would permit sport pilots to fly aircraft with a fixed or ground-adjustable propeller, but also allow those with an automated controllable-pitch propeller. Aircraft with an automated controllable-pitch propeller would enable pilots to take advantage of the improved performance associated with these aircraft without imposing additional workload. The current requirement for powered gliders would be relocated to proposed § 61.316. Due to the significant increase in climb and cruise performance, the FAA is also proposing to permit sport pilots who receive additional training and an instructor endorsement to operate airplanes designed with controllable-pitch propellers that are not automated. The FAA contends that permitting the design and use of a controllable-pitch propeller on airplanes increases safety by taking advantage of the improved climb performance associated with that propeller system design to avoid and clear obstacles during the climb and departure phase of a flight. The FAA proposes two allowances to this requirement in the proposed § 61.316(e). First, the FAA proposes that, for powered aircraft other than powered gliders, the airplane may also be equipped with an automated controllable-pitch propeller. These propellers are easy to use and increase airplane performance and efficiency. Specifically, allowing use of an automated controllable-pitch propeller, in addition to fixed or ground-adjustable propellers, increases safety because of increased climb and cruise performance associated with a controllable pitch propeller design. Second, under the proposed § 61.331, sport pilots would be required to obtain additional flight training and a flight instructor endorsement validating sport pilot proficiency to operate an airplane with a controllable-pitch propeller that is not automated. The FAA contends that additional training and instructor endorsements would appropriately validate that sport pilots can safely operate airplanes with a manually operated controllable-pitch propeller. View Quote 9. Retractable Landing Gear Per the current light-sport aircraft definition in § 1.1, a light-sport aircraft, except for an aircraft intended for operation on water or a glider, must have a fixed landing gear. The proposed rule would remove this limitation as an eligibility requirement in § 22.100. Accordingly, this rule would allow light-sport category aircraft to be designed with fixed or retractable landing gear, or with floats for aircraft intended for operation on water. In the 2004 rule, the requirement for fixed landing gear was intended to enable aircraft designs that would be simple to operate by persons exercising the privileges of a sport pilot certificate. With the performance expansions proposed in this rule for the design of light-sport category aircraft and the decoupling from sport pilot restrictions, there is no longer a need to restrict light-sport category aircraft to fixed landing gear. This rule would provide for more robust structures and greater weight allowances that would accommodate necessary enhancements needed for retractable landing gear. The FAA recognizes that additional training and instructor endorsements can validate that sport pilots can operate aircraft with retractable landing gear safely. The FAA is proposing to permit sport pilots to operate aircraft with a retractable landing gear by requiring additional training and obtaining a flight instructor endorsement validating proficiency, as discussed later in section IV.E. By proposing to establish separate airman and aircraft certification requirements, manufacturers would be provided with the ability to create a wider range of aircraft designs that may be operated by any appropriately rated pilot. Pilots could then pursue the appropriate level of pilot certification necessary to operate light-sport category aircraft and any other aircraft. This would enable greater flexibility for both aircraft manufacturers and pilots. View Quote ETA: Again, I've just skimmed parts of the document, but it sounds like they are considering some form of IFR certification for light sport, due to the improvements in glass cockpits. |
|
Wow. This sounds like the low end of General Aviation w/o a medical or A&P maintenance.
Is the 120 kts limit still in force? 3000 lbs, multi engine, variable prop, retrac gear... |
|
Quoted: Wow. This sounds like the low end of General Aviation w/o a medical or A&P maintenance. Is the 120 kts limit still in force? 3000 lbs, multi engine, variable prop, retrac gear... View Quote Haven't read enough on the max speed, but it sounds like they want to shift to some formula that includes stall speed and other factors, instead of just having a single number as the limit. If I'm following correctly, something like an A36 Bonanza would not be a light sport, due to being too heavy, but the Debonair (at least the earlier ones) may (if it meets the other criteria) end up being a light sport that requires an instructor signoff in addition to the light sport pilot certificate. |
|
Thanks for the info JPN, sounds like there could be some cool new planes available in the near future!
|
|
The good news is this will expand the airplane selection to several that should have been included from the start, such as every Aeronca and Bellanca 7 series and damn certain every Luscombe.
The bad news is the prices are about to jump on two seat airplanes that meet the new rule. I'm off to find a Luscombe 8E or 8F or a 85 to 115 hp Champ or 7k series airplane ... |
|
Interesting. How does someone with a SEL Private get a Sport license? I am not current, and can't get a medical, but it looks like you just need a Drivers License for medical
|
|
|
Quoted: If you have a PPL and a DL, you're GTG. PPL > SPL. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Interesting. How does someone with a SEL Private get a Sport license? I am not current, and can't get a medical, but it looks like you just need a Drivers License for medical If you have a PPL and a DL, you're GTG. PPL > SPL. Wow, cool. Just have to get current. been 23 years |
|
Quoted: Wow, cool. Just have to get current. been 23 years View Quote If it’s been that long, I think you will still need to get a medical. After that you can switch to FAA Basic Med, which is the driver’s license thing. I don’t remember the cutoff date, but you need to have held a medical since some specific date. |
|
Quoted: If it’s been that long, I think you will still need to get a medical. After that you can switch to FAA Basic Med, which is the driver’s license thing. I don’t remember the cutoff date, but you need to have held a medical since some specific date. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Wow, cool. Just have to get current. been 23 years If it’s been that long, I think you will still need to get a medical. After that you can switch to FAA Basic Med, which is the driver’s license thing. I don’t remember the cutoff date, but you need to have held a medical since some specific date. That's to fly something that's not light sport. For light sport aircraft under light sport rules, no basic med required. DL only. |
|
Quoted: That's to fly something that's not light sport. For light sport aircraft under light sport rules, no basic med required. DL only. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wow, cool. Just have to get current. been 23 years If it’s been that long, I think you will still need to get a medical. After that you can switch to FAA Basic Med, which is the driver’s license thing. I don’t remember the cutoff date, but you need to have held a medical since some specific date. That's to fly something that's not light sport. For light sport aircraft under light sport rules, no basic med required. DL only. That what I was hoping. I'm pretty sure I can't pass a medical anymore. |
|
Quoted: That what I was hoping. I'm pretty sure I can't pass a medical anymore. View Quote The FAA Basic Med that he was referring to, allows you to fly non-LSA with only your DL and a sign off from your private doctor. No AME. You must have held a valid medical at some time after July 15, 2006, and never denied a medical. |
|
This might actually cause me to get off my ass and get my Sport. It would open up a ton of new aircraft possibilities.
|
|
|
Quoted: The FAA Basic Med that he was referring to, allows you to fly non-LSA with only your DL and a sign off from your private doctor. No AME. You must have held a valid medical at some time after July 15, 2006, and never denied a medical. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: That what I was hoping. I'm pretty sure I can't pass a medical anymore. The FAA Basic Med that he was referring to, allows you to fly non-LSA with only your DL and a sign off from your private doctor. No AME. You must have held a valid medical at some time after July 15, 2006, and never denied a medical. I didn't know about that. My last medical expired in 2011. It was a special issuance. Not sure if that means my regular one was denied. The letter said something like "Ineligible under title 14 section 67 but we have determined that you may be granted authorization for special issuance under title 14 part 67.401." ETA: Not flying has saved me a lot of money though. |
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: This might actually cause me to get off my ass and get my Sport. It would open up a ton of new aircraft possibilities. A ton and a half. Attached File |
|
3. Maximum VH Airspeed in Level Flight
The § 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft limits light-sport aircraft to a VH of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level. A VH speed limit would not be retained for the airplanes or gliders in the proposed § 61.316 performance and design limitations for aircraft that a sport pilot could operate. Although an airplane or glider’s maximum airspeed is typically limited to approximately three to four times the aircraft’s VS1 under ideal conditions, proposed § 22.100(a)(4) would include a VH limit of 250 knots CAS for light-sport category aircraft to account for potential advances in technology and manufacturing practices that could enable higher speeds. Furthermore, after approximately 20 years of experience with the operation of light-sport category aircraft, the FAA has not noted any definitive data that links cruise speed as a contributing factor in accidents involving light-sport category aircraft. This experience informs the FAA’s current rulemaking proposal, including its proposal to increase the airspeed limitation. Analysis of performance data for 117 type-certificated, light-sport category, and amateur-built airplanes with stalling speeds less than or equal to the proposed 54 knots CAS stalling speed limit shows a maximum speed of 220 knots CAS, with the majority below 190 knots CAS. Allowing a maximum speed of 250 knots CAS is intended to provide an upper limit appropriate for a category of aircraft intended for recreation, flight training, and limited aerial work while providing sufficient margin to avoid practical constraints of new airplane designs by this limit.8 For pilot certification purposes, the FAA does not propose to retain or include a VH airspeed limitation in the proposed § 61.316 aircraft performance limitations because the FAA determined that, the proposed maximum stalling speed VS1 of 54 knots (as explained in section IV.C.4) for airplanes and the existing maximum stalling speed VS1 of 45 knots for gliders, will indirectly limit the cruise airspeeds9 for the aircraft that sport pilots may fly under the proposed performance limitations in part 61. The FAA recognizes helicopter design and aerodynamic flight limitations inherently limit the VH speed. The existing fleet of two seat helicopters do not exceed 150 knots in cruise flight. Therefore, the FAA does not propose or need a prescriptive speed limit for two seat helicopters that a sport pilot can operate. In 2018, the FAA codified additional training and endorsement privileges for flight instructors with a sport pilot rating.10 This provision authorized these flight instructors to provide additional training and endorsements for sport pilot applicants who wish to conduct cross-country flights in light-sport airplanes with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS.11 These amendments reinforce that additional training and a subsequent flight instructor endorsement can properly qualify sport pilots to operate various aircraft safely in the national airspace system. Additionally, the FAA notes that student pilots, who receive training and a validating flight instructor endorsement, can operate aircraft at speeds greater than 120 knots as pilot-in-command. The FAA contends that, since the implementation of the training and instructor endorsement requirements permitting sport pilots to operate airplanes up to the current VH speed limitation of 120 knots, instructor training and endorsements have been demonstrated to be a proven, effective method for validating that sport pilots can safely operate faster aircraft in the national airspace system, just as is allowed for student pilots with a lower grade of pilot certificate. This reflects the incongruities between the allowed operations for student pilots and sport pilots. For example, student pilots can operate aircraft at faster speeds than individuals that hold a sport pilot certificate, even though a sport pilot certificate is a higher grade of pilot certificate than a student pilot certificate. Thus, the FAA reasons that sport pilots can be permitted to operate faster aircraft safely in the national airspace system using instructor training and endorsements for validating pilot proficiency. View Quote 4. Maximum Stalling Speed (VS1) The light-sport aircraft definition in § 1.1 limits the maximum VS1 for light-sport aircraft to 45 knots CAS at the aircraft’s maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity. The proposal would retain the 45 knots CAS maximum VS1 for gliders and weight-shift-control aircraft. The FAA is proposing to increase the maximum VS1 to 54 knots CAS for airplanes. Regulatory provisions addressing VS1 would remain inapplicable to rotorcraft and lighter-than-air aircraft (e.g., balloons and airships), and would be removed for powered parachutes. The 45-knot limitation indirectly prohibits the use of heavier airplanes due to the correlation between stalling speed and aircraft weight. Because the FAA is seeking to accommodate greater airplane weights to enable more robust airframe designs and availability of safety enhancements, the FAA selected this proposed VS1 speed limit at nine knots above the current limitation for light-sport aircraft. The FAA determined that an airplane with a maximum VS1 limitation of 54 knots would permit airplane designs up to approximately 3,000 pounds. As proposed in §§ 22.100(a)(3) and 61.316(a), the new stalling speed limitation would apply to airplanes at the maximum certificated takeoff weight. In the absence of a specific weight limitation in the proposed rule, the new VS1 limit would provide flexibility for aircraft manufacturers to build more robust airframes and include desirable safety enhancements. This proposed change would expand aircraft that sport pilots may operate to include any existing aircraft that meets the sport pilot performance limitations as specified in proposed § 61.316. For airplanes, the proposed VS1 limit is not more than 54 knots CAS for sport pilots. The FAA has monitored the accident history of light-sport category aircraft since 2004. As of 2021, there have been 984 accidents or incidents involving light-sport category aircraft, with approximately half of those accidents or incidents occurring during the landing phase. Of the 501 landing accidents, seven resulted in a fatality. The second highest number of accidents or incidents, 164, occurred during an emergency descent. The FAA chose a VS1 of 54 knots CAS to strike a balance between allowing heavier aircraft to accommodate increased safety features, while increasing the stalling speed no more than necessary to retain low speeds during approach and landing. While the FAA recognizes that low stalling speeds will reduce kinetic energy levels and serve to improve occupant survivability in the event of an aircraft accident, enabling the addition of safety enhancing designs commensurate with increased weight could also improve occupant survivability. The FAA has determined that retaining the current VS1 restriction of 45 knots CAS for light-sport category airplanes would overly restrict the ability of aircraft manufacturers to produce heavier airplanes with additional safety features that this rule is intending to enable. A maximum VS1 of 54 knots CAS for airplanes would facilitate the production of heavier, more robust airplanes without unduly compromising the ability of these airplanes to be safely operated. Although the FAA considered increasing the proposed maximum stalling speed of airplanes above 54 knots CAS, the agency’s review of current aircraft performance data showed that this proposal would be sufficient to produce four-seat airplanes. Although the FAA proposes to permit the certification of rotorcraft under the proposal, stall speed restrictions, such as a maximum VS1, are inapplicable for aircraft that depend principally for their support in flight by the lift generated by one or more rotors. Rotorcraft have the ability to hover or remain in place in the air with no horizontal movement. In the event of engine failure, they can autorotate in a controlled descent to the ground. Accordingly, rotorcraft are not subject to a maximum stall speed in this proposed rule. Stalling speed restrictions are also not being proposed for powered-lift due to their ability to operate in various flight mode configurations, including thrust-borne or hover, similar to a rotorcraft. The designs of lighter powered-lift typically do not have large wing surface areas and therefore have higher stalling speeds during wing-borne (airplane) flight mode. However, these aircraft also can transition to semi-thrust borne mode where the powerplant shares the responsibility of producing lift as airspeed transitions between enroute airspeeds and hover. Therefore, as discussed under proposed § 22.115 and consistent with the airworthiness criteria from Federal Register notifications for the Joby Aero Inc., Model JAS4-1 and Archer Aviation Inc., Model M001 powered-lift, this NPRM proposes to require the determination of minimum safe speeds for various flight configurations for powered-lift rather than a maximum stalling speed.12 As discussed, the proposed stalling speed would generally limit the weight of airplanes. However, similar proposed limits would not have the same effect for other classes of aircraft. The FAA recognizes that while restrictions on maximum seating capacity and limitations on aerial work may effectively limit a manufacturer’s interest in building larger aircraft, the absence of any aerodynamic or other prescriptive design restriction would not otherwise limit the potential weight of these aircraft. The FAA specifically requests comments on appropriate parameters to limit the weight of lightsport category rotorcraft and powered-lift. View Quote If I've got it all sorted out, - Max level speed of 250 kts (instructor signoff required for the faster planes?) - Max stall speed of 54 kts (ETA: clean, flaps up and landing gear retracted at max weight) - Retractable gear allowed if the sport pilot has an instructor signoff - Variable pitch prop allowed if its control is automated (similar to the Porsche Mooney?) with normal constant speed props allowed with instructor signoff - Max of four seats, but sport pilots may carry only one passenger (other two seats allow for additional fuel weight or baggage) - No longer limited to single recip engine - Max weight limit of 3,000 pounds is implied by the stall speed limit, but not spelled out in the new reg as a specific weight limit? |
|
Very interesting. In a good way...
I'd love to do light sport flying, but as it is now, I'm just too heavy for that. I still need to lose the weight whether I ever fly or not, but this could make that dream more attainable. |
|
Quoted: 3. Maximum VH Airspeed in Level Flight 4. Maximum Stalling Speed (VS1) If I've got it all sorted out, - Max level speed of 250 kts (instructor signoff required for the faster planes?) - Max stall speed of 54 kts (ETA: clean, flaps up and landing gear retracted at max weight) - Retractable gear allowed if the sport pilot has an instructor signoff - Variable pitch prop allowed if its control is automated (similar to the Porsche Mooney?) with normal constant speed props allowed with instructor signoff - Max of four seats, but sport pilots may carry only one passenger (other two seats allow for additional fuel weight or baggage) - No longer limited to single recip engine - Max weight limit of 3,000 pounds is implied by the stall speed limit, but not spelled out in the new reg as a specific weight limit? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: 3. Maximum VH Airspeed in Level Flight The § 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft limits light-sport aircraft to a VH of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level. A VH speed limit would not be retained for the airplanes or gliders in the proposed § 61.316 performance and design limitations for aircraft that a sport pilot could operate. Although an airplane or glider’s maximum airspeed is typically limited to approximately three to four times the aircraft’s VS1 under ideal conditions, proposed § 22.100(a)(4) would include a VH limit of 250 knots CAS for light-sport category aircraft to account for potential advances in technology and manufacturing practices that could enable higher speeds. Furthermore, after approximately 20 years of experience with the operation of light-sport category aircraft, the FAA has not noted any definitive data that links cruise speed as a contributing factor in accidents involving light-sport category aircraft. This experience informs the FAA’s current rulemaking proposal, including its proposal to increase the airspeed limitation. Analysis of performance data for 117 type-certificated, light-sport category, and amateur-built airplanes with stalling speeds less than or equal to the proposed 54 knots CAS stalling speed limit shows a maximum speed of 220 knots CAS, with the majority below 190 knots CAS. Allowing a maximum speed of 250 knots CAS is intended to provide an upper limit appropriate for a category of aircraft intended for recreation, flight training, and limited aerial work while providing sufficient margin to avoid practical constraints of new airplane designs by this limit.8 For pilot certification purposes, the FAA does not propose to retain or include a VH airspeed limitation in the proposed § 61.316 aircraft performance limitations because the FAA determined that, the proposed maximum stalling speed VS1 of 54 knots (as explained in section IV.C.4) for airplanes and the existing maximum stalling speed VS1 of 45 knots for gliders, will indirectly limit the cruise airspeeds9 for the aircraft that sport pilots may fly under the proposed performance limitations in part 61. The FAA recognizes helicopter design and aerodynamic flight limitations inherently limit the VH speed. The existing fleet of two seat helicopters do not exceed 150 knots in cruise flight. Therefore, the FAA does not propose or need a prescriptive speed limit for two seat helicopters that a sport pilot can operate. In 2018, the FAA codified additional training and endorsement privileges for flight instructors with a sport pilot rating.10 This provision authorized these flight instructors to provide additional training and endorsements for sport pilot applicants who wish to conduct cross-country flights in light-sport airplanes with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS.11 These amendments reinforce that additional training and a subsequent flight instructor endorsement can properly qualify sport pilots to operate various aircraft safely in the national airspace system. Additionally, the FAA notes that student pilots, who receive training and a validating flight instructor endorsement, can operate aircraft at speeds greater than 120 knots as pilot-in-command. The FAA contends that, since the implementation of the training and instructor endorsement requirements permitting sport pilots to operate airplanes up to the current VH speed limitation of 120 knots, instructor training and endorsements have been demonstrated to be a proven, effective method for validating that sport pilots can safely operate faster aircraft in the national airspace system, just as is allowed for student pilots with a lower grade of pilot certificate. This reflects the incongruities between the allowed operations for student pilots and sport pilots. For example, student pilots can operate aircraft at faster speeds than individuals that hold a sport pilot certificate, even though a sport pilot certificate is a higher grade of pilot certificate than a student pilot certificate. Thus, the FAA reasons that sport pilots can be permitted to operate faster aircraft safely in the national airspace system using instructor training and endorsements for validating pilot proficiency. 4. Maximum Stalling Speed (VS1) The light-sport aircraft definition in § 1.1 limits the maximum VS1 for light-sport aircraft to 45 knots CAS at the aircraft’s maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity. The proposal would retain the 45 knots CAS maximum VS1 for gliders and weight-shift-control aircraft. The FAA is proposing to increase the maximum VS1 to 54 knots CAS for airplanes. Regulatory provisions addressing VS1 would remain inapplicable to rotorcraft and lighter-than-air aircraft (e.g., balloons and airships), and would be removed for powered parachutes. The 45-knot limitation indirectly prohibits the use of heavier airplanes due to the correlation between stalling speed and aircraft weight. Because the FAA is seeking to accommodate greater airplane weights to enable more robust airframe designs and availability of safety enhancements, the FAA selected this proposed VS1 speed limit at nine knots above the current limitation for light-sport aircraft. The FAA determined that an airplane with a maximum VS1 limitation of 54 knots would permit airplane designs up to approximately 3,000 pounds. As proposed in §§ 22.100(a)(3) and 61.316(a), the new stalling speed limitation would apply to airplanes at the maximum certificated takeoff weight. In the absence of a specific weight limitation in the proposed rule, the new VS1 limit would provide flexibility for aircraft manufacturers to build more robust airframes and include desirable safety enhancements. This proposed change would expand aircraft that sport pilots may operate to include any existing aircraft that meets the sport pilot performance limitations as specified in proposed § 61.316. For airplanes, the proposed VS1 limit is not more than 54 knots CAS for sport pilots. The FAA has monitored the accident history of light-sport category aircraft since 2004. As of 2021, there have been 984 accidents or incidents involving light-sport category aircraft, with approximately half of those accidents or incidents occurring during the landing phase. Of the 501 landing accidents, seven resulted in a fatality. The second highest number of accidents or incidents, 164, occurred during an emergency descent. The FAA chose a VS1 of 54 knots CAS to strike a balance between allowing heavier aircraft to accommodate increased safety features, while increasing the stalling speed no more than necessary to retain low speeds during approach and landing. While the FAA recognizes that low stalling speeds will reduce kinetic energy levels and serve to improve occupant survivability in the event of an aircraft accident, enabling the addition of safety enhancing designs commensurate with increased weight could also improve occupant survivability. The FAA has determined that retaining the current VS1 restriction of 45 knots CAS for light-sport category airplanes would overly restrict the ability of aircraft manufacturers to produce heavier airplanes with additional safety features that this rule is intending to enable. A maximum VS1 of 54 knots CAS for airplanes would facilitate the production of heavier, more robust airplanes without unduly compromising the ability of these airplanes to be safely operated. Although the FAA considered increasing the proposed maximum stalling speed of airplanes above 54 knots CAS, the agency’s review of current aircraft performance data showed that this proposal would be sufficient to produce four-seat airplanes. Although the FAA proposes to permit the certification of rotorcraft under the proposal, stall speed restrictions, such as a maximum VS1, are inapplicable for aircraft that depend principally for their support in flight by the lift generated by one or more rotors. Rotorcraft have the ability to hover or remain in place in the air with no horizontal movement. In the event of engine failure, they can autorotate in a controlled descent to the ground. Accordingly, rotorcraft are not subject to a maximum stall speed in this proposed rule. Stalling speed restrictions are also not being proposed for powered-lift due to their ability to operate in various flight mode configurations, including thrust-borne or hover, similar to a rotorcraft. The designs of lighter powered-lift typically do not have large wing surface areas and therefore have higher stalling speeds during wing-borne (airplane) flight mode. However, these aircraft also can transition to semi-thrust borne mode where the powerplant shares the responsibility of producing lift as airspeed transitions between enroute airspeeds and hover. Therefore, as discussed under proposed § 22.115 and consistent with the airworthiness criteria from Federal Register notifications for the Joby Aero Inc., Model JAS4-1 and Archer Aviation Inc., Model M001 powered-lift, this NPRM proposes to require the determination of minimum safe speeds for various flight configurations for powered-lift rather than a maximum stalling speed.12 As discussed, the proposed stalling speed would generally limit the weight of airplanes. However, similar proposed limits would not have the same effect for other classes of aircraft. The FAA recognizes that while restrictions on maximum seating capacity and limitations on aerial work may effectively limit a manufacturer’s interest in building larger aircraft, the absence of any aerodynamic or other prescriptive design restriction would not otherwise limit the potential weight of these aircraft. The FAA specifically requests comments on appropriate parameters to limit the weight of lightsport category rotorcraft and powered-lift. If I've got it all sorted out, - Max level speed of 250 kts (instructor signoff required for the faster planes?) - Max stall speed of 54 kts (ETA: clean, flaps up and landing gear retracted at max weight) - Retractable gear allowed if the sport pilot has an instructor signoff - Variable pitch prop allowed if its control is automated (similar to the Porsche Mooney?) with normal constant speed props allowed with instructor signoff - Max of four seats, but sport pilots may carry only one passenger (other two seats allow for additional fuel weight or baggage) - No longer limited to single recip engine - Max weight limit of 3,000 pounds is implied by the stall speed limit, but not spelled out in the new reg as a specific weight limit? Wow. 250 kts is the max airspeed under 10,000 ft anyway, no? |
|
Quoted: 3. Maximum VH Airspeed in Level Flight 4. Maximum Stalling Speed (VS1) If I've got it all sorted out, - Max level speed of 250 kts (instructor signoff required for the faster planes?) - Max stall speed of 54 kts (ETA: clean, flaps up and landing gear retracted at max weight) - Retractable gear allowed if the sport pilot has an instructor signoff - Variable pitch prop allowed if its control is automated (similar to the Porsche Mooney?) with normal constant speed props allowed with instructor signoff - Max of four seats, but sport pilots may carry only one passenger (other two seats allow for additional fuel weight or baggage) - No longer limited to single recip engine - Max weight limit of 3,000 pounds is implied by the stall speed limit, but not spelled out in the new reg as a specific weight limit? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: 3. Maximum VH Airspeed in Level Flight The § 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft limits light-sport aircraft to a VH of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level. A VH speed limit would not be retained for the airplanes or gliders in the proposed § 61.316 performance and design limitations for aircraft that a sport pilot could operate. Although an airplane or glider’s maximum airspeed is typically limited to approximately three to four times the aircraft’s VS1 under ideal conditions, proposed § 22.100(a)(4) would include a VH limit of 250 knots CAS for light-sport category aircraft to account for potential advances in technology and manufacturing practices that could enable higher speeds. Furthermore, after approximately 20 years of experience with the operation of light-sport category aircraft, the FAA has not noted any definitive data that links cruise speed as a contributing factor in accidents involving light-sport category aircraft. This experience informs the FAA’s current rulemaking proposal, including its proposal to increase the airspeed limitation. Analysis of performance data for 117 type-certificated, light-sport category, and amateur-built airplanes with stalling speeds less than or equal to the proposed 54 knots CAS stalling speed limit shows a maximum speed of 220 knots CAS, with the majority below 190 knots CAS. Allowing a maximum speed of 250 knots CAS is intended to provide an upper limit appropriate for a category of aircraft intended for recreation, flight training, and limited aerial work while providing sufficient margin to avoid practical constraints of new airplane designs by this limit.8 For pilot certification purposes, the FAA does not propose to retain or include a VH airspeed limitation in the proposed § 61.316 aircraft performance limitations because the FAA determined that, the proposed maximum stalling speed VS1 of 54 knots (as explained in section IV.C.4) for airplanes and the existing maximum stalling speed VS1 of 45 knots for gliders, will indirectly limit the cruise airspeeds9 for the aircraft that sport pilots may fly under the proposed performance limitations in part 61. The FAA recognizes helicopter design and aerodynamic flight limitations inherently limit the VH speed. The existing fleet of two seat helicopters do not exceed 150 knots in cruise flight. Therefore, the FAA does not propose or need a prescriptive speed limit for two seat helicopters that a sport pilot can operate. In 2018, the FAA codified additional training and endorsement privileges for flight instructors with a sport pilot rating.10 This provision authorized these flight instructors to provide additional training and endorsements for sport pilot applicants who wish to conduct cross-country flights in light-sport airplanes with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS.11 These amendments reinforce that additional training and a subsequent flight instructor endorsement can properly qualify sport pilots to operate various aircraft safely in the national airspace system. Additionally, the FAA notes that student pilots, who receive training and a validating flight instructor endorsement, can operate aircraft at speeds greater than 120 knots as pilot-in-command. The FAA contends that, since the implementation of the training and instructor endorsement requirements permitting sport pilots to operate airplanes up to the current VH speed limitation of 120 knots, instructor training and endorsements have been demonstrated to be a proven, effective method for validating that sport pilots can safely operate faster aircraft in the national airspace system, just as is allowed for student pilots with a lower grade of pilot certificate. This reflects the incongruities between the allowed operations for student pilots and sport pilots. For example, student pilots can operate aircraft at faster speeds than individuals that hold a sport pilot certificate, even though a sport pilot certificate is a higher grade of pilot certificate than a student pilot certificate. Thus, the FAA reasons that sport pilots can be permitted to operate faster aircraft safely in the national airspace system using instructor training and endorsements for validating pilot proficiency. 4. Maximum Stalling Speed (VS1) The light-sport aircraft definition in § 1.1 limits the maximum VS1 for light-sport aircraft to 45 knots CAS at the aircraft’s maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity. The proposal would retain the 45 knots CAS maximum VS1 for gliders and weight-shift-control aircraft. The FAA is proposing to increase the maximum VS1 to 54 knots CAS for airplanes. Regulatory provisions addressing VS1 would remain inapplicable to rotorcraft and lighter-than-air aircraft (e.g., balloons and airships), and would be removed for powered parachutes. The 45-knot limitation indirectly prohibits the use of heavier airplanes due to the correlation between stalling speed and aircraft weight. Because the FAA is seeking to accommodate greater airplane weights to enable more robust airframe designs and availability of safety enhancements, the FAA selected this proposed VS1 speed limit at nine knots above the current limitation for light-sport aircraft. The FAA determined that an airplane with a maximum VS1 limitation of 54 knots would permit airplane designs up to approximately 3,000 pounds. As proposed in §§ 22.100(a)(3) and 61.316(a), the new stalling speed limitation would apply to airplanes at the maximum certificated takeoff weight. In the absence of a specific weight limitation in the proposed rule, the new VS1 limit would provide flexibility for aircraft manufacturers to build more robust airframes and include desirable safety enhancements. This proposed change would expand aircraft that sport pilots may operate to include any existing aircraft that meets the sport pilot performance limitations as specified in proposed § 61.316. For airplanes, the proposed VS1 limit is not more than 54 knots CAS for sport pilots. The FAA has monitored the accident history of light-sport category aircraft since 2004. As of 2021, there have been 984 accidents or incidents involving light-sport category aircraft, with approximately half of those accidents or incidents occurring during the landing phase. Of the 501 landing accidents, seven resulted in a fatality. The second highest number of accidents or incidents, 164, occurred during an emergency descent. The FAA chose a VS1 of 54 knots CAS to strike a balance between allowing heavier aircraft to accommodate increased safety features, while increasing the stalling speed no more than necessary to retain low speeds during approach and landing. While the FAA recognizes that low stalling speeds will reduce kinetic energy levels and serve to improve occupant survivability in the event of an aircraft accident, enabling the addition of safety enhancing designs commensurate with increased weight could also improve occupant survivability. The FAA has determined that retaining the current VS1 restriction of 45 knots CAS for light-sport category airplanes would overly restrict the ability of aircraft manufacturers to produce heavier airplanes with additional safety features that this rule is intending to enable. A maximum VS1 of 54 knots CAS for airplanes would facilitate the production of heavier, more robust airplanes without unduly compromising the ability of these airplanes to be safely operated. Although the FAA considered increasing the proposed maximum stalling speed of airplanes above 54 knots CAS, the agency’s review of current aircraft performance data showed that this proposal would be sufficient to produce four-seat airplanes. Although the FAA proposes to permit the certification of rotorcraft under the proposal, stall speed restrictions, such as a maximum VS1, are inapplicable for aircraft that depend principally for their support in flight by the lift generated by one or more rotors. Rotorcraft have the ability to hover or remain in place in the air with no horizontal movement. In the event of engine failure, they can autorotate in a controlled descent to the ground. Accordingly, rotorcraft are not subject to a maximum stall speed in this proposed rule. Stalling speed restrictions are also not being proposed for powered-lift due to their ability to operate in various flight mode configurations, including thrust-borne or hover, similar to a rotorcraft. The designs of lighter powered-lift typically do not have large wing surface areas and therefore have higher stalling speeds during wing-borne (airplane) flight mode. However, these aircraft also can transition to semi-thrust borne mode where the powerplant shares the responsibility of producing lift as airspeed transitions between enroute airspeeds and hover. Therefore, as discussed under proposed § 22.115 and consistent with the airworthiness criteria from Federal Register notifications for the Joby Aero Inc., Model JAS4-1 and Archer Aviation Inc., Model M001 powered-lift, this NPRM proposes to require the determination of minimum safe speeds for various flight configurations for powered-lift rather than a maximum stalling speed.12 As discussed, the proposed stalling speed would generally limit the weight of airplanes. However, similar proposed limits would not have the same effect for other classes of aircraft. The FAA recognizes that while restrictions on maximum seating capacity and limitations on aerial work may effectively limit a manufacturer’s interest in building larger aircraft, the absence of any aerodynamic or other prescriptive design restriction would not otherwise limit the potential weight of these aircraft. The FAA specifically requests comments on appropriate parameters to limit the weight of lightsport category rotorcraft and powered-lift. If I've got it all sorted out, - Max level speed of 250 kts (instructor signoff required for the faster planes?) - Max stall speed of 54 kts (ETA: clean, flaps up and landing gear retracted at max weight) - Retractable gear allowed if the sport pilot has an instructor signoff - Variable pitch prop allowed if its control is automated (similar to the Porsche Mooney?) with normal constant speed props allowed with instructor signoff - Max of four seats, but sport pilots may carry only one passenger (other two seats allow for additional fuel weight or baggage) - No longer limited to single recip engine - Max weight limit of 3,000 pounds is implied by the stall speed limit, but not spelled out in the new reg as a specific weight limit? Thanks for parsing all that. I also saw that SP's will be allowed to fly at night. I wonder if additional training will be required. |
|
Quoted: Very interesting. In a good way... I'd love to do light sport flying, but as it is now, I'm just too heavy for that. I still need to lose the weight whether I ever fly or not, but this could make that dream more attainable. View Quote It looks like they have decided to simplify things by giving up on the list of parameters that seem to be intended to keep sport pilots in J-3 cubs and similar planes, and just go with a stall speed limit that imposes an approximate limit on wing loading, while keeping the 'if you are going to do something stupid and kill yourself, we do not want you taking more than one person with you' mentality (max of four seats, but no more than one passenger). The old standard eliminated anything that wasn't small and light, while the proposed new standard keeps sport pilots out of most of the speedy stuff (Mooneys, Bonanzas, Debonairs, etc). Removing the engine restriction can give the impression that they are opening up light sport to include twins, but the proposal mentions electric planes with multiple motors in that part of the document, and the stall speed restriction seems to eliminate the existing light twins that people are likely to think of. Definitely opens things up considerably, though. A 182RG seems to fall well within the proposed limits, as long as you don't put passengers in the back seat. |
|
Quoted: Thanks for parsing all that. I also saw that SP's will be allowed to fly at night. I wonder if additional training will be required. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: 3. Maximum VH Airspeed in Level Flight The § 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft limits light-sport aircraft to a VH of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level. A VH speed limit would not be retained for the airplanes or gliders in the proposed § 61.316 performance and design limitations for aircraft that a sport pilot could operate. Although an airplane or glider’s maximum airspeed is typically limited to approximately three to four times the aircraft’s VS1 under ideal conditions, proposed § 22.100(a)(4) would include a VH limit of 250 knots CAS for light-sport category aircraft to account for potential advances in technology and manufacturing practices that could enable higher speeds. Furthermore, after approximately 20 years of experience with the operation of light-sport category aircraft, the FAA has not noted any definitive data that links cruise speed as a contributing factor in accidents involving light-sport category aircraft. This experience informs the FAA’s current rulemaking proposal, including its proposal to increase the airspeed limitation. Analysis of performance data for 117 type-certificated, light-sport category, and amateur-built airplanes with stalling speeds less than or equal to the proposed 54 knots CAS stalling speed limit shows a maximum speed of 220 knots CAS, with the majority below 190 knots CAS. Allowing a maximum speed of 250 knots CAS is intended to provide an upper limit appropriate for a category of aircraft intended for recreation, flight training, and limited aerial work while providing sufficient margin to avoid practical constraints of new airplane designs by this limit.8 For pilot certification purposes, the FAA does not propose to retain or include a VH airspeed limitation in the proposed § 61.316 aircraft performance limitations because the FAA determined that, the proposed maximum stalling speed VS1 of 54 knots (as explained in section IV.C.4) for airplanes and the existing maximum stalling speed VS1 of 45 knots for gliders, will indirectly limit the cruise airspeeds9 for the aircraft that sport pilots may fly under the proposed performance limitations in part 61. The FAA recognizes helicopter design and aerodynamic flight limitations inherently limit the VH speed. The existing fleet of two seat helicopters do not exceed 150 knots in cruise flight. Therefore, the FAA does not propose or need a prescriptive speed limit for two seat helicopters that a sport pilot can operate. In 2018, the FAA codified additional training and endorsement privileges for flight instructors with a sport pilot rating.10 This provision authorized these flight instructors to provide additional training and endorsements for sport pilot applicants who wish to conduct cross-country flights in light-sport airplanes with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS.11 These amendments reinforce that additional training and a subsequent flight instructor endorsement can properly qualify sport pilots to operate various aircraft safely in the national airspace system. Additionally, the FAA notes that student pilots, who receive training and a validating flight instructor endorsement, can operate aircraft at speeds greater than 120 knots as pilot-in-command. The FAA contends that, since the implementation of the training and instructor endorsement requirements permitting sport pilots to operate airplanes up to the current VH speed limitation of 120 knots, instructor training and endorsements have been demonstrated to be a proven, effective method for validating that sport pilots can safely operate faster aircraft in the national airspace system, just as is allowed for student pilots with a lower grade of pilot certificate. This reflects the incongruities between the allowed operations for student pilots and sport pilots. For example, student pilots can operate aircraft at faster speeds than individuals that hold a sport pilot certificate, even though a sport pilot certificate is a higher grade of pilot certificate than a student pilot certificate. Thus, the FAA reasons that sport pilots can be permitted to operate faster aircraft safely in the national airspace system using instructor training and endorsements for validating pilot proficiency. 4. Maximum Stalling Speed (VS1) The light-sport aircraft definition in § 1.1 limits the maximum VS1 for light-sport aircraft to 45 knots CAS at the aircraft’s maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity. The proposal would retain the 45 knots CAS maximum VS1 for gliders and weight-shift-control aircraft. The FAA is proposing to increase the maximum VS1 to 54 knots CAS for airplanes. Regulatory provisions addressing VS1 would remain inapplicable to rotorcraft and lighter-than-air aircraft (e.g., balloons and airships), and would be removed for powered parachutes. The 45-knot limitation indirectly prohibits the use of heavier airplanes due to the correlation between stalling speed and aircraft weight. Because the FAA is seeking to accommodate greater airplane weights to enable more robust airframe designs and availability of safety enhancements, the FAA selected this proposed VS1 speed limit at nine knots above the current limitation for light-sport aircraft. The FAA determined that an airplane with a maximum VS1 limitation of 54 knots would permit airplane designs up to approximately 3,000 pounds. As proposed in §§ 22.100(a)(3) and 61.316(a), the new stalling speed limitation would apply to airplanes at the maximum certificated takeoff weight. In the absence of a specific weight limitation in the proposed rule, the new VS1 limit would provide flexibility for aircraft manufacturers to build more robust airframes and include desirable safety enhancements. This proposed change would expand aircraft that sport pilots may operate to include any existing aircraft that meets the sport pilot performance limitations as specified in proposed § 61.316. For airplanes, the proposed VS1 limit is not more than 54 knots CAS for sport pilots. The FAA has monitored the accident history of light-sport category aircraft since 2004. As of 2021, there have been 984 accidents or incidents involving light-sport category aircraft, with approximately half of those accidents or incidents occurring during the landing phase. Of the 501 landing accidents, seven resulted in a fatality. The second highest number of accidents or incidents, 164, occurred during an emergency descent. The FAA chose a VS1 of 54 knots CAS to strike a balance between allowing heavier aircraft to accommodate increased safety features, while increasing the stalling speed no more than necessary to retain low speeds during approach and landing. While the FAA recognizes that low stalling speeds will reduce kinetic energy levels and serve to improve occupant survivability in the event of an aircraft accident, enabling the addition of safety enhancing designs commensurate with increased weight could also improve occupant survivability. The FAA has determined that retaining the current VS1 restriction of 45 knots CAS for light-sport category airplanes would overly restrict the ability of aircraft manufacturers to produce heavier airplanes with additional safety features that this rule is intending to enable. A maximum VS1 of 54 knots CAS for airplanes would facilitate the production of heavier, more robust airplanes without unduly compromising the ability of these airplanes to be safely operated. Although the FAA considered increasing the proposed maximum stalling speed of airplanes above 54 knots CAS, the agency’s review of current aircraft performance data showed that this proposal would be sufficient to produce four-seat airplanes. Although the FAA proposes to permit the certification of rotorcraft under the proposal, stall speed restrictions, such as a maximum VS1, are inapplicable for aircraft that depend principally for their support in flight by the lift generated by one or more rotors. Rotorcraft have the ability to hover or remain in place in the air with no horizontal movement. In the event of engine failure, they can autorotate in a controlled descent to the ground. Accordingly, rotorcraft are not subject to a maximum stall speed in this proposed rule. Stalling speed restrictions are also not being proposed for powered-lift due to their ability to operate in various flight mode configurations, including thrust-borne or hover, similar to a rotorcraft. The designs of lighter powered-lift typically do not have large wing surface areas and therefore have higher stalling speeds during wing-borne (airplane) flight mode. However, these aircraft also can transition to semi-thrust borne mode where the powerplant shares the responsibility of producing lift as airspeed transitions between enroute airspeeds and hover. Therefore, as discussed under proposed § 22.115 and consistent with the airworthiness criteria from Federal Register notifications for the Joby Aero Inc., Model JAS4-1 and Archer Aviation Inc., Model M001 powered-lift, this NPRM proposes to require the determination of minimum safe speeds for various flight configurations for powered-lift rather than a maximum stalling speed.12 As discussed, the proposed stalling speed would generally limit the weight of airplanes. However, similar proposed limits would not have the same effect for other classes of aircraft. The FAA recognizes that while restrictions on maximum seating capacity and limitations on aerial work may effectively limit a manufacturer’s interest in building larger aircraft, the absence of any aerodynamic or other prescriptive design restriction would not otherwise limit the potential weight of these aircraft. The FAA specifically requests comments on appropriate parameters to limit the weight of lightsport category rotorcraft and powered-lift. If I've got it all sorted out, - Max level speed of 250 kts (instructor signoff required for the faster planes?) - Max stall speed of 54 kts (ETA: clean, flaps up and landing gear retracted at max weight) - Retractable gear allowed if the sport pilot has an instructor signoff - Variable pitch prop allowed if its control is automated (similar to the Porsche Mooney?) with normal constant speed props allowed with instructor signoff - Max of four seats, but sport pilots may carry only one passenger (other two seats allow for additional fuel weight or baggage) - No longer limited to single recip engine - Max weight limit of 3,000 pounds is implied by the stall speed limit, but not spelled out in the new reg as a specific weight limit? Thanks for parsing all that. I also saw that SP's will be allowed to fly at night. I wonder if additional training will be required. I'd have to go back and check to be certain, but I think the proposal says night flight would be allowed after getting an instructor signoff for night flight. |
|
Quoted: I'd have to go back and check to be certain, but I think the proposal says night flight would be allowed after getting an instructor signoff for night flight. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 3. Maximum VH Airspeed in Level Flight The § 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft limits light-sport aircraft to a VH of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level. A VH speed limit would not be retained for the airplanes or gliders in the proposed § 61.316 performance and design limitations for aircraft that a sport pilot could operate. Although an airplane or glider’s maximum airspeed is typically limited to approximately three to four times the aircraft’s VS1 under ideal conditions, proposed § 22.100(a)(4) would include a VH limit of 250 knots CAS for light-sport category aircraft to account for potential advances in technology and manufacturing practices that could enable higher speeds. Furthermore, after approximately 20 years of experience with the operation of light-sport category aircraft, the FAA has not noted any definitive data that links cruise speed as a contributing factor in accidents involving light-sport category aircraft. This experience informs the FAA’s current rulemaking proposal, including its proposal to increase the airspeed limitation. Analysis of performance data for 117 type-certificated, light-sport category, and amateur-built airplanes with stalling speeds less than or equal to the proposed 54 knots CAS stalling speed limit shows a maximum speed of 220 knots CAS, with the majority below 190 knots CAS. Allowing a maximum speed of 250 knots CAS is intended to provide an upper limit appropriate for a category of aircraft intended for recreation, flight training, and limited aerial work while providing sufficient margin to avoid practical constraints of new airplane designs by this limit.8 For pilot certification purposes, the FAA does not propose to retain or include a VH airspeed limitation in the proposed § 61.316 aircraft performance limitations because the FAA determined that, the proposed maximum stalling speed VS1 of 54 knots (as explained in section IV.C.4) for airplanes and the existing maximum stalling speed VS1 of 45 knots for gliders, will indirectly limit the cruise airspeeds9 for the aircraft that sport pilots may fly under the proposed performance limitations in part 61. The FAA recognizes helicopter design and aerodynamic flight limitations inherently limit the VH speed. The existing fleet of two seat helicopters do not exceed 150 knots in cruise flight. Therefore, the FAA does not propose or need a prescriptive speed limit for two seat helicopters that a sport pilot can operate. In 2018, the FAA codified additional training and endorsement privileges for flight instructors with a sport pilot rating.10 This provision authorized these flight instructors to provide additional training and endorsements for sport pilot applicants who wish to conduct cross-country flights in light-sport airplanes with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS.11 These amendments reinforce that additional training and a subsequent flight instructor endorsement can properly qualify sport pilots to operate various aircraft safely in the national airspace system. Additionally, the FAA notes that student pilots, who receive training and a validating flight instructor endorsement, can operate aircraft at speeds greater than 120 knots as pilot-in-command. The FAA contends that, since the implementation of the training and instructor endorsement requirements permitting sport pilots to operate airplanes up to the current VH speed limitation of 120 knots, instructor training and endorsements have been demonstrated to be a proven, effective method for validating that sport pilots can safely operate faster aircraft in the national airspace system, just as is allowed for student pilots with a lower grade of pilot certificate. This reflects the incongruities between the allowed operations for student pilots and sport pilots. For example, student pilots can operate aircraft at faster speeds than individuals that hold a sport pilot certificate, even though a sport pilot certificate is a higher grade of pilot certificate than a student pilot certificate. Thus, the FAA reasons that sport pilots can be permitted to operate faster aircraft safely in the national airspace system using instructor training and endorsements for validating pilot proficiency. 4. Maximum Stalling Speed (VS1) The light-sport aircraft definition in § 1.1 limits the maximum VS1 for light-sport aircraft to 45 knots CAS at the aircraft’s maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity. The proposal would retain the 45 knots CAS maximum VS1 for gliders and weight-shift-control aircraft. The FAA is proposing to increase the maximum VS1 to 54 knots CAS for airplanes. Regulatory provisions addressing VS1 would remain inapplicable to rotorcraft and lighter-than-air aircraft (e.g., balloons and airships), and would be removed for powered parachutes. The 45-knot limitation indirectly prohibits the use of heavier airplanes due to the correlation between stalling speed and aircraft weight. Because the FAA is seeking to accommodate greater airplane weights to enable more robust airframe designs and availability of safety enhancements, the FAA selected this proposed VS1 speed limit at nine knots above the current limitation for light-sport aircraft. The FAA determined that an airplane with a maximum VS1 limitation of 54 knots would permit airplane designs up to approximately 3,000 pounds. As proposed in §§ 22.100(a)(3) and 61.316(a), the new stalling speed limitation would apply to airplanes at the maximum certificated takeoff weight. In the absence of a specific weight limitation in the proposed rule, the new VS1 limit would provide flexibility for aircraft manufacturers to build more robust airframes and include desirable safety enhancements. This proposed change would expand aircraft that sport pilots may operate to include any existing aircraft that meets the sport pilot performance limitations as specified in proposed § 61.316. For airplanes, the proposed VS1 limit is not more than 54 knots CAS for sport pilots. The FAA has monitored the accident history of light-sport category aircraft since 2004. As of 2021, there have been 984 accidents or incidents involving light-sport category aircraft, with approximately half of those accidents or incidents occurring during the landing phase. Of the 501 landing accidents, seven resulted in a fatality. The second highest number of accidents or incidents, 164, occurred during an emergency descent. The FAA chose a VS1 of 54 knots CAS to strike a balance between allowing heavier aircraft to accommodate increased safety features, while increasing the stalling speed no more than necessary to retain low speeds during approach and landing. While the FAA recognizes that low stalling speeds will reduce kinetic energy levels and serve to improve occupant survivability in the event of an aircraft accident, enabling the addition of safety enhancing designs commensurate with increased weight could also improve occupant survivability. The FAA has determined that retaining the current VS1 restriction of 45 knots CAS for light-sport category airplanes would overly restrict the ability of aircraft manufacturers to produce heavier airplanes with additional safety features that this rule is intending to enable. A maximum VS1 of 54 knots CAS for airplanes would facilitate the production of heavier, more robust airplanes without unduly compromising the ability of these airplanes to be safely operated. Although the FAA considered increasing the proposed maximum stalling speed of airplanes above 54 knots CAS, the agency’s review of current aircraft performance data showed that this proposal would be sufficient to produce four-seat airplanes. Although the FAA proposes to permit the certification of rotorcraft under the proposal, stall speed restrictions, such as a maximum VS1, are inapplicable for aircraft that depend principally for their support in flight by the lift generated by one or more rotors. Rotorcraft have the ability to hover or remain in place in the air with no horizontal movement. In the event of engine failure, they can autorotate in a controlled descent to the ground. Accordingly, rotorcraft are not subject to a maximum stall speed in this proposed rule. Stalling speed restrictions are also not being proposed for powered-lift due to their ability to operate in various flight mode configurations, including thrust-borne or hover, similar to a rotorcraft. The designs of lighter powered-lift typically do not have large wing surface areas and therefore have higher stalling speeds during wing-borne (airplane) flight mode. However, these aircraft also can transition to semi-thrust borne mode where the powerplant shares the responsibility of producing lift as airspeed transitions between enroute airspeeds and hover. Therefore, as discussed under proposed § 22.115 and consistent with the airworthiness criteria from Federal Register notifications for the Joby Aero Inc., Model JAS4-1 and Archer Aviation Inc., Model M001 powered-lift, this NPRM proposes to require the determination of minimum safe speeds for various flight configurations for powered-lift rather than a maximum stalling speed.12 As discussed, the proposed stalling speed would generally limit the weight of airplanes. However, similar proposed limits would not have the same effect for other classes of aircraft. The FAA recognizes that while restrictions on maximum seating capacity and limitations on aerial work may effectively limit a manufacturer’s interest in building larger aircraft, the absence of any aerodynamic or other prescriptive design restriction would not otherwise limit the potential weight of these aircraft. The FAA specifically requests comments on appropriate parameters to limit the weight of lightsport category rotorcraft and powered-lift. If I've got it all sorted out, - Max level speed of 250 kts (instructor signoff required for the faster planes?) - Max stall speed of 54 kts (ETA: clean, flaps up and landing gear retracted at max weight) - Retractable gear allowed if the sport pilot has an instructor signoff - Variable pitch prop allowed if its control is automated (similar to the Porsche Mooney?) with normal constant speed props allowed with instructor signoff - Max of four seats, but sport pilots may carry only one passenger (other two seats allow for additional fuel weight or baggage) - No longer limited to single recip engine - Max weight limit of 3,000 pounds is implied by the stall speed limit, but not spelled out in the new reg as a specific weight limit? Thanks for parsing all that. I also saw that SP's will be allowed to fly at night. I wonder if additional training will be required. I'd have to go back and check to be certain, but I think the proposal says night flight would be allowed after getting an instructor signoff for night flight. That sounds right. |
|
Quoted: Wow. 250 kts is the max airspeed under 10,000 ft anyway, no? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: 3. Maximum VH Airspeed in Level Flight The § 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft limits light-sport aircraft to a VH of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level. A VH speed limit would not be retained for the airplanes or gliders in the proposed § 61.316 performance and design limitations for aircraft that a sport pilot could operate. Although an airplane or glider’s maximum airspeed is typically limited to approximately three to four times the aircraft’s VS1 under ideal conditions, proposed § 22.100(a)(4) would include a VH limit of 250 knots CAS for light-sport category aircraft to account for potential advances in technology and manufacturing practices that could enable higher speeds. Furthermore, after approximately 20 years of experience with the operation of light-sport category aircraft, the FAA has not noted any definitive data that links cruise speed as a contributing factor in accidents involving light-sport category aircraft. This experience informs the FAA’s current rulemaking proposal, including its proposal to increase the airspeed limitation. Analysis of performance data for 117 type-certificated, light-sport category, and amateur-built airplanes with stalling speeds less than or equal to the proposed 54 knots CAS stalling speed limit shows a maximum speed of 220 knots CAS, with the majority below 190 knots CAS. Allowing a maximum speed of 250 knots CAS is intended to provide an upper limit appropriate for a category of aircraft intended for recreation, flight training, and limited aerial work while providing sufficient margin to avoid practical constraints of new airplane designs by this limit.8 For pilot certification purposes, the FAA does not propose to retain or include a VH airspeed limitation in the proposed § 61.316 aircraft performance limitations because the FAA determined that, the proposed maximum stalling speed VS1 of 54 knots (as explained in section IV.C.4) for airplanes and the existing maximum stalling speed VS1 of 45 knots for gliders, will indirectly limit the cruise airspeeds9 for the aircraft that sport pilots may fly under the proposed performance limitations in part 61. The FAA recognizes helicopter design and aerodynamic flight limitations inherently limit the VH speed. The existing fleet of two seat helicopters do not exceed 150 knots in cruise flight. Therefore, the FAA does not propose or need a prescriptive speed limit for two seat helicopters that a sport pilot can operate. In 2018, the FAA codified additional training and endorsement privileges for flight instructors with a sport pilot rating.10 This provision authorized these flight instructors to provide additional training and endorsements for sport pilot applicants who wish to conduct cross-country flights in light-sport airplanes with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS.11 These amendments reinforce that additional training and a subsequent flight instructor endorsement can properly qualify sport pilots to operate various aircraft safely in the national airspace system. Additionally, the FAA notes that student pilots, who receive training and a validating flight instructor endorsement, can operate aircraft at speeds greater than 120 knots as pilot-in-command. The FAA contends that, since the implementation of the training and instructor endorsement requirements permitting sport pilots to operate airplanes up to the current VH speed limitation of 120 knots, instructor training and endorsements have been demonstrated to be a proven, effective method for validating that sport pilots can safely operate faster aircraft in the national airspace system, just as is allowed for student pilots with a lower grade of pilot certificate. This reflects the incongruities between the allowed operations for student pilots and sport pilots. For example, student pilots can operate aircraft at faster speeds than individuals that hold a sport pilot certificate, even though a sport pilot certificate is a higher grade of pilot certificate than a student pilot certificate. Thus, the FAA reasons that sport pilots can be permitted to operate faster aircraft safely in the national airspace system using instructor training and endorsements for validating pilot proficiency. 4. Maximum Stalling Speed (VS1) The light-sport aircraft definition in § 1.1 limits the maximum VS1 for light-sport aircraft to 45 knots CAS at the aircraft’s maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity. The proposal would retain the 45 knots CAS maximum VS1 for gliders and weight-shift-control aircraft. The FAA is proposing to increase the maximum VS1 to 54 knots CAS for airplanes. Regulatory provisions addressing VS1 would remain inapplicable to rotorcraft and lighter-than-air aircraft (e.g., balloons and airships), and would be removed for powered parachutes. The 45-knot limitation indirectly prohibits the use of heavier airplanes due to the correlation between stalling speed and aircraft weight. Because the FAA is seeking to accommodate greater airplane weights to enable more robust airframe designs and availability of safety enhancements, the FAA selected this proposed VS1 speed limit at nine knots above the current limitation for light-sport aircraft. The FAA determined that an airplane with a maximum VS1 limitation of 54 knots would permit airplane designs up to approximately 3,000 pounds. As proposed in §§ 22.100(a)(3) and 61.316(a), the new stalling speed limitation would apply to airplanes at the maximum certificated takeoff weight. In the absence of a specific weight limitation in the proposed rule, the new VS1 limit would provide flexibility for aircraft manufacturers to build more robust airframes and include desirable safety enhancements. This proposed change would expand aircraft that sport pilots may operate to include any existing aircraft that meets the sport pilot performance limitations as specified in proposed § 61.316. For airplanes, the proposed VS1 limit is not more than 54 knots CAS for sport pilots. The FAA has monitored the accident history of light-sport category aircraft since 2004. As of 2021, there have been 984 accidents or incidents involving light-sport category aircraft, with approximately half of those accidents or incidents occurring during the landing phase. Of the 501 landing accidents, seven resulted in a fatality. The second highest number of accidents or incidents, 164, occurred during an emergency descent. The FAA chose a VS1 of 54 knots CAS to strike a balance between allowing heavier aircraft to accommodate increased safety features, while increasing the stalling speed no more than necessary to retain low speeds during approach and landing. While the FAA recognizes that low stalling speeds will reduce kinetic energy levels and serve to improve occupant survivability in the event of an aircraft accident, enabling the addition of safety enhancing designs commensurate with increased weight could also improve occupant survivability. The FAA has determined that retaining the current VS1 restriction of 45 knots CAS for light-sport category airplanes would overly restrict the ability of aircraft manufacturers to produce heavier airplanes with additional safety features that this rule is intending to enable. A maximum VS1 of 54 knots CAS for airplanes would facilitate the production of heavier, more robust airplanes without unduly compromising the ability of these airplanes to be safely operated. Although the FAA considered increasing the proposed maximum stalling speed of airplanes above 54 knots CAS, the agency’s review of current aircraft performance data showed that this proposal would be sufficient to produce four-seat airplanes. Although the FAA proposes to permit the certification of rotorcraft under the proposal, stall speed restrictions, such as a maximum VS1, are inapplicable for aircraft that depend principally for their support in flight by the lift generated by one or more rotors. Rotorcraft have the ability to hover or remain in place in the air with no horizontal movement. In the event of engine failure, they can autorotate in a controlled descent to the ground. Accordingly, rotorcraft are not subject to a maximum stall speed in this proposed rule. Stalling speed restrictions are also not being proposed for powered-lift due to their ability to operate in various flight mode configurations, including thrust-borne or hover, similar to a rotorcraft. The designs of lighter powered-lift typically do not have large wing surface areas and therefore have higher stalling speeds during wing-borne (airplane) flight mode. However, these aircraft also can transition to semi-thrust borne mode where the powerplant shares the responsibility of producing lift as airspeed transitions between enroute airspeeds and hover. Therefore, as discussed under proposed § 22.115 and consistent with the airworthiness criteria from Federal Register notifications for the Joby Aero Inc., Model JAS4-1 and Archer Aviation Inc., Model M001 powered-lift, this NPRM proposes to require the determination of minimum safe speeds for various flight configurations for powered-lift rather than a maximum stalling speed.12 As discussed, the proposed stalling speed would generally limit the weight of airplanes. However, similar proposed limits would not have the same effect for other classes of aircraft. The FAA recognizes that while restrictions on maximum seating capacity and limitations on aerial work may effectively limit a manufacturer’s interest in building larger aircraft, the absence of any aerodynamic or other prescriptive design restriction would not otherwise limit the potential weight of these aircraft. The FAA specifically requests comments on appropriate parameters to limit the weight of lightsport category rotorcraft and powered-lift. If I've got it all sorted out, - Max level speed of 250 kts (instructor signoff required for the faster planes?) - Max stall speed of 54 kts (ETA: clean, flaps up and landing gear retracted at max weight) - Retractable gear allowed if the sport pilot has an instructor signoff - Variable pitch prop allowed if its control is automated (similar to the Porsche Mooney?) with normal constant speed props allowed with instructor signoff - Max of four seats, but sport pilots may carry only one passenger (other two seats allow for additional fuel weight or baggage) - No longer limited to single recip engine - Max weight limit of 3,000 pounds is implied by the stall speed limit, but not spelled out in the new reg as a specific weight limit? Wow. 250 kts is the max airspeed under 10,000 ft anyway, no? I think their reasoning is that 250 kts will allow for future improvements in propulsion and slicking the airframe up, while the stall speed limitation will keep sport pilots out of planes that are too fast for them to manage in the pattern. The max speed can easily distract you, until you start looking at the stall speeds (with gear and flaps up) of various planes that could make use of much of that new max speed limit (it threw me off, until I went through a few "Heeyyy ... dang it " cycles of looking at planes that I thought just might barely meet the proposed limits). |
|
Quoted: I think their reasoning is that 250 kts will allow for future improvements in propulsion and slicking the airframe up, while the stall speed limitation will keep sport pilots out of planes that are too fast for them to manage in the pattern. The max speed can easily distract you, until you start looking at the stall speeds (with gear and flaps up) of various planes that could make use of much of that new max speed limit (it threw me off, until I went through a few "Heeyyy ... dang it " cycles of looking at planes that I thought just might barely meet the proposed limits. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 3. Maximum VH Airspeed in Level Flight The § 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft limits light-sport aircraft to a VH of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level. A VH speed limit would not be retained for the airplanes or gliders in the proposed § 61.316 performance and design limitations for aircraft that a sport pilot could operate. Although an airplane or glider’s maximum airspeed is typically limited to approximately three to four times the aircraft’s VS1 under ideal conditions, proposed § 22.100(a)(4) would include a VH limit of 250 knots CAS for light-sport category aircraft to account for potential advances in technology and manufacturing practices that could enable higher speeds. Furthermore, after approximately 20 years of experience with the operation of light-sport category aircraft, the FAA has not noted any definitive data that links cruise speed as a contributing factor in accidents involving light-sport category aircraft. This experience informs the FAA’s current rulemaking proposal, including its proposal to increase the airspeed limitation. Analysis of performance data for 117 type-certificated, light-sport category, and amateur-built airplanes with stalling speeds less than or equal to the proposed 54 knots CAS stalling speed limit shows a maximum speed of 220 knots CAS, with the majority below 190 knots CAS. Allowing a maximum speed of 250 knots CAS is intended to provide an upper limit appropriate for a category of aircraft intended for recreation, flight training, and limited aerial work while providing sufficient margin to avoid practical constraints of new airplane designs by this limit.8 For pilot certification purposes, the FAA does not propose to retain or include a VH airspeed limitation in the proposed § 61.316 aircraft performance limitations because the FAA determined that, the proposed maximum stalling speed VS1 of 54 knots (as explained in section IV.C.4) for airplanes and the existing maximum stalling speed VS1 of 45 knots for gliders, will indirectly limit the cruise airspeeds9 for the aircraft that sport pilots may fly under the proposed performance limitations in part 61. The FAA recognizes helicopter design and aerodynamic flight limitations inherently limit the VH speed. The existing fleet of two seat helicopters do not exceed 150 knots in cruise flight. Therefore, the FAA does not propose or need a prescriptive speed limit for two seat helicopters that a sport pilot can operate. In 2018, the FAA codified additional training and endorsement privileges for flight instructors with a sport pilot rating.10 This provision authorized these flight instructors to provide additional training and endorsements for sport pilot applicants who wish to conduct cross-country flights in light-sport airplanes with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS.11 These amendments reinforce that additional training and a subsequent flight instructor endorsement can properly qualify sport pilots to operate various aircraft safely in the national airspace system. Additionally, the FAA notes that student pilots, who receive training and a validating flight instructor endorsement, can operate aircraft at speeds greater than 120 knots as pilot-in-command. The FAA contends that, since the implementation of the training and instructor endorsement requirements permitting sport pilots to operate airplanes up to the current VH speed limitation of 120 knots, instructor training and endorsements have been demonstrated to be a proven, effective method for validating that sport pilots can safely operate faster aircraft in the national airspace system, just as is allowed for student pilots with a lower grade of pilot certificate. This reflects the incongruities between the allowed operations for student pilots and sport pilots. For example, student pilots can operate aircraft at faster speeds than individuals that hold a sport pilot certificate, even though a sport pilot certificate is a higher grade of pilot certificate than a student pilot certificate. Thus, the FAA reasons that sport pilots can be permitted to operate faster aircraft safely in the national airspace system using instructor training and endorsements for validating pilot proficiency. 4. Maximum Stalling Speed (VS1) The light-sport aircraft definition in § 1.1 limits the maximum VS1 for light-sport aircraft to 45 knots CAS at the aircraft’s maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity. The proposal would retain the 45 knots CAS maximum VS1 for gliders and weight-shift-control aircraft. The FAA is proposing to increase the maximum VS1 to 54 knots CAS for airplanes. Regulatory provisions addressing VS1 would remain inapplicable to rotorcraft and lighter-than-air aircraft (e.g., balloons and airships), and would be removed for powered parachutes. The 45-knot limitation indirectly prohibits the use of heavier airplanes due to the correlation between stalling speed and aircraft weight. Because the FAA is seeking to accommodate greater airplane weights to enable more robust airframe designs and availability of safety enhancements, the FAA selected this proposed VS1 speed limit at nine knots above the current limitation for light-sport aircraft. The FAA determined that an airplane with a maximum VS1 limitation of 54 knots would permit airplane designs up to approximately 3,000 pounds. As proposed in §§ 22.100(a)(3) and 61.316(a), the new stalling speed limitation would apply to airplanes at the maximum certificated takeoff weight. In the absence of a specific weight limitation in the proposed rule, the new VS1 limit would provide flexibility for aircraft manufacturers to build more robust airframes and include desirable safety enhancements. This proposed change would expand aircraft that sport pilots may operate to include any existing aircraft that meets the sport pilot performance limitations as specified in proposed § 61.316. For airplanes, the proposed VS1 limit is not more than 54 knots CAS for sport pilots. The FAA has monitored the accident history of light-sport category aircraft since 2004. As of 2021, there have been 984 accidents or incidents involving light-sport category aircraft, with approximately half of those accidents or incidents occurring during the landing phase. Of the 501 landing accidents, seven resulted in a fatality. The second highest number of accidents or incidents, 164, occurred during an emergency descent. The FAA chose a VS1 of 54 knots CAS to strike a balance between allowing heavier aircraft to accommodate increased safety features, while increasing the stalling speed no more than necessary to retain low speeds during approach and landing. While the FAA recognizes that low stalling speeds will reduce kinetic energy levels and serve to improve occupant survivability in the event of an aircraft accident, enabling the addition of safety enhancing designs commensurate with increased weight could also improve occupant survivability. The FAA has determined that retaining the current VS1 restriction of 45 knots CAS for light-sport category airplanes would overly restrict the ability of aircraft manufacturers to produce heavier airplanes with additional safety features that this rule is intending to enable. A maximum VS1 of 54 knots CAS for airplanes would facilitate the production of heavier, more robust airplanes without unduly compromising the ability of these airplanes to be safely operated. Although the FAA considered increasing the proposed maximum stalling speed of airplanes above 54 knots CAS, the agency’s review of current aircraft performance data showed that this proposal would be sufficient to produce four-seat airplanes. Although the FAA proposes to permit the certification of rotorcraft under the proposal, stall speed restrictions, such as a maximum VS1, are inapplicable for aircraft that depend principally for their support in flight by the lift generated by one or more rotors. Rotorcraft have the ability to hover or remain in place in the air with no horizontal movement. In the event of engine failure, they can autorotate in a controlled descent to the ground. Accordingly, rotorcraft are not subject to a maximum stall speed in this proposed rule. Stalling speed restrictions are also not being proposed for powered-lift due to their ability to operate in various flight mode configurations, including thrust-borne or hover, similar to a rotorcraft. The designs of lighter powered-lift typically do not have large wing surface areas and therefore have higher stalling speeds during wing-borne (airplane) flight mode. However, these aircraft also can transition to semi-thrust borne mode where the powerplant shares the responsibility of producing lift as airspeed transitions between enroute airspeeds and hover. Therefore, as discussed under proposed § 22.115 and consistent with the airworthiness criteria from Federal Register notifications for the Joby Aero Inc., Model JAS4-1 and Archer Aviation Inc., Model M001 powered-lift, this NPRM proposes to require the determination of minimum safe speeds for various flight configurations for powered-lift rather than a maximum stalling speed.12 As discussed, the proposed stalling speed would generally limit the weight of airplanes. However, similar proposed limits would not have the same effect for other classes of aircraft. The FAA recognizes that while restrictions on maximum seating capacity and limitations on aerial work may effectively limit a manufacturer’s interest in building larger aircraft, the absence of any aerodynamic or other prescriptive design restriction would not otherwise limit the potential weight of these aircraft. The FAA specifically requests comments on appropriate parameters to limit the weight of lightsport category rotorcraft and powered-lift. If I've got it all sorted out, - Max level speed of 250 kts (instructor signoff required for the faster planes?) - Max stall speed of 54 kts (ETA: clean, flaps up and landing gear retracted at max weight) - Retractable gear allowed if the sport pilot has an instructor signoff - Variable pitch prop allowed if its control is automated (similar to the Porsche Mooney?) with normal constant speed props allowed with instructor signoff - Max of four seats, but sport pilots may carry only one passenger (other two seats allow for additional fuel weight or baggage) - No longer limited to single recip engine - Max weight limit of 3,000 pounds is implied by the stall speed limit, but not spelled out in the new reg as a specific weight limit? Wow. 250 kts is the max airspeed under 10,000 ft anyway, no? I think their reasoning is that 250 kts will allow for future improvements in propulsion and slicking the airframe up, while the stall speed limitation will keep sport pilots out of planes that are too fast for them to manage in the pattern. The max speed can easily distract you, until you start looking at the stall speeds (with gear and flaps up) of various planes that could make use of much of that new max speed limit (it threw me off, until I went through a few "Heeyyy ... dang it " cycles of looking at planes that I thought just might barely meet the proposed limits. I get that, but there will be a speed race on the high end of experimental home builts in the future. Especially now that designers can throw two engines in the mix. And with electronically controlled props, you could get a plane that is limited to 250 kts in level flight, but climbs or descends faster. It's a much bigger envelope for designers to play in, and it'll be some time before they push the outer limits of it - but when they do, it will be fascinating to watch. |
|
Quoted: I get that, but there will be a speed race on the high end of experimental home builts in the future. Especially now that designers can throw two engines in the mix. And with electronically controlled props, you could get a plane that is limited to 250 kts in level flight, but climbs or descends faster. It's a much bigger envelope for designers to play in, and it'll be some time before they push the outer limits of it - but when they do, it will be fascinating to watch. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 3. Maximum VH Airspeed in Level Flight The § 1.1 definition of light-sport aircraft limits light-sport aircraft to a VH of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level. A VH speed limit would not be retained for the airplanes or gliders in the proposed § 61.316 performance and design limitations for aircraft that a sport pilot could operate. Although an airplane or glider’s maximum airspeed is typically limited to approximately three to four times the aircraft’s VS1 under ideal conditions, proposed § 22.100(a)(4) would include a VH limit of 250 knots CAS for light-sport category aircraft to account for potential advances in technology and manufacturing practices that could enable higher speeds. Furthermore, after approximately 20 years of experience with the operation of light-sport category aircraft, the FAA has not noted any definitive data that links cruise speed as a contributing factor in accidents involving light-sport category aircraft. This experience informs the FAA’s current rulemaking proposal, including its proposal to increase the airspeed limitation. Analysis of performance data for 117 type-certificated, light-sport category, and amateur-built airplanes with stalling speeds less than or equal to the proposed 54 knots CAS stalling speed limit shows a maximum speed of 220 knots CAS, with the majority below 190 knots CAS. Allowing a maximum speed of 250 knots CAS is intended to provide an upper limit appropriate for a category of aircraft intended for recreation, flight training, and limited aerial work while providing sufficient margin to avoid practical constraints of new airplane designs by this limit.8 For pilot certification purposes, the FAA does not propose to retain or include a VH airspeed limitation in the proposed § 61.316 aircraft performance limitations because the FAA determined that, the proposed maximum stalling speed VS1 of 54 knots (as explained in section IV.C.4) for airplanes and the existing maximum stalling speed VS1 of 45 knots for gliders, will indirectly limit the cruise airspeeds9 for the aircraft that sport pilots may fly under the proposed performance limitations in part 61. The FAA recognizes helicopter design and aerodynamic flight limitations inherently limit the VH speed. The existing fleet of two seat helicopters do not exceed 150 knots in cruise flight. Therefore, the FAA does not propose or need a prescriptive speed limit for two seat helicopters that a sport pilot can operate. In 2018, the FAA codified additional training and endorsement privileges for flight instructors with a sport pilot rating.10 This provision authorized these flight instructors to provide additional training and endorsements for sport pilot applicants who wish to conduct cross-country flights in light-sport airplanes with a VH greater than 87 knots CAS.11 These amendments reinforce that additional training and a subsequent flight instructor endorsement can properly qualify sport pilots to operate various aircraft safely in the national airspace system. Additionally, the FAA notes that student pilots, who receive training and a validating flight instructor endorsement, can operate aircraft at speeds greater than 120 knots as pilot-in-command. The FAA contends that, since the implementation of the training and instructor endorsement requirements permitting sport pilots to operate airplanes up to the current VH speed limitation of 120 knots, instructor training and endorsements have been demonstrated to be a proven, effective method for validating that sport pilots can safely operate faster aircraft in the national airspace system, just as is allowed for student pilots with a lower grade of pilot certificate. This reflects the incongruities between the allowed operations for student pilots and sport pilots. For example, student pilots can operate aircraft at faster speeds than individuals that hold a sport pilot certificate, even though a sport pilot certificate is a higher grade of pilot certificate than a student pilot certificate. Thus, the FAA reasons that sport pilots can be permitted to operate faster aircraft safely in the national airspace system using instructor training and endorsements for validating pilot proficiency. 4. Maximum Stalling Speed (VS1) The light-sport aircraft definition in § 1.1 limits the maximum VS1 for light-sport aircraft to 45 knots CAS at the aircraft’s maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity. The proposal would retain the 45 knots CAS maximum VS1 for gliders and weight-shift-control aircraft. The FAA is proposing to increase the maximum VS1 to 54 knots CAS for airplanes. Regulatory provisions addressing VS1 would remain inapplicable to rotorcraft and lighter-than-air aircraft (e.g., balloons and airships), and would be removed for powered parachutes. The 45-knot limitation indirectly prohibits the use of heavier airplanes due to the correlation between stalling speed and aircraft weight. Because the FAA is seeking to accommodate greater airplane weights to enable more robust airframe designs and availability of safety enhancements, the FAA selected this proposed VS1 speed limit at nine knots above the current limitation for light-sport aircraft. The FAA determined that an airplane with a maximum VS1 limitation of 54 knots would permit airplane designs up to approximately 3,000 pounds. As proposed in §§ 22.100(a)(3) and 61.316(a), the new stalling speed limitation would apply to airplanes at the maximum certificated takeoff weight. In the absence of a specific weight limitation in the proposed rule, the new VS1 limit would provide flexibility for aircraft manufacturers to build more robust airframes and include desirable safety enhancements. This proposed change would expand aircraft that sport pilots may operate to include any existing aircraft that meets the sport pilot performance limitations as specified in proposed § 61.316. For airplanes, the proposed VS1 limit is not more than 54 knots CAS for sport pilots. The FAA has monitored the accident history of light-sport category aircraft since 2004. As of 2021, there have been 984 accidents or incidents involving light-sport category aircraft, with approximately half of those accidents or incidents occurring during the landing phase. Of the 501 landing accidents, seven resulted in a fatality. The second highest number of accidents or incidents, 164, occurred during an emergency descent. The FAA chose a VS1 of 54 knots CAS to strike a balance between allowing heavier aircraft to accommodate increased safety features, while increasing the stalling speed no more than necessary to retain low speeds during approach and landing. While the FAA recognizes that low stalling speeds will reduce kinetic energy levels and serve to improve occupant survivability in the event of an aircraft accident, enabling the addition of safety enhancing designs commensurate with increased weight could also improve occupant survivability. The FAA has determined that retaining the current VS1 restriction of 45 knots CAS for light-sport category airplanes would overly restrict the ability of aircraft manufacturers to produce heavier airplanes with additional safety features that this rule is intending to enable. A maximum VS1 of 54 knots CAS for airplanes would facilitate the production of heavier, more robust airplanes without unduly compromising the ability of these airplanes to be safely operated. Although the FAA considered increasing the proposed maximum stalling speed of airplanes above 54 knots CAS, the agency’s review of current aircraft performance data showed that this proposal would be sufficient to produce four-seat airplanes. Although the FAA proposes to permit the certification of rotorcraft under the proposal, stall speed restrictions, such as a maximum VS1, are inapplicable for aircraft that depend principally for their support in flight by the lift generated by one or more rotors. Rotorcraft have the ability to hover or remain in place in the air with no horizontal movement. In the event of engine failure, they can autorotate in a controlled descent to the ground. Accordingly, rotorcraft are not subject to a maximum stall speed in this proposed rule. Stalling speed restrictions are also not being proposed for powered-lift due to their ability to operate in various flight mode configurations, including thrust-borne or hover, similar to a rotorcraft. The designs of lighter powered-lift typically do not have large wing surface areas and therefore have higher stalling speeds during wing-borne (airplane) flight mode. However, these aircraft also can transition to semi-thrust borne mode where the powerplant shares the responsibility of producing lift as airspeed transitions between enroute airspeeds and hover. Therefore, as discussed under proposed § 22.115 and consistent with the airworthiness criteria from Federal Register notifications for the Joby Aero Inc., Model JAS4-1 and Archer Aviation Inc., Model M001 powered-lift, this NPRM proposes to require the determination of minimum safe speeds for various flight configurations for powered-lift rather than a maximum stalling speed.12 As discussed, the proposed stalling speed would generally limit the weight of airplanes. However, similar proposed limits would not have the same effect for other classes of aircraft. The FAA recognizes that while restrictions on maximum seating capacity and limitations on aerial work may effectively limit a manufacturer’s interest in building larger aircraft, the absence of any aerodynamic or other prescriptive design restriction would not otherwise limit the potential weight of these aircraft. The FAA specifically requests comments on appropriate parameters to limit the weight of lightsport category rotorcraft and powered-lift. If I've got it all sorted out, - Max level speed of 250 kts (instructor signoff required for the faster planes?) - Max stall speed of 54 kts (ETA: clean, flaps up and landing gear retracted at max weight) - Retractable gear allowed if the sport pilot has an instructor signoff - Variable pitch prop allowed if its control is automated (similar to the Porsche Mooney?) with normal constant speed props allowed with instructor signoff - Max of four seats, but sport pilots may carry only one passenger (other two seats allow for additional fuel weight or baggage) - No longer limited to single recip engine - Max weight limit of 3,000 pounds is implied by the stall speed limit, but not spelled out in the new reg as a specific weight limit? Wow. 250 kts is the max airspeed under 10,000 ft anyway, no? I think their reasoning is that 250 kts will allow for future improvements in propulsion and slicking the airframe up, while the stall speed limitation will keep sport pilots out of planes that are too fast for them to manage in the pattern. The max speed can easily distract you, until you start looking at the stall speeds (with gear and flaps up) of various planes that could make use of much of that new max speed limit (it threw me off, until I went through a few "Heeyyy ... dang it " cycles of looking at planes that I thought just might barely meet the proposed limits. I get that, but there will be a speed race on the high end of experimental home builts in the future. Especially now that designers can throw two engines in the mix. And with electronically controlled props, you could get a plane that is limited to 250 kts in level flight, but climbs or descends faster. It's a much bigger envelope for designers to play in, and it'll be some time before they push the outer limits of it - but when they do, it will be fascinating to watch. Yeah, for much of my career I have heard complaints that the FAA is trying to kill general aviation (and I've gotten the impression, at times, that this is true). This proposed rule change seems like a step in the other direction, by offering an invitation for the manufacturers to come up with new designs and by giving some potential pilots a nudge to start training. |
|
Question for the arfcom engineers:
It's been three decades since I had classes requiring me to do any calculations on aircraft performance, so my memory of that is very weak. Is there a relatively simple formula for estimating the change in stall speed from a change in wing area (all other factors remaining the same)? |
|
Quoted: I get that, but there will be a speed race on the high end of experimental home builts in the future. Especially now that designers can throw two engines in the mix. And with electronically controlled props, you could get a plane that is limited to 250 kts in level flight, but climbs or descends faster. It's a much bigger envelope for designers to play in, and it'll be some time before they push the outer limits of it - but when they do, it will be fascinating to watch. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: I get that, but there will be a speed race on the high end of experimental home builts in the future. Especially now that designers can throw two engines in the mix. And with electronically controlled props, you could get a plane that is limited to 250 kts in level flight, but climbs or descends faster. It's a much bigger envelope for designers to play in, and it'll be some time before they push the outer limits of it - but when they do, it will be fascinating to watch. With the lifting of the single engine requirement, it sounds like the FAA is also considering the development of the crewed-drone or air taxi designs that require multiple motors. Quoted: I'd have to go back and check to be certain, but I think the proposal says night flight would be allowed after getting an instructor signoff for night flight. Also need FAA basic med for night VFR. |
|
Quoted: Question for the arfcom engineers: It's been three decades since I had classes requiring me to do any calculations on aircraft performance, so my memory of that is very weak. Is there a relatively simple formula for estimating the change in stall speed from a change in wing area (all other factors lbfremaining the same)? View Quote Yes. Two simple formulas needed. Stall Speed at 1g = square root[2(Weight)/(air density)(max lift coefficient)(wing area)] Use 0.00238 for density at sea level standard conditions feet^2 for wing area and feet/second for speed. Substitute different wing areas in this formula to see the effect on wing area change. First calculate maximum lift coefficient (CLmax) from the basic handbook airplane speeds and wing area. Hold this constant, although there will be minor changes with different wing geometries. CLmax = weight / [(1/2)(density)((stall speed)^2)(wing area)] or use dynamic pressure, q = (1/2)(density)((stall speed)^2) and wing area S - CLmax = weight / qS Multiply feet/second by (3600/5280) to convert to statute miles/ hour. Multiply miles/ hour by (5280/3600) to convert to feet/second. Multiply knots = nautical miles/hour by 1.15 to convert to statute miles/ hour. This could be expressed as a ratio making the whole mess above simpler. I should have put this method first. (New Stall Speed)^2 = (book stall speed)^2(original wing area/ new wing area) Since all the other terms are not changed. No need to convert units. |
|
Quoted: This could be expressed as a ratio making the whole mess above simpler. I should have put this method first. (New Stall Speed)^2 = (book stall speed)^2(original wing area/ new wing area) Since all the other terms are not changed. No need to convert units. View Quote Thank you very much! |
|
Quoted: Given it's a one way trip for a Light Sport pilot, and would be setting a world record for LSAs, no. But it's theoretically possible for an LSA pilot around the summer solstice, as at 120 kts, the flight can be made entirely in daylight. To return, the flight has to be made by a pilot w/ at least a Private rating, as much of the return flight would be in darkness. View Quote I dont know if a small cessna has ever made a CONUS to Hawaii flight, but there's an interesting story of a guy who did a ferry flight with a cessna 150 from the US to south africa, solo. Had a special UHF antenna wire that he manually retracted and an extra gas tank in olace of the passenger seat It was not non stop however. I doubt with the winds it would be possible to stretch out a C172 flight from CONUS to Hawaii. Maybe cheat and leave from the Aluetians? https://cessna150152club.org/Transatlantic-Cessna-150/ |
|
Quoted: I dont know if a small cessna has ever made a CONUS to Hawaii flight, but there's an interesting story of a guy who did a ferry flight with a cessna 150 from the US to south africa, solo. Had a special UHF antenna wire that he manually retracted and an extra gas tank in olace of the passenger seat It was not non stop however. I doubt with the winds it would be possible to stretch out a C172 flight from CONUS to Hawaii. Maybe cheat and leave from the Aluetians? https://cessna150152club.org/Transatlantic-Cessna-150/ View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Given it's a one way trip for a Light Sport pilot, and would be setting a world record for LSAs, no. But it's theoretically possible for an LSA pilot around the summer solstice, as at 120 kts, the flight can be made entirely in daylight. To return, the flight has to be made by a pilot w/ at least a Private rating, as much of the return flight would be in darkness. I dont know if a small cessna has ever made a CONUS to Hawaii flight, but there's an interesting story of a guy who did a ferry flight with a cessna 150 from the US to south africa, solo. Had a special UHF antenna wire that he manually retracted and an extra gas tank in olace of the passenger seat It was not non stop however. I doubt with the winds it would be possible to stretch out a C172 flight from CONUS to Hawaii. Maybe cheat and leave from the Aluetians? https://cessna150152club.org/Transatlantic-Cessna-150/ Doesn't matter now. LSA by rule can top out at 250 kts, if they can keep their stall speed low enuf. So not insanely difficult as before. |
|
Quoted: I dont know if a small cessna has ever made a CONUS to Hawaii flight, but there's an interesting story of a guy who did a ferry flight with a cessna 150 from the US to south africa, solo. Had a special UHF antenna wire that he manually retracted and an extra gas tank in olace of the passenger seat It was not non stop however. I doubt with the winds it would be possible to stretch out a C172 flight from CONUS to Hawaii. Maybe cheat and leave from the Aluetians? https://cessna150152club.org/Transatlantic-Cessna-150/ View Quote Couple years ago a guy ferried a 172 from CA to Hawaii. 22 hr flight or something crazy like that. It was for a flight school on one of the islands. |
|
Quoted: Couple years ago a guy ferried a 172 from CA to Hawaii. 22 hr flight or something crazy like that. It was for a flight school on one of the islands. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I dont know if a small cessna has ever made a CONUS to Hawaii flight, but there's an interesting story of a guy who did a ferry flight with a cessna 150 from the US to south africa, solo. Had a special UHF antenna wire that he manually retracted and an extra gas tank in olace of the passenger seat It was not non stop however. I doubt with the winds it would be possible to stretch out a C172 flight from CONUS to Hawaii. Maybe cheat and leave from the Aluetians? https://cessna150152club.org/Transatlantic-Cessna-150/ Couple years ago a guy ferried a 172 from CA to Hawaii. 22 hr flight or something crazy like that. It was for a flight school on one of the islands. No one likes to fly at best range speed, but it works. Trips that are long enough can be finished quicker than including a fuel stop enroute. The trip to Hawaii is sufficiently long to fly at least part of the highs and lows to either maximize tailwind or minimize headwind. Attention to winds aloft helps, too. None of that will work without calculating the actual headwind components. There's not much else going on except paying attention to actual position. Fly in trim and hold headings. If your path over the surface resembles a bug's path it has to be fixed. |
|
Quoted: Couple years ago a guy ferried a 172 from CA to Hawaii. 22 hr flight or something crazy like that. It was for a flight school on one of the islands. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I dont know if a small cessna has ever made a CONUS to Hawaii flight, but there's an interesting story of a guy who did a ferry flight with a cessna 150 from the US to south africa, solo. Had a special UHF antenna wire that he manually retracted and an extra gas tank in olace of the passenger seat It was not non stop however. I doubt with the winds it would be possible to stretch out a C172 flight from CONUS to Hawaii. Maybe cheat and leave from the Aluetians? https://cessna150152club.org/Transatlantic-Cessna-150/ Couple years ago a guy ferried a 172 from CA to Hawaii. 22 hr flight or something crazy like that. It was for a flight school on one of the islands. No one likes to fly at best range speed, but it works. Trips that are long enough can be finished quicker than including a fuel stop enroute. The trip to Hawaii is sufficiently long to fly at least part of the highs and lows to either maximize tailwind or minimize headwind. Attention to winds aloft helps, too. None of that will work without calculating the actual headwind components. There's not much else going on except paying attention to actual position. Fly in trim and hold headings. If your path over the surface resembles a bug's trail it has to be fixed. |
|
FAA MOSAIC Proposal: What Can I Fly? Haven't watched it yet. |
|
Quoted: If you have a PPL and a DL, you're GTG. PPL > SPL. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Interesting. How does someone with a SEL Private get a Sport license? I am not current, and can't get a medical, but it looks like you just need a Drivers License for medical If you have a PPL and a DL, you're GTG. PPL > SPL. Without a medical? |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.