Jump to content

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Yes, you are correct. I stated that the reluctance to issue LOA was due to strict EASA regulations or mandate as that was the response provided by Lukas every time the topic came up. But, under further research in to the matter LOA are not being issued due to EASA regulation as it's truly a choice not to do so. A point which was proven by your study of all of the other SLSA manufacturers issuing LOAs. I spoke with Lou Mancuso at Bristell and I asked him about the LOA process in which the answer is quite simple....Milan Bristela is working in the factory along with his son and they're number one focus is customer service and making sure that the customers are treated as they should be. Needless to say this statement was music to my ears as that's what I was hoping to hear at some point from anyone at the SportCruiser organization. 

It truly is CSA's choice not to support their customers needs with MRA/LOA's and they cannot blame the EASA or anyone else. Just a little research proved this to me. I talked personally with Lou at the Deland show and I also saw him at an AOPA event here in the Tampa area late last year. If you want  a change on your Bristell aircraft, give them a week and you are free to do so and you'll have paperwork in hand, how difficult is that? He's always fun to talk to and everytime I see him now he's trying to sell me a Bristell. :D  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Izzy said:

Milan Bristela is working in the factory along with his son and they're number one focus is customer service and making sure that the customers are treated as they should be.

I wonder if this was the primary reason that Milan left CSA and opened Bristell?  If only the Bristel had an older fleet that would be in my price range.  Regardless at this point since I'm well on my way to going E-LSA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conversion of

factory built S-LSA

to Experimental E-LSA:

 

THANK YOU !!!

to the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA)

and the USA Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

for including

“THE GREAT ESCAPE CLAUSE”

into the USA S-LSA Regulations.

 

explained by Mike Busch

in an April 5, 2016 AOPA magazine article copied below

 

P&E: SAVVY MAINTENANCE

LSAS: WHO’S GUARDING THE HENHOUSE?

April 5, 2016

PE Savvy Maintenance

The new crop of factory-built LSAs is impressive and exciting, but the maintenance rules are—different

Opinion |

This year for the first time I attended the U.S. Sport Aviation Expo in Sebring, Florida, the foremost aviation event devoted to Light Sport and ultralight aircraft. I accepted an invitation to speak not because I had any expertise in this lightweight corner of the general aviation envelope, but because I sensed this would be a great opportunity to learn about an exciting and rapidly growing segment of GA.

In 2004, the FAA approved new regulations that created sport pilots and Light Sport aircraft. I recall wondering whether this would amount to much. I needn’t have worried. There are now more than 6,000 sport pilots and nearly 4,000 registered LSAs, making this the fastest-growing segment of GA.

Ten years ago, the term “LSA” conjured up images of small, tube-and-fabric designs that always struck me as a lot more “sport” than “airplane.” But progress over the past decade has been astonishing—especially compared to the glacial pace we’re used to in the certified world. Today’s top-selling factory-built LSAs, called Special Light Sport aircraft (SLSAs), are sleek, sexy, high-tech designs with sophisticated powerplants and glass cockpits.

A lot of this progress in the LSA world has been spurred by two component suppliers: Dynon Avionics and Rotax Aircraft Engines. The Dynon Skyview seems to be the de facto standard avionics suite for the current crop of SLSAs, and it has capabilities that put to shame most of the TSOed glass cockpit suites I’ve seen.

The 100-horsepower Rotax 912ULS powers about 80 percent of new SLSAs. Rotax started out building two-stroke engines used in snowmobiles, personal watercraft, ATVs, and outboard motors, as well as in go-karts and ultralights. Those engines were famous for being cheap and light, but in aviation applications a bit cantankerous and dismally short-lived (three-digit TBOs). Rotax created its four-stroke 900 series as a clean-sheet design specifically for the aviation market, employing Nikasil nickel-carbide cylinder barrels, liquid-cooled heads, and electronic ignition. The original 500-hour TBO has been increased to 2,000 hours, accompanied by a record of impressive durability and reliability.

Who’s guarding the henhouse?

The FARs treats LSAs very differently from either certificated or amateur-built aircraft in ways that are sometimes good, sometimes bad, and sometimes bizarre. LSAs are not certified by the FAA in the traditional sense: They don’t have a type certificate and don’t need to meet FAA certification standards the way Normal-category airplanes do. Instead, LSAs are required to conform to something called “FAA-accepted ASTM Consensus Standards.”

Members of nonprofit ASTM International, a voluntary standards development organization, create and maintain 12,000 consensus industry standards in such diverse areas as metals, textiles, petroleum, construction, energy, consumer products, medical services, and electronic devices. ASTM Committee F37 on Light Sport aircraft develops standards for LSAs. About 200 members represent manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, and industry alphabet groups. Seven technical subcommittees have jurisdiction over 24 consensus standards, ranging from minimum safety and performance requirements to quality assurance, flight testing, and maintenance.

In essence, the FAA has stepped back from its traditional regulatory role and allowed LSA manufacturers and ASTM F37 to run the show. This strikes me as a mixed blessing. It has clearly been a boon to the LSA industry, facilitating technical progress that I doubt would have been possible in a conventional, FAA-regulated certification environment. It also has put LSA owners in a situation in which everything the manufacturers do or say has the force of law, and that seems a bit like having the fox guard the henhouse.

FAR 91.327 imposes a laundry list of operating limitations on SLSAs, many of which sound reasonable. For example, it prohibits the use of SLSAs for compensation or hire except to conduct flight training or tow gliders. It requires condition inspections every 12 calendar months (every 100 hours if the SLSA is used for hire). It requires owners to comply with applicable airworthiness directives—all commonsense stuff.

But 91.327 also requires SLSA owners to comply with “each safety directive applicable to the aircraft that corrects an existing unsafe condition.” These safety directives are issued by the manufacturer, so in effect they’re mandatory service bulletins—owners of certificated aircraft operating under Part 91 must comply with service bulletins only if the FAA issues an AD compelling compliance. In essence, LSA manufacturers can issue their own “ADs” without having to jump through the statutory hoops that protect owners from unreasonable action by the FAA. 

It gets worse. FAR 91.327(d) requires that SLSA pilots “must operate the aircraft in accordance with the aircraft’s operating instructions.” If this rule applied to Normal category aircraft, it would be an FAR violation for me to operate my engines lean of peak, because that’s not what the pilot’s operating handbook says to do. Nor could I purchase GAMIjectors to make lean-of-peak operation practical, because FAR 91.327 says that any major alteration to an SLSA must be approved by the manufacturer.

The absurdity of this situation really hit home when I learned that SLSAs are prohibited from flying in IMC. I’m instrument-rated and current. My new quarter-million-dollar SLSA is equipped with wall-to-wall glass, synthetic vision, highway-in-the-sky graphics, and a fancy autopilot—and you’re telling me I can’t fly through clouds?

I looked for the regulation that prohibits SLSAs from operating in IMC, and discovered something interesting: There is no such regulation. It’s actually the LSA manufacturers that have decided not to allow their airplanes to be used this way.

Originally, it was perfectly legal for an appropriately rated pilot to fly an appropriately equipped SLSA in IMC. The original ASTM consensus standards were silent on the subject of IFR. Then, in 2010, the ASTM F37 Committee voted to amend the consensus standards to prohibit flight in IMC. Every SLSA manufactured since then has had operating limitations prohibiting IFR operations. At the time, the committee said this was intended to remain in effect only until it could develop an appropriate set of safety, performance, and equipment standards for IFR operation. That was six years ago, and according to folks who serve on the committee, the prohibition is unlikely to be lifted anytime soon.

Regulation by Rotax?

Why do you suppose LSA manufacturers, distributors, and suppliers voted to prohibit these aircraft from flying in IMC? The odd tale of the Rotax 912ULS engine may offer some insight. Earlier versions of the Rotax 912-series operator’s manual stated that the 912ULS was prohibited from being used under IFR, but the current manual is silent on the subject, probably because it no longer needs to say anything. You don’t suppose Rotax had any influence on the ASTM F37 Committee’s decision in 2010 to prohibit operations of SLSAs in IMC?

Here’s another oddity. Rotax also builds a certified 912S version for use in Normal-category airplanes such as the Liberty XL. When your certificated Rotax 912S reaches its 2,000-hour TBO, you can keep flying as long as the engine remains in airworthy condition, because TBOs are not compulsory for noncommercial operators of certificated aircraft. However, if you own a Van’s RV–12 SLSA powered by a Rotax 912ULS, you are required by regulation to overhaul it at the 2,000-hour mark—because that’s what Rotax says to do.

The fact that SLSAs must be maintained strictly in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and on the manufacturer’s timetable, makes me profoundly uncomfortable—in my experience, manufacturers’ maintenance guidance almost always involves gross overkill, and I’m a maintenance minimalist. In contrast, FAR 91.327 is very lenient about who is allowed to maintain and inspect SLSAs. All it takes is an FAA repairman certificate with a Light Sport aircraft maintenance rating, which anyone can obtain simply by passing an FAA-approved three-week course. So an SLSA owner who wants to perform his own maintenance, and even his own annual condition inspections, can do so with only a modest investment of time and effort. And if he wants to swing wrenches on his buddies’ SLSAs, he can do that, too.

The great escape clause

As an aircraft owner for nearly 50 years and an active combatant in numerous struggles over ADs and maintenance requirements, if I have to be regulated, I’d much rather it be by the FAA than by the manufacturer of my aircraft or engine. We all love to complain about the FAA, but at least it is primarily motivated by a concern for safety, and is subject to numerous laws intended to protect us from overzealous regulation. In contrast, my experience with aircraft and engine manufacturers is that they primarily are motivated by concerns about being sued, and frequently act in ways that are harmful to those of us who own their products.

One evening over dinner in Sebring, I was talking to a staff member of the Experimental Aircraft Association about my concerns over the seemingly unfettered powers of coercion granted to LSA manufacturers. With a twinkle in his eye, he said, “Mike, that’s why we got the FAA to include the great escape clause.”

He explained that the owner of an SLSA who doesn’t care for how he’s being treated by the manufacturer of his aircraft has the ability to “opt out” by surrendering the aircraft’s SLSA airworthiness certificate and applying for an Experimental Light Sport airworthiness certificate to replace it. Then, he can basically ignore the manufacturer’s instructions and operate and maintain his factory-built LSA as he sees fit, almost as if it were an amateur-built Experimental.

By doing this, he probably gives up any remaining warranty and factory support to which he might have been entitled. He also gives up the ability to use his aircraft for compensation to give flight instruction or tow gliders. But what he gets in return is the ability to operate and maintain his LSA pretty much as he sees fit. Engine and propeller TBOs would become mere suggestions, the way they are for certificated aircraft. If the LSA is appropriately equipped, it probably can become legal to fly in IMC, assuming the designated airworthiness representative who approves its new operating limitations allows it.

Seems to me that if I bought an LSA, this might be one of the first things I’d do.

Mike Busch is an A&P/IA. “


 

Article copied above from AOPA

discussing the "Escape clause"

that allows an S-LSA owner to change his

SLSA to an EXPERIMENTAL ELSA if an aircraft manufacturer is reluctant (or in Czech Sport Aircraft’s case, REFUSES) to authorize LOAs

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/april/pilot/pe_savvy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DavePilot said:

Conversion of

factory built S-LSA

to Experimental E-LSA:

 

THANK YOU !!!

to the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA)

and the USA Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

for including

“THE GREAT ESCAPE CLAUSE”

into the USA S-LSA Regulations.

 

explained by Mike Busch

in an April 5, 2016 AOPA magazine article copied below

 

P&E: SAVVY MAINTENANCE

LSAS: WHO’S GUARDING THE HENHOUSE?

April 5, 2016

PE Savvy Maintenance

The new crop of factory-built LSAs is impressive and exciting, but the maintenance rules are—different

Opinion |

This year for the first time I attended the U.S. Sport Aviation Expo in Sebring, Florida, the foremost aviation event devoted to Light Sport and ultralight aircraft. I accepted an invitation to speak not because I had any expertise in this lightweight corner of the general aviation envelope, but because I sensed this would be a great opportunity to learn about an exciting and rapidly growing segment of GA.

In 2004, the FAA approved new regulations that created sport pilots and Light Sport aircraft. I recall wondering whether this would amount to much. I needn’t have worried. There are now more than 6,000 sport pilots and nearly 4,000 registered LSAs, making this the fastest-growing segment of GA.

Ten years ago, the term “LSA” conjured up images of small, tube-and-fabric designs that always struck me as a lot more “sport” than “airplane.” But progress over the past decade has been astonishing—especially compared to the glacial pace we’re used to in the certified world. Today’s top-selling factory-built LSAs, called Special Light Sport aircraft (SLSAs), are sleek, sexy, high-tech designs with sophisticated powerplants and glass cockpits.

A lot of this progress in the LSA world has been spurred by two component suppliers: Dynon Avionics and Rotax Aircraft Engines. The Dynon Skyview seems to be the de facto standard avionics suite for the current crop of SLSAs, and it has capabilities that put to shame most of the TSOed glass cockpit suites I’ve seen.

The 100-horsepower Rotax 912ULS powers about 80 percent of new SLSAs. Rotax started out building two-stroke engines used in snowmobiles, personal watercraft, ATVs, and outboard motors, as well as in go-karts and ultralights. Those engines were famous for being cheap and light, but in aviation applications a bit cantankerous and dismally short-lived (three-digit TBOs). Rotax created its four-stroke 900 series as a clean-sheet design specifically for the aviation market, employing Nikasil nickel-carbide cylinder barrels, liquid-cooled heads, and electronic ignition. The original 500-hour TBO has been increased to 2,000 hours, accompanied by a record of impressive durability and reliability.

Who’s guarding the henhouse?

The FARs treats LSAs very differently from either certificated or amateur-built aircraft in ways that are sometimes good, sometimes bad, and sometimes bizarre. LSAs are not certified by the FAA in the traditional sense: They don’t have a type certificate and don’t need to meet FAA certification standards the way Normal-category airplanes do. Instead, LSAs are required to conform to something called “FAA-accepted ASTM Consensus Standards.”

Members of nonprofit ASTM International, a voluntary standards development organization, create and maintain 12,000 consensus industry standards in such diverse areas as metals, textiles, petroleum, construction, energy, consumer products, medical services, and electronic devices. ASTM Committee F37 on Light Sport aircraft develops standards for LSAs. About 200 members represent manufacturers, suppliers, distributors, and industry alphabet groups. Seven technical subcommittees have jurisdiction over 24 consensus standards, ranging from minimum safety and performance requirements to quality assurance, flight testing, and maintenance.

In essence, the FAA has stepped back from its traditional regulatory role and allowed LSA manufacturers and ASTM F37 to run the show. This strikes me as a mixed blessing. It has clearly been a boon to the LSA industry, facilitating technical progress that I doubt would have been possible in a conventional, FAA-regulated certification environment. It also has put LSA owners in a situation in which everything the manufacturers do or say has the force of law, and that seems a bit like having the fox guard the henhouse.

FAR 91.327 imposes a laundry list of operating limitations on SLSAs, many of which sound reasonable. For example, it prohibits the use of SLSAs for compensation or hire except to conduct flight training or tow gliders. It requires condition inspections every 12 calendar months (every 100 hours if the SLSA is used for hire). It requires owners to comply with applicable airworthiness directives—all commonsense stuff.

But 91.327 also requires SLSA owners to comply with “each safety directive applicable to the aircraft that corrects an existing unsafe condition.” These safety directives are issued by the manufacturer, so in effect they’re mandatory service bulletins—owners of certificated aircraft operating under Part 91 must comply with service bulletins only if the FAA issues an AD compelling compliance. In essence, LSA manufacturers can issue their own “ADs” without having to jump through the statutory hoops that protect owners from unreasonable action by the FAA. 

It gets worse. FAR 91.327(d) requires that SLSA pilots “must operate the aircraft in accordance with the aircraft’s operating instructions.” If this rule applied to Normal category aircraft, it would be an FAR violation for me to operate my engines lean of peak, because that’s not what the pilot’s operating handbook says to do. Nor could I purchase GAMIjectors to make lean-of-peak operation practical, because FAR 91.327 says that any major alteration to an SLSA must be approved by the manufacturer.

The absurdity of this situation really hit home when I learned that SLSAs are prohibited from flying in IMC. I’m instrument-rated and current. My new quarter-million-dollar SLSA is equipped with wall-to-wall glass, synthetic vision, highway-in-the-sky graphics, and a fancy autopilot—and you’re telling me I can’t fly through clouds?

I looked for the regulation that prohibits SLSAs from operating in IMC, and discovered something interesting: There is no such regulation. It’s actually the LSA manufacturers that have decided not to allow their airplanes to be used this way.

Originally, it was perfectly legal for an appropriately rated pilot to fly an appropriately equipped SLSA in IMC. The original ASTM consensus standards were silent on the subject of IFR. Then, in 2010, the ASTM F37 Committee voted to amend the consensus standards to prohibit flight in IMC. Every SLSA manufactured since then has had operating limitations prohibiting IFR operations. At the time, the committee said this was intended to remain in effect only until it could develop an appropriate set of safety, performance, and equipment standards for IFR operation. That was six years ago, and according to folks who serve on the committee, the prohibition is unlikely to be lifted anytime soon.

Regulation by Rotax?

Why do you suppose LSA manufacturers, distributors, and suppliers voted to prohibit these aircraft from flying in IMC? The odd tale of the Rotax 912ULS engine may offer some insight. Earlier versions of the Rotax 912-series operator’s manual stated that the 912ULS was prohibited from being used under IFR, but the current manual is silent on the subject, probably because it no longer needs to say anything. You don’t suppose Rotax had any influence on the ASTM F37 Committee’s decision in 2010 to prohibit operations of SLSAs in IMC?

Here’s another oddity. Rotax also builds a certified 912S version for use in Normal-category airplanes such as the Liberty XL. When your certificated Rotax 912S reaches its 2,000-hour TBO, you can keep flying as long as the engine remains in airworthy condition, because TBOs are not compulsory for noncommercial operators of certificated aircraft. However, if you own a Van’s RV–12 SLSA powered by a Rotax 912ULS, you are required by regulation to overhaul it at the 2,000-hour mark—because that’s what Rotax says to do.

The fact that SLSAs must be maintained strictly in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and on the manufacturer’s timetable, makes me profoundly uncomfortable—in my experience, manufacturers’ maintenance guidance almost always involves gross overkill, and I’m a maintenance minimalist. In contrast, FAR 91.327 is very lenient about who is allowed to maintain and inspect SLSAs. All it takes is an FAA repairman certificate with a Light Sport aircraft maintenance rating, which anyone can obtain simply by passing an FAA-approved three-week course. So an SLSA owner who wants to perform his own maintenance, and even his own annual condition inspections, can do so with only a modest investment of time and effort. And if he wants to swing wrenches on his buddies’ SLSAs, he can do that, too.

The great escape clause

As an aircraft owner for nearly 50 years and an active combatant in numerous struggles over ADs and maintenance requirements, if I have to be regulated, I’d much rather it be by the FAA than by the manufacturer of my aircraft or engine. We all love to complain about the FAA, but at least it is primarily motivated by a concern for safety, and is subject to numerous laws intended to protect us from overzealous regulation. In contrast, my experience with aircraft and engine manufacturers is that they primarily are motivated by concerns about being sued, and frequently act in ways that are harmful to those of us who own their products.

One evening over dinner in Sebring, I was talking to a staff member of the Experimental Aircraft Association about my concerns over the seemingly unfettered powers of coercion granted to LSA manufacturers. With a twinkle in his eye, he said, “Mike, that’s why we got the FAA to include the great escape clause.”

He explained that the owner of an SLSA who doesn’t care for how he’s being treated by the manufacturer of his aircraft has the ability to “opt out” by surrendering the aircraft’s SLSA airworthiness certificate and applying for an Experimental Light Sport airworthiness certificate to replace it. Then, he can basically ignore the manufacturer’s instructions and operate and maintain his factory-built LSA as he sees fit, almost as if it were an amateur-built Experimental.

By doing this, he probably gives up any remaining warranty and factory support to which he might have been entitled. He also gives up the ability to use his aircraft for compensation to give flight instruction or tow gliders. But what he gets in return is the ability to operate and maintain his LSA pretty much as he sees fit. Engine and propeller TBOs would become mere suggestions, the way they are for certificated aircraft. If the LSA is appropriately equipped, it probably can become legal to fly in IMC, assuming the designated airworthiness representative who approves its new operating limitations allows it.

Seems to me that if I bought an LSA, this might be one of the first things I’d do.

Mike Busch is an A&P/IA. “


 

Article copied above from AOPA

discussing the "Escape clause"

that allows an S-LSA owner to change his

SLSA to an EXPERIMENTAL ELSA if an aircraft manufacturer is reluctant (or in Czech Sport Aircraft’s case, REFUSES) to authorize LOAs

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/april/pilot/pe_savvy

Great article on a very hot topic. Thank you for posting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"But what he gets in return is the ability to operate and maintain his LSA pretty much as he sees fit. Engine and propeller TBOs would become mere suggestions, the way they are for certificated aircraft"

 

For some this isn't a good thing. Then planes get poor maint., have things done that shouldn't, things not be done and just poor over all maint. Some can handle this responsibility and some can't. There is common sense and responsibility that goes with this and some do a poor job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Roger Lee said:

"But what he gets in return is the ability to operate and maintain his LSA pretty much as he sees fit. Engine and propeller TBOs would become mere suggestions, the way they are for certificated aircraft"

 

For some this isn't a good thing. Then planes get poor maint., have things done that shouldn't, things not be done and just poor over all maint. Some can handle this responsibility and some can't. There is common sense and responsibility that goes with this and some do a poor job.

I agree Roger, some can handle it and some can't. Those who can't even change their own oil attempt even more difficult maintenance. I've personally seen some pretty poor maintenance by owners at my own airport and my previous one. Instead of doing the job right they simply apply a band-aid if anything at all and keep flying. Why, because they can now. When they become free of the manufacturer the maintenance takes a back seat and suffers and this bothers me, not only does it bother me it's down right dangerous. I've even had some of these people offer to take me flying and I just have to politely say no thanks. :D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Roger Lee said:

. . . For some this isn't a good thing. Then planes get poor maint., have things done that shouldn't, things not be done and just poor over all maint. Some can handle this responsibility and some can't. There is common sense and responsibility that goes with this and some do a poor job.

That comes from a professional mechanic. And I might add, a damn good one at that.

This is the reason why some people, especially first time buyers, won't even consider looking at an "Experimental." That is a fact.

 I was in that camp myself and know plenty of others who felt the same way. It stems from fear. Fear of bad maintenance, poor build quality and in general, just getting burned. There is some history to each one of those scenarios.

That is why I have always had the opinion, and still do, that going "experimental," does have the drawback of reducing the market for the airplane, even if it is perfectly sound. Some people just won't bite.

That withstanding, if one is diligent, properly informed, does their homework and has some professional help, I see nothing wrong with the purchase of an experimental. There are some fine ones out there, for sure. In some cases, they are better built and more well equipped than production aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aircraft previously issued an SLSA airworthiness certificate under 14 CFR § 21.190 that are now operating as an ELSA under 14 CFR § 21.191(i)(3).

o These aircraft have previously been flight tested and are not required to have additional flight testing unless they have been altered from their original configuration.

o For a major change to the aircraft (such as an alteration, modification, addition, or deletion), the FAA may modify the ELSA operating limitations with special restrictions for flight testing due to the aircraft modification.

o These aircraft cannot be used for flight instruction for compensation or hire or for towing for compensation or hire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WmInce said:

That comes from a professional mechanic. And I might add, a damned good one at that.

This is the reason why some people, especially first time buyers, won't even consider looking at an "Experimental." That is a fact.

 I was in that camp myself and know plenty of others who felt the same way. It stems from fear. Fear of bad maintenance, poor build quality and in general, just getting burned. There is some history to each one of those scenarios.

That is why I have always had the opinion, and still do, that going "experimental," does have the drawback of reducing the market for the airplane, even if it is perfectly sound. Some people just won't bite.

That withstanding, if one is diligent, properly informed, does their homework and has some professional help, I see nothing wrong with the purchase of an experimental. There are some fine ones out there, for sure. In some cases, they are better built and more well equipped than production aircraft.

Are we gonna do this again Bill? :P  There's nothing to fear but fear itself. :D

I agree that an experimental may not be the best choice for some first time buyers or anyone who may be mechanically challenged. I can see they would have reservations about buying a E-AB without FULLY going through the aircraft with someone who is a known, qualified builder with good practices, an A&P with IA certification or someone who has extensive knowledge of that particular aircraft. Or as you said, having professional help. A buyer needs to know how it was built (if not a conversion) AND maintained. 

And many buyers, especially the ones who are not mechanically challenged, want the freedom that only an experimental can bring and therefore will due their due diligence and only look at experimental. They dont want to be held down by "the man". I have to disagree once again with your statement that the buyers pool is smaller for experimental aircraft. I just see no proof of that anywhere. There are numerous advantages only found in an experimental aircraft and yes, it's not for the faint at heart. (or those who can't discern a box wrench from a crescent wrench :P)

And as you stated I too have seen some magnificent examples of an experimental aircraft that rival a certified or factory built aircraft of similar type, hands down.

It all comes down to a person's comfort level and abilities.

Tag, you're up........:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and PS..........from the looks of things and the, once agin, new direction of CSA, there will be even more E-LSA SportCruisers flying around. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2018 at 11:12 AM, Izzy said:

Charlie Lima posted in another thread -

Hello everyone

I spoke to Cruiser today concerning a tow bar replacement, and requested information on the LOA's issue.  I am detailing what I was told, June 04, 2018 AM/EST 😞

1):   Do not request LOA's.  They will not be issued.  It does not matter if you are pre-bankruptcy, ( 2007, 2008 & 2009 if I understand the dates correctly), or post bankruptcy and new management, ( 2010 and after ).

 A note for all current and future owners of the SportCruiser....CSA will not issue any LOA's. Yes, I know that they were issued in the past as I've seen original documentation proving so under previous management but, current management does not feel that issuing LOA's is something they should have to do....I'm guessing as to the reason as I fought long and hard on this topic, since my very first conversation with Lukas back in September 2017.

 

A simple request for confirmation and explanation from Cruiser Aircraft:

  1. Question: Are the statements quoted above on “No CSA Letters of Authorization”  allowed  in the future for all SportCruiser (and PiperSport)  S-LSA aircraft manufactured by BOTH Czech Aircraft Works (CZAW, 2006-2009 SportCruisers) and Czech Sport Aircraft (CSA, 2010 - present PiperSport and SportCruisers) accurate statements of the Czech Sport Aircraft company philosophy, future plans,  and business strategy ?
  2. In the FAA Regulated USA Airspace, Safety Enhancing ADS-B OUT equipment is REQUIRED 1/1/2020 to fly in certain ADS-B OUT “Rule” airspace.  For Non SKYVIEW Equipped  “Legacy” CZAW SportCruiser S-LSA aircraft, especially  with the smaller vertical dash height, and all Non SKYVIEW equipped CRUZ S-LSA aircraft, without a CSA Letter Of Authorization (or a CSA Service Bulletin), equipping a CZAW/CSA  factory built  S-LSA with FAA Required ADS-B OUT Safety Enhancing  equipment becomes illegal in the USA, forcing the aircraft owner to convert from S-LSA to Experimental E-LSA in order to comply with the USA  FAA ADS-B OUT Safety Requirement.  Question: Is converting from S-LSA to Experimental E-LSA the Czech Sport Aircraft / Cruiser Aircraft recommended approach for these CRUZ S-LSA aircraft owners to maintain the ability to legally fly in FAA ADS-B OUT  “Rule” airspace in the USA after 12/31/2019  ?  
  3. Question: Does the CSA Company Strategy Of  “No Letters of Authorization” also mean “No Service Bulletins” are allowed or planned by CSA for S-LSA CRUZ Non-SkyView equipped SportCruiser / PiperSport aircraft compliance with the USA FAA ADS-B OUT Safety Enhancing Requirement ?
  4. Question: In the future, if the USA FAA requires installation of an ADDITIONAL  safety enhancing aircraft modification, for example, installation of proven Dynon Angle of Attack (AOA) sensing equipment to interface with existing SportCruiser Dynon SkyView or SportCruiser Dynon D100 installed Avionics equipment hardware & software, is it Czech Sport Aircraft’s business plan and strategy to refuse issuance of aircraft Tail Number specific S-LSA Letter of Authorizations or SportCruiser/PiperSport USA S-LSA aircraft fleet wide Service Bulletins to comply with a future FAA required Safety Enhancing upgrade (in this example AOA Sensing & Display) for their CZAW/CSA S-LSA CRUZ aircraft ?  While “today’s topic” of ADS-B OUT Compliance only affects USA aircraft flying in ADS-B OUT “Rule” airspace (even though this airspace is, in fact, where many current USA SportCruiser and PiperSport S-LSA aircraft owners are based today and fly daily), a  potential new future FAA safety requirement (for example, Angle of Attack sensing & display) and a potential response of the CRUZ S-LSA Czech Sport Aircraft manufacturer again  refusing issuance of aircraft Tail Number specific Letters of Authorization or CRUZ Fleet Wide Service Bulletins on any possible FUTURE USA FAA Safety Requirements for their CRUZ S-LSA aircraft may significantly reduce the resale value, USA LSA market share, or desirability of even considering purchasing the latest production 2018 CSA SportCruiser  SKYVIEW equipped aircraft.  The lack of Czech Sport Aircraft factory Support to USA CRUZ S-LSA aircraft owners would force MORE CRUZ S-LSA aircraft owners to convert from S-LSA to Experimental E-LSA in order to legally comply with any TBD Future USA FAA Safety Enhancing directives, and is a serious concern to potential new SportCruiser aircraft owners.
  5. Question: Is Czech Sport Aircraft aware  that Paid CFI Instruction Of potential new SportCruiser aircraft owner Student Pilots is ILLEGAL in the USA FAA regulated airspace using Experimental E-LSA aircraft ?  Many USA Student Pilots learn to fly today in S-LSA PiperSport and SportCruiser aircraft and these Student Pilots eventually buy new (and used) SportCruiser aircraft when issued a Pilot License.   Learning to fly in a SportCruiser S-LSA directly feeds new SportCruiser sales.   However, this pipeline of potential new SportCruiser aircraft owners would STOP  when the CFIs are unable to instruct new student Pilots in an Experimental E-LSA SportCruiser or E-LSA PiperSport aircraft.  
  6. Question: What is the Czech Sport Aircraft company plan and strategy  to “shore up”  and IMPROVE  existing SportCruiser & PiperSport S-LSA aircraft owner’s confidence in the long term viability of CRUZ S-LSA aircraft USA ownership and also clarify understanding of the CSA manufacturer’s strategy Re Long Term CUSTOMER SUPPORT - After the Sale - of USA CRUZ  S-LSA aircraft ?

 

There are many existing CZAW SportCruiser and CSA factory built PiperSport & SportCruiser aircraft owners on this SCFLIER SportCruiser forum who absolutely LOVE flying their excellent SportCruiser/PiperSport S-LSA CRUZ aircraft, but these aircraft owners are understandably disturbed and very concerned for the long term viability of the SportCruiser S-LSA aircraft line here in the USA, due to actions apparently in work now at Czech Sport Aircraft.    

 

Thank you to Cruiser Aircraft for interpreting, clarifying, and explaining  the Letter of Authorization (LOA)  Actions (and ADS-B OUT Service Bulletin Actions ?) and also explaining USA S-LSA CRUZ aircraft CSA factory Customer Support strategy being taken now by the Czech Sport Aircraft S-LSA aircraft manufacturer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a shame about no LOA's from CSA. This will hurt their longevity in the market and with changing times and equipment is almost a necessity. Evidently they just don't want to put in the effort and take responsibility for their decision after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roger Lee said:

This is a shame about no LOA's from CSA. This will hurt their longevity in the market and with changing times and equipment is almost a necessity. Evidently they just don't want to put in the effort and take responsibility for their decision after the fact.

Well said Roger. It is a shame that no LOA's/MRA's will be issued, while every other manufacturer that I researched does,  and I also feel that it will only hurt the company and their sales going forward.

I also feel that this will also affect the resale value of any S-LSA SportCruiser going forward.

I'm certain CSA will be happy to finally issue this ever elusive SB for ADS-B out for the legacy fleet so they can get the US market off their back. If the FAA didn't mandate this they probably would have done nothing. 

Since they, once again, didn't deliver on the date promised for an ADS-B out solution it's anyone's guess now when it'll happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, admin said:

A simple request for confirmation and explanation from Cruiser Aircraft.......

Dave, did you formally send this directly to Cruiser Aircraft or just post it here on the forum? Just curious.

I assume they are here lurking from time to time and Josh at Cruiser Aircraft is a member but a formal request would be the best way. Will you get answers, I'm not so sure.:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shawn

there are SEVERAL Cruiser Aircraft folks right  here on the SCFLIER Forum.

It is their choice,  of course, whether they respond to my “clarification” questions

or not. 

D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin said:

Shawn

there are SEVERAL Cruiser Aircraft folks right  here on the SCFLIER Forum.

It is their choice,  of course, whether they respond to my “clarification” questions

or not. 

D

I only know of Josh but of course there may be others lurking in the shadows. :ph34r: He may be on reading the forum but he's not a big poster, of course his hands may be tied by CSA or CA. I dont know how often he's on so that's why my question to you. I would think a formal request direct to them would be the proper way and may even warrant a faster, if any, response from them. I'll egg them on and say that I just dont foresee them responding on this unofficial forum, even though it's the largest collaboration of owners on the web. We'll see it they respond.

Izzy would have been all over it by now. :P We miss you Izzy. :D (that's me poking the hornet's nest again)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, you are ALL correct. The decision to not issue LOA makes no sense whatsoever at least not from a marketing point. The only reason NOT to issue LOA is fear of liability or exposure to law suits. But, then again lawsuits against Cruiser Aircraft will yield ZERO as there are no assets to go after. And good luck if one would decide to sue the manufacturer in Czech. I believe there's been a lingering case for q few years now somewhere in the US.

All good points Dave but, I would do as Shawn suggested....submit the request in writing to the e-mails listed for Cruiser Aircraft and CSA as well. At least this way you will know that the questions were received and if they stay silent that will be an obvious choice not to address your (and many others) concern.

You know it Shawn. I may not have had an answer but, you know that I would have forwarded the information to all the powers at be. But, then again would have netted the same answer they provide to you all.....silence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Izzy, thanks for all you did for us.  And I appreciate all the great support I got from the staff from a Cruiser Aircraft.  

But the factory... My mom taught me that if I had nothing nice to say, then say nothing at all.  So there is nothing to add here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rtk said:

My mom taught me that if I had nothing nice to say, then say nothing at all.  So there is nothing to add here.

I never got this lesson Bob, maybe it's just another one of my shortcomings. :D

I post here, good and bad, so others are armed with the information they need to make an informed decision. Purchasing an aircraft is not for the faint at heart and you should know as much as you can before jumping in with both feet. I wish this forum was in full swing like it is now when I was looking for a LSA and at the SportCruiser specifically. There is a lot of information here as I'm sure it's the same for other owner's forums of the other LSA's. 

I love my SportCruiser and would still buy it then knowing what I know now but I certainly could have saved myself a lot of misery, headaches and banging my head against my desk by simply converting to E-LSA the same week I bought it. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ShawnM said:

I love my SportCruiser and would still buy it then knowing what I know now but I certainly could have saved myself a lot of misery, headaches and banging my head against my desk by simply converting to E-LSA the same week I bought it. :D

LOL - well, not quite the "same week I bought it", but I am following your lead into E-LSA.  It truly is the only avenue to follow given the factory's lack of response.  But as I posted in the NLG thread, I think there's enough admiration for the aircraft and overall design that people will come up with solutions to improve the weaknesses in this design.  I believe you have the improved fork that folks on the EU version of this forum have created, and if you devise a shock for the NLG, I suspect people will be beating a path to your door.  I'll be first in line.  😋

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, seems there's another turn of events with CSA in regards to LOA's, there is now talk that MAY and I stress MAY lead to LOA's being issued by CSA. After Cruiser Aircraft told Charlie Lima "do not request LOA's, they will not be issued" there is now a renewed interest by CSA to issue LOA's/MRA's to its owners once again. Seems like the ink isn't even dry on Charlie Lima's post and there's yet another change of direction at CSA and Cruiser Aircraft. What is going on with these companies? Maybe this change will be for the better.

It appears they can't ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room any longer or make up excuses about EASA certifications being the reason why they can't issue LOA's/MRA's. All 3 of the other EASA certified manufacturers, Tecnam, Flight Design and Evektor all offer LOA's/MRA's in mere weeks with little or no cost to their owners. The other manufacturers even have forms available ONLINE for their customers to fill out. What a concept. And as we now know all of the other major LSA manufacturers issue LOA's/MRS's to their customers. 

I've been beating this drum for years and it's been falling on deaf ears, well maybe they can finally hear now. Time will tell. There is just no way for CSA to sidestep this issue forever and maybe now they are actually seeing how their decision affects their sales, market share and their bottom line. Hit'em where it hurts they say. :D 

I know Izzy had brought this whole LOA/MRA issue to their attention while he was their salesman there and it mostly went ignored. I think he even forwarded the CubCrafter MRA form to CSA so they can see just how easy it is for their customers to simply fill out a form for "minor" changes. It's not rocket science people. :P

When will this happen? It's anyone's guess but maybe Josh or someone at Cruiser Aircraft can elaborate more on this topic..........wait for it..........wait for it..........:D

Josh? Hello? Is this thing on? We can't hear you. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ShawnM said:

Well, seems there's another turn of events with CSA in regards to LOA's, there is now talk that MAY and I stress MAY lead to LOA's being issued by CSA. After Cruiser Aircraft told Charlie Lima "do not request LOA's, they will not be issued" there is now a renewed interest by CSA to issue LOA's/MRA's to its owners once again. Seems like the ink isn't even dry on Charlie Lima's post and there's yet another change of direction at CSA and Cruiser Aircraft. What is going on with these companies? Maybe this change will be for the better.

It appears they can't ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room any longer or make up excuses about EASA certifications being the reason why they can't issue LOA's/MRA's. All 3 of the other EASA certified manufacturers, Tecnam, Flight Design and Evektor all offer LOA's/MRA's in mere weeks with little or no cost to their owners. The other manufacturers even have forms available ONLINE for their customers to fill out. What a concept. And as we now know all of the other major LSA manufacturers issue LOA's/MRS's to their customers. 

I've been beating this drum for years and it's been falling on deaf ears, well maybe they can finally hear now. Time will tell. There is just no way for CSA to sidestep this issue forever and maybe now they are actually seeing how their decision affects their sales, market share and their bottom line. Hit'em where it hurts they say. :D 

I know Izzy had brought this whole LOA/MRA issue to their attention while he was their salesman there and it mostly went ignored. I think he even forwarded the CubCrafter MRA form to CSA so they can see just how easy it is for their customers to simply fill out a form for "minor" changes. It's not rocket science people. :P

When will this happen? It's anyone's guess but maybe Josh or someone at Cruiser Aircraft can elaborate more on this topic..........wait for it..........wait for it..........:D

Josh? Hello? Is this thing on? We can't hear you. :ph34r:

Thank you for sharing Shawn. This is truly wonderful news! They are still exhibiting a disorganized manner of doing business as Charlie Lima received a firm NO LOA's WILL BE ISSUED and then just a short time after they are now considering issuing LOA's. I guess such a decision will be made when the US DOLLARS $$ are not coming in and the SportCruiser sales are close to non existent (to individuals) even after dropping the price by $22k on 2017's and $10k on 2018's. I'm glad to read that they are FINALLY LISTENING TO THE MARKET!

While arriving late to the party is not the path I would have recommended, I'm glad to see that they are finally realizing that their most certain demise can only be saved by listening to the market and improving their image as dropping the price alone will not result in sales. 

One word of caution though....changes at whim seem to continue being their way of doing business. Does this announcement or post deflect attention from the ADS-B Out topic? Will news on ADS-B Out solutions finally be provided to ALL of the owners waiting for the factory to provide solutions? I don't know,. I truly believe that this particular concession is the only logical stance and will benefit ALL! May more decisions that improve their long earned image of reluctance or interest in  their customers after the sale continue to come forth.

Cheers to all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Izzy said:

I guess such a decision will be made when the US DOLLARS $$ are not coming in and the SportCruiser sales are close to non existent (to individuals) even after dropping the price by $22k on 2017's and $10k on 2018's. I'm glad to read that they are FINALLY LISTENING TO THE MARKET!

Hence, the 800 pound gorilla in the room. :P

Poking the hornet's nest from time to time also helps. :o 

We will just have to "wait and see" how this plays out. Remember, they've been promising a SB for ADS-B for what, two years now. If this ever happens please dont expect it to happen anytime soon. Better late than never right?

21 hours ago, palle said:

Shawn, yes that would be great. How did you come about this information?

 Palle, this is just the word on the street from one of my sources and besides a girl doesn't kiss and tell. :D Let's see if we can get a response, if any, from Cruiser Aircraft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×