Thank you for creating this thread/post. I look forward to folks posting pictures and news from Oshkosh 2018.

Congratulations for the continued growth! And a big thank you to all for providing content and advice worth reading.

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.  

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. 

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..........

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

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.

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.

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

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.

18 minutes ago, ShawnM said:

Well there goes a bit more of the market share out the door. 

I know you stated in the past Izzy that it was because of the EASA certification but the other EASA certified manufacturers such as Tecnam, Evektor and Flight Design (who are all EASA certified) issue MRA's (LOA) to customers who request to make minor changes. That can't be used for an excuse by CSA.
 

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. 

On 3/7/2018 at 8:17 AM, ShawnM said:

I've been researching my list of 25 LSA manufacturers (of course there are more but this is a list I compiled from the Sebring show) and the issuance of LOA's since Sebring and it's near complete. I'm actually submitting the list to Joe Norris at EAA also. EAA requested LSA owners contact them and report thier experiences with their respective LSA manufacturer in regards to LOA's for repairs and upgrades.

Currently the one that stands out the most is Cubcrafters. This is their procedure for a LOA/MRA request:

The Owner Support section of the website now contains a document called the LSA Major Repair and/or Alteration (MRA) Request Form and can be found here. This document has been created to help handle the flow of change requests in a more timely and organized fashion. Our goal is to process the requests and return an approval/rejection with an estimate within 48 hours of submission.

The request form is designed to give us all the information we need in order to determine if the requested changes can be made on your aircraft, while still maintaining design and performance specifications. Information required in the form includes:

• Owner name and address
• Aircraft make, model, serial number, and N-number
• Airframe/Powerplant/Propeller manufacturer, type/model, serial number, total time since new, and total time since overhaul
• Current weight and balance
• Any previously installed MRA's, service instructions, etc.
• A copy of the current equipment list
• Requested changes

While many changes to an aircraft seem simple and may only require the minimum hour of work, others will require more research and time. Since changes and improvements to the manufactured aircraft are taking place on an ongoing basis, as well as the reality of aircraft equipment options, no two aircraft are exactly alike. With regards to MRA's, this means that a change that may be a simple remove and replace on one aircraft may involve modification of another, or may not even be possible.

One of the largest issues with modifications is staying under aircraft empty weight limits. By providing an MRA, we are vouching that these changes will still keep in the aircraft within LSA specifications. With so many aircraft being produced near the limits of empty weight, keep this in mind when considering a request.

The lower half of the form includes the estimate, approval, and payment options. The process for providing an MRA will be as follows:

1. Print MRA request form from website and fill out the entire first page
2. Send it to CubCrafters for evaluation
3. MRA is either denied or approved
   • Denied - Justification will be provided and owner/customer notified (end of process)
   • Approved - Hour/cost estimate will be determined (proceed below)
4. Estimate sent to customer for approval
5. Estimate accepted and payment made to CubCrafters
6. MRA will be put into queue and sent out to customer upon completion

Until we can get an interactive form on the website, feel free to email the first page's worth of information to CubCrafters, and we can fill the form out here and do the evaluation. Once the MRA is complete it will be mailed out, and a digital version will be emailed also if requested. You will also notice that hourly price has been set to $100.

There will be some instances where an MRA has already been performed and can basically be copied for future aircraft. In these cases, the minimum amount of time billed will be one hour ($100) to cover overhead costs. This means that the initial requester has to "eat the cost" of the work beyond one hour in creating the original MRA. Please understand that CubCrafters is not trying to make money off of MRAs, but is trying to recover costs in what is steadily becoming a larger portion of our responsibility as the manufacturer; fleet maintenance.

I apologize for the long post, but will continue to try and answer questions before they need to be asked. Feel to post any questions and comments.

Thank you.
Adam Sloon - Engineering
CubCrafters

What a welcomed breath of fresh air this would be. Why can't all manufacturers adopt this same procedure for LOA's and or MRA's? Seems like they have the procedure nearly perfected. 

Good afternoon Shawn, 

I guess it's been finally made public and unfortunately a fact that must be accepted as is.....

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.

2 hours ago, ShawnM said:

What? I ain't afraid of her!  (But please dont tell her I said that.)

 

Better not let YOUR wife read this either or else you'll be sleeping at the hangar tonight.  

I hope that after 27 years she wouldn't allow me such an easy out! Just kidding of course.?

1 hour ago, ShawnM said:

Very funny Bob!

I won't make that mistake, if my girlfriend ever made me choose, I think I'll miss her.

Bob,

I'm a fortunate man! I've never been given such an ultimatum and truly don't know what I'd do. Yeah right, who am I kidding....just for making me choose she'd be out the door quicker than quick.

SHAWNM.....I sure do hope she doesn't read your post.

Congratulations on the purchase! May you enjoy many adventures and exciting destinations.

Be safe!

Izzy

1 hour ago, WmInce said:

Correct.

My feeble attempt at a little humor failed miserably.

i just hate that about me. 

Don't worry Bill! I can't even a sarcastic laugh after a simple knock knock joke....at least you continue trying, kudos for that, I gave up years ago and just switched over to mean sarcasm which suits me well!

24 minutes ago, ronin5573 said:

Selling is all about setting you brand apart.  Maybe even badmouthing the other brand.  As a great example this aircraft has been used to compare the sportcruiser to the bristell for years by John Rathmell.

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=CZECH+SPORT+AIRCRAFT&model=SPORTCRUISER&listing_id=2288935&s-type=aircraft

If you go there stuck between what plane to buy between the 2, he takes you on a test flight in that sportcruiser.  Then he takes you for a ride in a New bristell.  Guess which one people buy.  Now its not really fair to compare a 12 year old sportcruiser to a new Bristell but that's not the point is it?

 

While I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of your statement I could not disagree more with the second part. I've been in sales my entire life and am proud to share that I have always sold the product I've represented based on it's own strengths and features while very well aware of my competitors weaknesses but, I never and I say never put down a competitor in any way shape or form to obtain an edge or sale. The numbers don't lie and truly do not concern me but the principle of the sale does.

No worries as I accept the decisions made by the admin but, in no way have to agree with them. This is still the SCFLIER forum and as such should remain as true to the SC as the name dictates. I also belong to Sport Pilot Forum, where everyone is there flies all type of equipment, and the Rotax forum as I know them to be the source for Rotax information. 

Izzy

9 minutes ago, ShawnM said:

Izzy, I think Bill (WmInce) was making a joke (hence the emoji) that one should be more happy to see a 6'-1" blonde with all her sexy features than Kirk from Dynon.

The Dynon Skyview is of course sexy in its own right but I've seen Kirk in some of the training videos and I'll admit I'd rather see a 6'-1" blonde. But that's just me. If you'd rather see Kirk that's your business and I won't hold that against anyone. It's not for me to judge you.

My apologies to Bill then as I read his statement differently. No harm no foul. Thank you for the clarification Shawn. I too would prefer to see you in DRAG as a 6'1" blonde instead of Kirk any Day.

Izzy

7 hours ago, WmInce said:

 

Wow! . . . . somebody really needs to re-arrange their priorities. 

With all due respect....that would be called a Joke sir. Knowing Shawn M and his mastery with words I was making reference to his of how he described himself.

Izzy

1 minute ago, rtk said:

Oooh, them's fightin' words!    As a former Tifosi (Ferrari owner - twice over) and a die-hard Mustang/Ford loyalist, I would say that the comparison would present some competition and animosity between the brands.  Certainly there's competition as everyone is vying for pilots to purchase their aircraft, but I didn't think there was animosity between the brands.

To your point, an opinion is just that... an opinion, but my opinion is that the LSA owner community is still small enough that we should be supportive of each other. 

Hits home doesn't it! Well I feel the same way as you feel but in my case it's the SportCruiser and the Bristell. By the way, there is animosity between the brands and that's a good thing and it pushes ALL to be better. But, one thing you will never get from me is trying to sell my brand by bad mouthing or pointing out the negatives in another brand....as I've been told many a times over is done over at Bristell.

Again my point is specific to the NAME of our forum, it's is not an LSA owner Forum, Rotax Owner Forum. Taking a step further in the automotive world....in order to be a member of the PCA one has to own a Porsche and the same applies to the BMW brand. 

There are plenty on the forum that approve of the decision and I may be the only to not like the decision and that's quite okay. 

Yes, Kirk will be with us all day. And YES, they fixed the issue and started shipping the 472.

Izzy

I must admit that I questioned the decision to allow a new member with a Bristell to join our forum. I believe that this is a SportCruiser (SC) forum so not sure of that decision. Maybe I compare this to a Lamborghini owner joining a Ferrari club or a Mustang Owner joining a Camaro club. Mind you this is just how I feel and my opinion so I'm not trying to be negative about. I for one would not join a Bristell club while owning a SportCruiser as I am certain that I would be seen as a competitor looking for an opportunity to promote my brand....but then again this is just my opinion and we all know what they say about opinions.

Izzy 

3 hours ago, ronin5573 said:

Guess you could ask him if your going to the open house this Saturday.  I wont make it as 1000 miles for hot dogs is a hike.

Well first things first....I never said anything about hot dogs! We are having 14 Bones from Vero in site with a BBQ pit serving up their finest BBQ. But, I guess that $157.50 is a heck of a lot to pay for BBQ as well. But, then again I heard that we will be having an SC owners that is a "6'-1" blonde swimsuit model with long legs, sexy eyes, firm butt and 36D boobs looking for my sugar daddy with a nice plane"....Now that may be worth the trip!

Izzy

On 3/7/2018 at 8:17 AM, ShawnM said:

I've been researching my list of 25 LSA manufacturers (of course there are more but this is a list I compiled from the Sebring show) and the issuance of LOA's since Sebring and it's near complete. I'm actually submitting the list to Joe Norris at EAA also. EAA requested LSA owners contact them and report thier experiences with their respective LSA manufacturer in regards to LOA's for repairs and upgrades.

Currently the one that stands out the most is Cubcrafters. This is their procedure for a LOA/MRA request:

The Owner Support section of the website now contains a document called the LSA Major Repair and/or Alteration (MRA) Request Form and can be found here. This document has been created to help handle the flow of change requests in a more timely and organized fashion. Our goal is to process the requests and return an approval/rejection with an estimate within 48 hours of submission.

The request form is designed to give us all the information we need in order to determine if the requested changes can be made on your aircraft, while still maintaining design and performance specifications. Information required in the form includes:

• Owner name and address
• Aircraft make, model, serial number, and N-number
• Airframe/Powerplant/Propeller manufacturer, type/model, serial number, total time since new, and total time since overhaul
• Current weight and balance
• Any previously installed MRA's, service instructions, etc.
• A copy of the current equipment list
• Requested changes

While many changes to an aircraft seem simple and may only require the minimum hour of work, others will require more research and time. Since changes and improvements to the manufactured aircraft are taking place on an ongoing basis, as well as the reality of aircraft equipment options, no two aircraft are exactly alike. With regards to MRA's, this means that a change that may be a simple remove and replace on one aircraft may involve modification of another, or may not even be possible.

One of the largest issues with modifications is staying under aircraft empty weight limits. By providing an MRA, we are vouching that these changes will still keep in the aircraft within LSA specifications. With so many aircraft being produced near the limits of empty weight, keep this in mind when considering a request.

The lower half of the form includes the estimate, approval, and payment options. The process for providing an MRA will be as follows:

1. Print MRA request form from website and fill out the entire first page
2. Send it to CubCrafters for evaluation
3. MRA is either denied or approved
   • Denied - Justification will be provided and owner/customer notified (end of process)
   • Approved - Hour/cost estimate will be determined (proceed below)
4. Estimate sent to customer for approval
5. Estimate accepted and payment made to CubCrafters
6. MRA will be put into queue and sent out to customer upon completion

Until we can get an interactive form on the website, feel free to email the first page's worth of information to CubCrafters, and we can fill the form out here and do the evaluation. Once the MRA is complete it will be mailed out, and a digital version will be emailed also if requested. You will also notice that hourly price has been set to $100.

There will be some instances where an MRA has already been performed and can basically be copied for future aircraft. In these cases, the minimum amount of time billed will be one hour ($100) to cover overhead costs. This means that the initial requester has to "eat the cost" of the work beyond one hour in creating the original MRA. Please understand that CubCrafters is not trying to make money off of MRAs, but is trying to recover costs in what is steadily becoming a larger portion of our responsibility as the manufacturer; fleet maintenance.

I apologize for the long post, but will continue to try and answer questions before they need to be asked. Feel to post any questions and comments.

Thank you.
Adam Sloon - Engineering
CubCrafters

What a welcomed breath of fresh air this would be. Why can't all manufacturers adopt this same procedure for LOA's and or MRA's? Seems like they have the procedure nearly perfected. 

Thank you for sharing Shawn. I truly like the way Cubcrafters is going about consideration and issuance of LOA's. I do have a question or concern though....there is this ONE line where number of hours are to be listed. Imagine the response from our (SC) folks when they are asked that do add A or B to their SC will result in 30 hours of testing and developing in order to get EASA approval thus costing someone $3k. That will set this group on fire and will cause another reason for uproar. Just sayin'

Congratulations! I knew that when I saw the 299 number you would be closely monitoring for that magical number 300. I've relied on this forum when the PiperSport I was a partner on would decide to act up on me and always found sound advise and other owners willing to share their experiences and suggestions. For being the great resource that the forum is to ALL SC owners...Thank you!

Izzy

Great news! Thank you for your time and efforts in keeping this forum not only going but growing as well.

Izzy

Happy New Year to all! May 2017 bring you and yours much health, happiness and wonderful flying experiences.

As a pilot without a plane for almost a year now, I visit the SC forum frequently to see the latest information, resources or experiences shared by all. I look forward to owning another SC soon but, in the meantime will continue my search to at least rent an SC in the South Florida area.

Izzy

Thank you Dave. I appreciate the efforts put forth in bringing us this great place where we've exchanged ideas, concerns or just talked about our SC's. 

Wishing you all of the best!

Izzie