system

You’re addressing the demise of Sebring but really speaking on the larger issue of the success or lack thereof of what was supposed to be a panacea for aviation … Light Sport. Had light sport taken off, Sebring wouldn’t be dying … January weather in FL be damned. If a market existed, there’d be a trade show that’d be nurturing and showcasing it.

It may well be unrealistic to gauge a niche subset of airplane production by the 1978 numbers. On the other hand, what would you gauge success by if not by production numbers? People speak either with their wallets or their feet, usually; they either buy one or walk away. Lookie Lou’s don’t add to a company’s bottom line. Piper and Cirrus took up the light sport idea and gave it up. Even the mighty Cessna Skycatcher – which I ordered then walked away from over the China thing – couldn’t find success and wound up chopped up … even the serviceable spare parts and new engines! Many others thought they had still another aviation “great idea” only to meet with reality. Over a hundred manufacturers building something around 200 airplanes per year is insane. I’m sure the LAMA guy will disagree with me but … reality is reality.

Having attended more than 10 of the shows and flown four airplanes as a serious prospect, year after year I left disappointed. At some point, the dollars you spend have to be compensated for by what I call the “Big Five.” Price … Performance … Payload … Range … and Safety. Light Sport didn’t provide any of that. Prices were too high; performance (for the most part) was anemic; payload didn’t exist and range … fuhgetabout it. Finally, safety couldn’t be built into such a light weight machine. So what’s the point? Only the introduction of glass panels gave the segment a recent boost … but not enough. Ya gotta have two or three of the five to be successful. THAT is why the Carbon Cub sells.

To be fair … bumping against the totally ridiculous 1,320 pound rule was the major culprit. And who is to blame for that? You know what I’d say. Now toss in the introduction of BasicMed which more than 40,000 pilots HAVE availed themselves of and the final nails in the coffin of light sport were inserted and driven home. Why buy a LSA if you can still fly your C172? The demise of Sebring is but a mirror image of same.

Hopefully, the EAA MOSAIC idea will materialize before the rapidly dwindling group of aging pilots with the interest and wherewithal to spend that kind of money meet their maker. Providing for a few of my big five HAS to happen or else it won’t work, too. From MY vantage point, only the introduction of BasicMed has done anything positive. That said … keeping the oldies flying for a few more years is only gonna work so long. If something more positive doesn’t come out of DC soon, even more “demise” stories will emerge providing fodder for your blogs.

system

First, thanks for bringing back the Comments section; much appreciated. Second, it’s too bad that Sebring didn’t survive, but as you say, it is a reflection of the struggle light sport has fought from the beginning. If uncertainty is the enemy of stable aircraft production, LSA has weathered a near-perfect storm of government muddling that has clouded the future from the get-go. Things are not improving either, what with all the conflicting rumors, misstatements and various “initiatives” being bounced around between the FAA and the alphabet groups regarding future changes. Reference the Aviation Consumer January edition article on the subject. Small wonder LSA can’t seem to catch a break. It would be nice if someone could come up with a draft master plan for the near and mid-term goals for revising the standards so that everyone could see where we are headed. But, the current obsession over UAS rules seems to have eclipsed any hope of that. The FAA has too much for on its plate and something is going to get dropped. I fear LSA will be the broken egg.

system

One good thing that LSAs did for GA was to show that a few relaxed regulations didn’t mean increased accidents or risk, particularly with regard to medical certification and pilot training. I think BasicMed wouldn’t be here (yet) if it wasn’t for the Sport Pilot rule’s “driver’s license medical”. And while I don’t know how much (if any) Sport Pilot training has reduced the monetary and time cost of earning a certificate, any little bit helps.

And I view BasicMed as more than just keeping a few older pilots in their 172s. I see it helping out younger people have an easier path to the pilot’s seat. I know many pilots who could easily pass a 3rd-class medical but choose not to go through the unnecessary hoops and have switched to BasicMed instead. Since it still requires an initial evaluation by an AME, it doesn’t help a whole lot for new pilots, but it does at least take away the recurring visits.

One final observation I’ve noticed of LSA is that there are a few stand-out companies, and at least one of them (FlightDesign) is taking to building a certified Part-23 aircraft with a fresh design perspective. I hope things work out for them (and others), because that may be where the true future of light non-LSA GA lies.

As for Sebring and Sport Expo…I would be more interested in the racing going on at the track than the LSAs on the ramp.

system

It’s always tough to have to cancel a regular event, but I live in Florida and only went once. As pilots we feel obligated to support out industry. We also have to choose how we spend those AMUs. In my case that usually means one major show per year and if I am lucky one AOPA event per year. We join AOPA, EAA, and other professional organizations and some of us are able to join multiple organizations as well. Everything has a price. I think Sebring did well to carry the event for as long as it did and my hat is off to them.

Personally, I have very little interest in the LSA segment but if it was the only choice for flying I am sure I would think differently. I think in a perfect world LSA would become another part of Sun N Fun or Air Venture and present themselves in those venues. They are already are at those shows and I usually see people visiting those displays as well.

system

The best selling LSA in the USA is a carbon copy of NASCAR teams (past and present) approach to rules, guidelines, and specifications. That being, designing and implementing applications to the rules, that in practical use on race day is borderline cheating.

You prepare two cars, one for tech one for racing. The racing version gets acid dipped bodies. One side of the engine has a larger bore than other side. Just make sure a tear-down inspection due to a claiming rule is on the smaller bore side. When one gets caught, argue that the rules allow for these modifications, do something different to take advantage of whatever weakness may be in the following years rule-making as a result of the alleged infraction. All of racing is a challenge to the rules and taking advantage of every opportunity to push as far as a team can go to the fringe of that rule. And if the rule is vague enough to allow for some “creative thinking”, go for it. This is a part of the appeal of NASCAR to most average folks. It’s sort of the American way.

This is what CubCrafters has done with the Carbon Cub. The LSA rules define the weight limit, top speed, stall speed etc. Stuff in the biggest motor (180HP with electronic ignition and use it for take-off only). Fly all the rest of the flight on 80HP…yeah right. Useful load is 424LBS yet the X-Cub with the same engine is 1084lbs. Sure, Mr FAA ramp checker, I am never over the 1320 gross weight limit…but please pay no attention to that moose in the back seat. This airplane exploits every aspect of the LSA guidelines and in a certification way is “legal”. How many are being flown at these legal limits…and at 80-100HP? Probably as many NASCAR teams cars that are totally tech legal on race day, at the time of engine start up.

As a result of their considerable efforts to make a Carbon Cub “LSA legal”, it has turned out to be the best, long term seller because it has all the attributes of a much heavier airplane…because as typically flown, it is a heavier, full size airplane. It exudes strength, brawn, horsepower, back-country capable, testosterone enhancing style of aviating. Now compare that to a Rotax powered modified European class ultra-light that has been neutered to fit the present USA LSA rules. This is good ol’ Yankee ingenuity at its best.

I believe Deland can learn a lesson or two from CubCrafters when putting together their LSA venue. Make it another unique American type of event rather than the Sebring’s international flavored approach. Sun-N-Fun and Oshkosh have their own unique identities refined over time. They are truly American aviation icons beyond the events themselves. Sebring seemed to not have its own identity other than it was an LSA exposition. That alone was not enough. If Deland combines the LSA venue with an American flavor by inviting type club participation of LSA qualified Champs, Chiefs, Luscombes, Cubs, etc for example, maybe an aerobatic display by an appropriate LSA, and lots of demo rides in both old and new LSA’s, they can gain an identity that will draw non-aviators to the event for nostalgia and curiosity sake, while still showcasing the multitude of LSA manufacturers for those with checkbooks in hand. Showcase the range available to the buyer and the non-aviation public that you can purchase a $15K Chief to a $250K GEE Whiz glass panel LSA and fly with no medical. In other words sell the premise of LSA rather than a bunch of manufacturers with difficult to pronounce names.

CubCrafters has tapped into that American mindset better than most. And they have taken advantage of all the wiggle room the LSA rules allow. Big engines, big airplanes, and big wheels.

Deland has an opportunity to do likewise.

system

The perfect example of having too much time on their hands. Maybe - stay with me here - instead of beating the bushes for a way to prove the old adage that they’re not happy until you’re not happy, the FAA could, say, open the FSDOs that are closed around the country and actually provide some service in return for all the taxpayer money. Just a thought.

1 reply

system

So where does this ultimately end? Are angel flights, pilots n paws, and other charitable flights now going to require a commercial license since the pilot might be deriving some form of goodwill and/or flight time? Certainly third party’s receive some benefit. If this might be the case, I am sure you will see fewer patients and animals transported by well-meaning private pilots.

I am sure many an animal has gotten a “free” ride in many experimental aircraft as well as numerous certificated models. I am not sure I fully understand what the difference is between my CFI giving me free instruction in my certificated 177 vs. my experimental RV10. Is this ultimately a way to clamp down on experimental aircraft sales?

1 reply

system

My previous understanding was that “flight time” could be considered compensation if it was logged, but if you didn’t log the flight time, it didn’t count as compensation. Now it sounds they’re saying if you’re even just sitting in the airplane, you are receiving “compensation”. Same thing with just talking to a potential client; that is apparently “compensation” too, in the form of “future good will”. If so, that is the most ridiculous statement they have ever come out with, and basically ends all flight instruction in anything other than a certified standard category aircraft.

This has to be from someone who saw their job at risk and invented a problem to “solve”.

1 reply

system

So it would seem. I suppose this means you’ll now need a LODA when doing initial flight testing with someone else on board too (something that was recently allowed, but it seems now not really). Someone at the FAA seems to have gotten confused about who the “general public” is, and apparently think that experimental aircraft owners are considered “general public” that need to be protected…from CFIs offering to teach them how to become safer in their own aircraft.

system

An unchecked government agency out of control! Try getting into a FSDO to conduct some real business! Impossible! They are all buttonholed up at home using the excuse of COVID to be on a permanent vacation. Call any FSDO and get a voicemail that they can’t help you right now, try later! Same result later! Just a bunch of worthless bureaucrats sitting on their duffs dreaming up ways to hassle the people who are out there doing good for the aviation community. Obviously they don’t understand that WE are the customers - they work for us, not the other way around. AOPA needs to get their lobbyists on this and get some congressional action to do some pruning among the FAA ranks!

1 reply

system

Shades of going after Bob Hoover.

Bruce_S

Here is a possible scenario… perhaps a bit far-fetched, but the dominoes do appear to be falling and the FAA does seem to be redefining the definition of flight instruction.

Let’s say (hypothetically, of course) that as a retirement past-time, I earn a Sport pilot certificate and that is closely followed by the addition of the Sport CFI rating. Let’s also say that over the past several years I have given 500+ hours of flight instruction to old farts like me with a 100% pass rate on practical exams and proficiency checks for the Sport pilot certificate.

The dominoes continue to fall and the FAA finalizes their quest by including standard and sport (LSA) aircraft in their “carrying persons for compensation…” vendetta against CFIs. I do not hold a commercial certificate or a medical of any class, but I DO want to teach my grandson to fly, so I continue to renew my CFI-Sport rating. I pay for the airplane rental and teach my grandson free of charge.

Question: Am I allowed to enjoy flying and instructing my grandson… or will that enjoyment be considered as compensation? Ah, yes, I can see it now. I’m met by an official from the FAA (always there to help!).

FAA person (after checking my credentials): Did you enjoy the flight with your grandson?
Me: Of course.
FAA: Were you providing flight instruction to your grandson?
Me (not wanting to commit perjury): Of course.
FAA: Then you were illegally compensated for the flight and I am starting a certificate action against you.

Yes, yes, I know. Pure fiction and the result of too little sleep on my part. I’ll shut up… but before I do, I’ll paraphrase Ronald Reagan:

“In the present crisis, the FAA is NOT the solution to our problem. The FAA IS the problem.”

2 replies

deltafoxco

Applied for my CFI Experimental LODA on the 12th, received it on the 15th!

1 reply

consultair1

Legally, the word “compensation” is the problem. The FAA can attach ANY definition they desire to the word. Mr. CFI, you were receiving compensation by being allowed to come back down to earth safely and such BS.

tchath

If goodwill is compensation, then the IRS could tax you for talking to your neighbor over the back fence. It’s ludicrous.

1 reply

Jason_Bowman

Set up a test case so you have standing in court. These vague and expansive interpretations often get shot down in court because the law is generally required to be specific. A similar issue crept up with flight sharing. Somehow posting on a cork board is ok but doing it on the interwebs isn’t.

Keith_Sketchley

Oh, I regret helping Transport Canada with regulations.

Constipated jerks.

Keith_Sketchley

“FAA person (after checking my credentials): Did you enjoy the flight with your grandson?
Me: Of course.”

I take the FAA as considering you enjoyment as compensation.

Bureaucrats have no perspective.

system

Here we go again with absurd BS being pushed to expand government control. 79 years ago the government ruled (in Wickard v. Filburn) that not participating in interstate commerce is participating in interstate commerce. 11 years ago the government ruled that you have a right to remain silent, but you must speak to actually claim and exercise it. Now it claims that not being compensated is being compensated.

What’s next?

1 reply

system

Last I heard there was around five FAA employees for every plane in the US. Maybe I could just get one of the ten for the two planes I own to get stuff done for me…

2 replies

system

FAA: Did you enjoy instructing your grandson?

Me: no, he tried to kill me, he’s younger than me, he has many years ahead of him, and he’ll be flying for a long time. No, it isn’t fun and I don’t enjoy it.

FAA: We’ll, we’re not happy till you aren’t happy so our work here is done. Have a nice day.

system

You might want to delete that comment. You’re giving them ideas.

system

You’re headed in the right direction here, Billy Bob. Unfortunately, most people/pilots are splitting hairs over the minutiae.

system

Government is great!!!

system

Are you trying to make my head explode, Bob? You’re driving me closer to it. Unfortunately, there are far too many people who think big government is just fine. Or even good. Even pilots. We’ve become quite comfortable with our low standard of liberty.

1 reply

system

Get stuff done for you? Better answer: get rid of them, then you won’t need “to get stuff done.” You can just go fly.

system

“Big government” is just a catch phrase used to get people riled up over generalizations. “Small government” doesn’t automatically imply that the remaining regulations are actually good or useful. The true problem is poorly-designed regulations that purport to protect someone but actually end up harming them instead.

The whole idea of having rules around “compensation” in aviation is to protect the general public (who don’t have the proper knowledge to make an educated analysis of the risk they are undertaking) from under-qualified pilots or under-maintained aircraft (among other things). But when it goes so far as to classify properly-qualified flight instructors providing training to owners of experimental aircraft as illegal compensation, said regulation is now harming those aircraft owners rather than protecting them.

I don’t think any of us would argue that there shouldn’t be any regulations around unqualified compensated (in the traditionally-understood definition meaning “paid”) flights. We just don’t want governmental overreach (which, again, is something that can happen in “big government” or “small/limited government”).

1 reply

Keith_Sketchley

Hmm, surprisingly high number considering the number of very small airplanes that do not require much effort.

Writing FAA Advisory Circulars does help the small airplane owner.

Oh, you are probably including ATC, which is a fundamentally different context than airworthiness and piloting competence.

Keith_Sketchley

But a large number people expect micro-management in their naiive enthusiasm for collectivism.

And people over-estimate the benefit of regulation. From my long experience including having delegated authority I say it props up the incompetent, who would go broke without a regulator. (Their service would be unreliable, and yes they might crash which would tell others they should not be hired.) And gives the public false confidence, most no longer think about who they are hiring (whether airline or pilot or technician).

1 reply

Keith_Sketchley

And somewhere in gummints there is still an ‘economic fitness’ requirement to be allowed to operate an airline.

Another example of gumming spending is cross-border. Very early in this century I attended a seminar, which covered both authority to operate and security. I was appalled that that US security bureaucracy had sent an inexperienced individual to cover that - with September 11, 2001 in everyone’s mind, whereas the authority to operate bureaucracy had sent an individual who really knew that unproductive subject.

(For example, while it had been thrashed out that a Canadian sports team could fly its players to a game in the US using its Canadian-registered 727, it could not legally pick up a prospect in the US and take him to the game practice. In between was the case of picking up someone already on the team who was in the US participating in a family matter.)

Widget

Wow. The absurdity of both the FAA and the court is mind boggling. Goodwill and possibility of future benefits are considered compensation. Just when you think the government just can’t possibly do anything dumber than they already have, they do.

Kenneth_Stapleton

I appreciate your thought process, but keep in mind that FAA has one purpose…control, they have zero intention of promoting safety…

Kenneth_Stapleton

So, I am having this odd thought…our new White House Administration seems to be obsessed with giving out “free” stuff. It would seem to me that if Joe can do it, my Flight Instructor can do the same…

system

The article didn’t mention the best part: FAA employees don’t want to do rides in military and old amphibs for personal safety reasons, so they rely on DEs and CFIs.

Whatever minor “loopholes” that existed benefited FAA staff.

system

And just in case ya’ll don’t realize it, the FAA pavillion at Airventure will be … UNMANNED! They’re not coming! Only the controllers will be working. What BS. How do I get an FAA job ?

I have a DOT employee living right next door to me (not FAA). He has a Government car. That car just moves around in the driveway (because it’s in his way) instead of being out on the road inspecting big rigs and other commercial vehicles. I see the guy strolling around the yard all day long. In another case, I know an FAA guy who is actually laughing about how much time he has on his hands. Meanwhile, the rank and file non governbment employee taxpayer in this Nation has to work or else.

MY head is exploding, too !!

1 reply

system

Thinking about it some more … I guess there won’t be any “Meet the Boss” dog and pony show this year either. He might get Covid from all the pilot peons.

bbgun06

I’ve been following this story as it has developed, but I still can’t wrap my brain around one thing: A CFI is a commercial pilot, and so is allowed to fly ‘for compensation or hire,’ right?
So why is the FAA now saying that’s not allowed?

2 replies

system

1. You’re right, but it’s the CFI rating that’s more important in this case. Commercial operations with passengers is highly regulated compared to instruction. The FAA lawyers are focusing on limited, experimental and primary, but all of those require instruction of some kind in practical terms for safety reasons and possibly endorsements.

Do you really want low-time pilots flying P-40s, etc. around with no instruction in peace time? The US lost as many planes and pilots due to training accidents as the enemy in WW2.

2. FAA lawyers are quoting the AC 61-142 on ride sharing expenses, but instruction is not ride sharing.

The recent history is that the FAA has clamped down on “air taxi app ride sharing” (correctly) and Youtube payments by one FSDO (incorrectly.)

In the Youtube case, a famous Youtube Part 91 single turboprop pilot called his viewers “passengers” or said “fly with me”, and was monetized on Youtube, and I think it was the Miami FSDO that basically lost their minds and started enforcement actions over not being an air carrier (for Internet viewers!) and collecting payments (for incidental Youtube views!) It was truly kafkaesque.

system

Welcome to the “administrative state”. That’s where politicians set up agencies to regulate. They are given sweeping powers and have near 0 accountability. It becomes tyrannical as we see here. The FAA needs to be re-constituted so that stake-holders have seats at the table with actual voting power in the rule making process. Who would be stakeholders? GA, Airlines, Manufacturers, and the FAA itself. Stakeholders having input and voting power would help common sense enter into an otherwise out of touch bureaucracy. Some would claim this arrangement would be effectively the “fox guarding the hen house”. That is a risk, but the present concentration of power is unacceptable. Surely some balance of power is possible.

Bruce_S

Not all CFIs have commercial privileges. There are many flight instructors who are flying on a third class medical or BasicMed and those CFIs can’t legally fly commercial operations. There are also Sport and Private pilots who have the CFI-Sport rating and those pilots by definition do not have commercial privileges. We have an excellent CFI-Sport in our area who has been instructing for several years with several hundred hours of instruction given. He will be out of a job and his students out of luck if the dominoes continue to fall.

The problem is that the FAA has previously considered flight instruction to be just that - INSTRUCTION - and NOT carrying a person or cargo for compensation or hire. The current madness has the FAA redefining flight instruction in accordance with the unpublished judicial opinion that flight instruction is obviously carrying persons for compensation or hire. Not satisfied with that, the FAA then says that compensation is whatever they say it is, including such nebulous terms as ‘goodwill’ in the definition.

This is government overreach at its finest.

1 reply

bbgun06

So if a CFI does have a current 1st class, can they give instruction in an experimental airplane? Or do they need an operating certificate to do it? What kind of operating certificate?

These are some of the questions that are raised by this ruling, which the FAA doesn’t have answers for.

1 reply

system

It would appear it doesn’t matter what kind of medical (if any) the CFI has. It’s the fact that they’re providing instruction in an experiemental/limited/restricted-category aircraft, and that requires a LODA. And apparently it doesn’t matter if they’re donating their time, not charging a penny, and not even logging the flight time (though it’s that last point I’m not entirely clear on - is the FAA saying you don’t even have to log and record the flight time for it to be something of “value”?)