What does the ELSA process look like

[Tom Baker]

57 minutes ago, Madhatter said:

I don't think FD is going to survive,  my opinion. They are not delivering enough aircraft to make money for the investors after leaving Kherson and setting up in Czech Republic. Also the market is changing dramatically with new proposed MOSAIC rules, resulting in higher performance LSA aircraft. As far as the Asian market is concerned, production in Taiwan may not be far from a Kherson situation. If they don't survive, all of us will be ELSA.

Russia attacked the Ukraine just two years ago. Flight Design had to abandon their facility in Kherson. They walked away from all of their tooling, and their production team was not able to leave. They had to build a complete set of tooling, set up a production facility, and train a new team to build the airplanes. They were just getting the first new airplanes from the Czech Republic off the line about 6 moths ago. It takes some time to get everything ramped up for full production. I think it is still early to complain about the number of airplanes being delivered. Just my opinion.

[Madhatter]

3 hours ago, Tom Baker said:

Russia attacked the Ukraine just two years ago. Flight Design had to abandon their facility in Kherson. They walked away from all of their tooling, and their production team was not able to leave. They had to build a complete set of tooling, set up a production facility, and train a new team to build the airplanes. They were just getting the first new airplanes from the Czech Republic off the line about 6 moths ago. It takes some time to get everything ramped up for full production. I think it is still early to complain about the number of airplanes being delivered. Just my opinion.

My point is that most investors will not continue to advance cash for a business that is not bringing anything in for a long time. The aircraft business is difficult as it is with a high failure rate.

And all the Kherson employees got out over time. It was difficult and risky. I got a little involved in this at the time and could not say anything in print. It was so dangerous that they were afraid the Russians would monitor social media and internet for information that would be used to do unspeakable things. I didn't have a lot to do with it but it was the best use of money in my life. A lot of people donated money for this.. Tom Peghiny and his wife (who is Ukrainian) get 100% of the credit for helping to get these people out, I'm sure it was a difficult time for them.

 

[EricB]

Back on the original question - hhmmm.  IF the FAA were to take the approach suggested by Warmi and issue "new" paperwork, they would have to require all the things they do with a home built aircraft.  That would include various (very deep) inspections, a test program, and probably an area limited certificate for the first 50 hours or so.  Most aircraft are operated under some legal framework - like Part 91, Part 135, etc.  It is incumbent upon us (the owner and operator) to know what those regulations say and either comply or risk FAA action.  I fully agree that the FAA can get bureaucratic at any point but we also have responsibilities.  A good example discussed here is the Experimental placard/lettering.  Some of us had more stringent requirements of the DAR than others.  I'd much prefer a smaller placard on the aft bulkhead than the letters on each door; but I didn't see the need to complicate the situation.  It would be an interesting legal case for me to now adopt a more lenient signage and let the FAA make a case that I'm not in compliance.  But, I've got better things to do.

[Warmi]

5 hours ago, EricB said:

Back on the original question - hhmmm.  IF the FAA were to take the approach suggested by Warmi and issue "new" paperwork, they would have to require all the things they do with a home built aircraft.  That would include various (very deep) inspections, a test program, and probably an area limited certificate for the first 50 hours or so.  Most aircraft are operated under some legal framework - like Part 91, Part 135, etc.  It is incumbent upon us (the owner and operator) to know what those regulations say and either comply or risk FAA action.  I fully agree that the FAA can get bureaucratic at any point but we also have responsibilities.  A good example discussed here is the Experimental placard/lettering.  Some of us had more stringent requirements of the DAR than others.  I'd much prefer a smaller placard on the aft bulkhead than the letters on each door; but I didn't see the need to complicate the situation.  It would be an interesting legal case for me to now adopt a more lenient signage and let the FAA make a case that I'm not in compliance.  But, I've got better things to do.

My general point is that requirements regarding maintenance , ownership and operating privileges of small non-commercial planes should be similar to that of private cars - I fail to see how an LSA or a small Cessna represents greater public danger than a large truck like say F150.