SLSA Mfg's need to reassess

[Roger Lee]

Copy and paste from another forum. It will not affect the Flight Design as they are compliant. This may weed out some other smaller LSA Mfg's

 

This is just interesting.

 

 

 

On AvWeb yesterday: (there's a link to the primary source on the avweb page)

 

http://www.avweb.com...n_206902-1.html

 

June 29, 2012

 

FAA: SLSA Certification Should Be Reconsidered

Email this article |Print this article

By Glenn Pew, Contributing Editor, Video Editor

 

 

 

 

An FAA assessment of SLSA manufacturers has found that "the majority" of manufacturers evaluated failed to prove compliance with the category's standards, and that could affect the certification status of some aircraft. The FAA announced its findings Thursday, stating that "aircraft within the existing fleets" of manufacturers not able to issue a valid Statement of Compliance "may no longer be eligible to retain their airworthiness certification as SLSA." Those aircraft may be eligible for ELSA certification, the FAA said. But the FAA also noted that a specific range of aircraft (not insignificant in number) may find even less favor from the current regulatory structure. The FAA "has determined that its original policy of reliance on manufacturers' Statements of Compliance" ... "should be reconsidered." Precisely how the FAA's notice will impact the existing fleet, and when, may require more clarification.

 

President of the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association, Dan Johnson, told Bloomberg News that the agency was "just getting started." According to the FAA, "Aircraft that were issued an airworthiness certificate prior to the effective date of this notice are not affected by this policy statement provided all other applicable requirements are met." The agency has posted a frequently asked questions page for manufacturers, here. However, "some aircraft that are primarily manufactured outside the United States and assembled in the United States may be found to be ineligible for airworthiness certification as SLSA or ELSA."

 

The FAA's assessment identified several problem areas including manufacturers that do not have bilateral agreements with the U.S. but passed aircraft to the U.S. through countries that do have such agreements. The FAA says SLSA manufacturers "must be able to provide for the continued operational safety of their aircraft." And to do that, they have to maintain adequate engineering staff and data to monitor and correct safety issues affecting their aircraft. The FAA says that based on its assessments, increased agency involvement in the airworthiness certification process is warranted. The FAA is accepting comments on the notice through July 30.

[Doug G.]

So, does China have a "bilateral agreement" with the US? Could this affect Cessna's Skycatcher?

[Jim Meade]

 

 

 

 

 

So, does China have a "bilateral agreement" with the US? Could this affect Cessna's Skycatcher?

 

 

 

 

It's really worth everyone's time to tread the basic FAA document. It lists four conditions that they see as causing problems.

 

 

 

[S3flyer]

Bilateral agreements: http://www.faa.gov/a...a_basa_listing/

[Doug G.]

Hopefully FD Germany is doing their job right, since I see no agreement with Ukraine. I expect that they are. One slightly disturbing bit here is that if a company goes out of business, if I am reading this correctly, the planes will only be airworthy as E-LSAs since there will no longer be anyone tracking ownership or providing ADs. Long live FD!

[Roger Lee]

FD has done a good job and still is. We are solid.

[airhound]

Is there a public listing of companies that have violated the spirit of LSA Mfging rules? :mad:

[Mike Koerner]

Why? Why did the FAA conduct this assessment? Have Light Sport Aircraft been shown to be less safe than certified aircraft? And if so, is it significantly less?

We chose this less regulated production method with eyes wide open. We chose a more affordable type of aircraft outside the mandates the FAA imposes on certified aircraft. We knew these aircraft would not meet FAA standards. We assessed the risks carefully and, in my opinion, rightly. Anecdotally at least, it seems to me that the accident rate is much lower than I would have ever imagined; not just for CTs, but for LSAs in general.

Even if there was a huge mortality rate with resulting political pressure demanding that the FAA take action, why make it punitive against those that already purchased an aircraft. Why not just go after manufactures that lied, if in fact they did.

I don't think we need the ^&$%# Fed involved... at all.

Mike Koerner

[Doug G.]

My sense of it is that these parameters were set up when LS was begun but the rules are not being followed. I agree with the study. If there is a need to loosen the quality requirements, or the ownerhip tracking I would need to hear the reasoning. Most of LSA makes sense to me and if people are being possibly put at risk because of poor airworthiness assessments, or don't get ADs amd other safety info because of a lack of ownership info that is a legitimate problem. Without those things we become Experimental, not Light Sport.

A Light Sport only, ever, pilot,

Doug

[CT4ME]

Overall, my impression of the industry has been that the aircraft have been airworthy, but the paperwork has been lacking. But, like Doug said, the manufacturers knew the drill when they got in... with the economy going South, I'm guessing the paper-pushers were the first to be let go.

Tim