Ground Adjust vs "Electrically Adjustable" in LSA aircraft

[QuiQuog]

Ive been looking through a lot of threads regarding ground adjustable props and it seems that someone usually brings up in-flight adjusable options, which frequently brings up questions of LSA compatability and "Electrically Adjustable" workarounds. I couldn't find a thred that was specifically devoted to it though, so I thought I would make one to consolodate the latest word from the great thinkers here.

The workarounds usually include either the controller accessible only from outside the cockpit, or within the cockpit but placarded against in flight use. While some say that it should be acceptable to have a control accessible through access door in the cowling, others say that it still not technically a ground adjust prop, maybe because one could easily wire a control into the cockpit. Still, others say that you should be able to wire it directly into the cockpit as long as long as it's use is prohibited in flight by a placard, similar to what Cub does with a 180hp motor.

Is there a consensus on whether any of this is acceptable, or is there a precedent set by manufacturers or builders that is accepted by the FAA? Are people doing it and getting away with it? Are people doing it and getting caught and penalized by the FAA? Is it okay, not okay?

For the record, it's not that I'm wanting one. I'm not even building, I just think it's an interesting topic.

 

[docmirror]

Here's my perspective and my two faced answer on it: I am likely going to a LSA plane next, and would really like to have an in-flight controllable prop.

Having said that, I don't think if it ever got down to the regulators that a switch in reach of the pilot during flight which is placarded against use would meet the letter nor the intent of the regulation on LSA planes.

Now, on the other hand, I think I would install the prop adj switch on the panel and label it 'nose trim' or some such.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Here's my perspective and my two faced answer on it: I am likely going to a LSA plane next, and would really like to have an in-flight controllable prop.

Having said that, I don't think if it ever got down to the regulators that a switch in reach of the pilot during flight which is placarded against use would meet the letter nor the intent of the regulation on LSA planes.

Now, on the other hand, I think I would install the prop adj switch on the panel and label it 'nose trim' or some such.

That would be a real effective way to void any insurance policies on the LSA and break FAA Regs simultaneously.

Lobby to change the LSA guidelines, most pilots want wider regs such as inflight adjustable props, retracts, etc....

 

[JHW]

Here's my perspective and my two faced answer on it: I am likely going to a LSA plane next, and would really like to have an in-flight controllable prop.

Having said that, I don't think if it ever got down to the regulators that a switch in reach of the pilot during flight which is placarded against use would meet the letter nor the intent of the regulation on LSA planes.

Now, on the other hand, I think I would install the prop adj switch on the panel and label it 'nose trim' or some such.

why not? what's the difference between that and installing a 180hp O-360 and placarding "rpm restricted to X in cruise" or some such thing

 

[docmirror]

why not? what's the difference between that and installing a 180hp O-360 and placarding "rpm restricted to X in cruise" or some such thing

I honestly don't know. There are several LSA planes from Europe that have a reflex flap setting that if it were allowed in the US would make the planes too fast. The planes as certified in the US do not allow the flaps to move to that setting so, no harm.

I just have a thought that a prop control, who's only function is to control the prop in violation of the FAA rules would be viewed with suspicion.

 

[docmirror]

That would be a real effective way to void any insurance policies on the LSA and break FAA Regs simultaneously.

Lobby to change the LSA guidelines, most pilots want wider regs such as inflight adjustable props, retracts, etc....

What insurance policy?

Are the regs broken? We don't have a ruling AFAIK, but if you have newer info please share.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

As far as I know, even the Aeromatic Propellers aren't legal on an LSA, even the proprietor of that product has said so on the supercub forum.

http://www.supercub.org/forum/showthread.php?39051-Aeroamtic-props

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

What insurance policy?

Are the regs broken? We don't have a ruling AFAIK, but if you have newer info please share.

Go by the latest reg and whatever insurance policy may be purchased. My info may be out of date.

 

[VanDy]

From FAR 1.1:
Light-sport aircraft
(7) A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than a powered glider.

 

[Geico266]

Electrically adjusted props throw the plane out of LSA according to the regs. I have been in many discussions about this. You can do what you want, hide the switch or what ever, but technically you your plane is not LSA.

 

[Geico266]

why not? what's the difference between that and installing a 180hp O-360 and placarding "rpm restricted to X in cruise" or some such thing

The difference is the LSA rules prohibit it.

I'm certain many people break the rules, but the plane at that point is no longer LSA according to the rules. My interpretation of the rules is the plane can no longer be flown LSA even if the prop is changed to fixed. Once the rules are broken you cannot go back and get a do over. Obviously, it depends on the FSDO you are working with to get the plane compliant. You can "shop" for a FSDO.

 

[ebykowsky]

"I don't have a complex endorsement or a multi rating, so I just fly my Cessna 410 around with one engine shut off, the gear down, and the prop in a constant pitch."

 

[VanDy]

The difference is the LSA rules prohibit it.

I'm certain many people break the rules, but the plane at that point is no longer LSA according to the rules. My interpretation of the rules is the plane can no longer be flown LSA even if the prop is changed to fixed. Once the rules are broken you cannot go back and get a do over. Obviously, it depends on the FSDO you are working with to get the plane compliant. You can "shop" for a FSDO.

Precisely, Ryanshort with the Taylorcraft (for sale) just found this out. at one point in its life his Tcraft had a BeechRoby mechanically adjustable (in flight) prop that has since been removed and the airplane can never be sport pilot eligible again. kinda sad, but that is the rule.

 

[craigvince]

I honestly don't know. There are several LSA planes from Europe that have a reflex flap setting that if it were allowed in the US would make the planes too fast. The planes as certified in the US do not allow the flaps to move to that setting so, no harm.

I just have a thought that a prop control, who's only function is to control the prop in violation of the FAA rules would be viewed with suspicion.

There is no regulation in the USA that prohibits reflex flaps. The Dova Skylark is one example of such and there are several around the country.

 

[VanDy]

There is no regulation in the USA that prohibits reflex flaps. The Dova Skylark is one example of such and there are several around the country.

he was referring to the speed, not the fact that the flaps reflex..

also from far 1.1 under Light-Sport:
(2) A maximum airspeed in level flight with maximum continuous power (VH ) of not more than 120 knots CAS under standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.

 

[Skylane81E]

Precisely, Ryanshort with the Taylorcraft (for sale) just found this out. at one point in its life his Tcraft had a BeechRoby mechanically adjustable (in flight) prop that has since been removed and the airplane can never be sport pilot eligible again. kinda sad, but that is the rule.

It's crap is what it is,


But it's the rule

 

[RyanShort1]

Precisely, Ryanshort with the Taylorcraft (for sale) just found this out. at one point in its life his Tcraft had a BeechRoby mechanically adjustable (in flight) prop that has since been removed and the airplane can never be sport pilot eligible again. kinda sad, but that is the rule.

The guys at the Light Sport division said that the whole point of the rules is to keep things VERY simple for LSAs. Even though the Beech Roby is VERY simple, and hasn't been on the plane for a LONG time (it was installed in 1954) they weren't very interested in bending the rules, even though some people at my FSDO initially didn't think it was a problem. We need to petition to have this altered - especially in the case of aircraft that meet the rules in every way except for a history problem. I personally totally get the "have continued to meet" part of the rules in 1.1 especially as regards the weight limit - they don't want people taking a Cessna 150, stripping it down, restricting the weight with an STC, and calling it a new LSA. OTOH, if the aircraft, like mine, has the equipment on the TCDS (Beech Roby prop) and had it legally installed, and then legally uninstalled, there should be a provision that it revert to LSA.
Keep an eye on the Federal Register. If it doesn't sell by probably the end of this month, I'm going to be making an official appeal to this rule. I'd appreciate some support in the comments!

Ryan

 

[VanDy]

The guys at the Light Sport division said that the whole point of the rules is to keep things VERY simple for LSAs. Even though the Beech Roby is VERY simple, and hasn't been on the plane for a LONG time (it was installed in 1954) they weren't very interested in bending the rules, even though some people at my FSDO initially didn't think it was a problem. We need to petition to have this altered - especially in the case of aircraft that meet the rules in every way except for a history problem. I personally totally get the "have continued to meet" part of the rules in 1.1 especially as regards the weight limit - they don't want people taking a Cessna 150, stripping it down, restricting the weight with an STC, and calling it a new LSA. OTOH, if the aircraft, like mine, has the equipment on the TCDS (Beech Roby prop) and had it legally installed, and then legally uninstalled, there should be a provision that it revert to LSA.
Keep an eye on the Federal Register. If it doesn't sell by probably the end of this month, I'm going to be making an official appeal to this rule. I'd appreciate some support in the comments!

Ryan

If you would be so kind as to remind me with a link when the time comes, id really appreciate it!

 

[docmirror]

There is no regulation in the USA that prohibits reflex flaps. The Dova Skylark is one example of such and there are several around the country.

Read again. The problem is not the reflex flap setting per-se, it is the performance of the aircraft when at the reflex flap setting. It goes a bit too fast in sea level flight at the reflexed setting, therefore the solution was to restrict that setting. It could be that the makers have since change the plane to the reflex setting and changed a different variable like the prop pitch, or length, or something else.

 

[JHW]

Read again. The problem is not the reflex flap setting per-se, it is the performance of the aircraft when at the reflex flap setting. It goes a bit too fast in sea level flight at the reflexed setting, therefore the solution was to restrict that setting. It could be that the makers have since change the plane to the reflex setting and changed a different variable like the prop pitch, or length, or something else.

put a placard on the panel "rpm restricted to X when in reflex flap setting" problem solved

 

[docmirror]

put a placard on the panel "rpm restricted to X when in reflex flap setting" problem solved

Works for me. I don't have a problem with reflex flaps, someone else does. But I don't think this placard would pass muster either because it violates the max speed at Vh.

 

[JHW]

Works for me. I don't have a problem with reflex flaps, someone else does. But I don't think this placard would pass muster either because it violates the max speed at Vh.

it might pass ok. It worked for the 180hp LSA cub clone

 

[Skylane81E]

If you would be so kind as to remind me with a link when the time comes, id really appreciate it!

X2!!!!!

 

[QuiQuog]

I personally totally get the "have continued to meet" part of the rules in 1.1 especially as regards the weight limit - they don't want people taking a Cessna 150, stripping it down, restricting the weight with an STC, and calling it a new LSA.

I personally totally don’t get it. What's the purpose of "have continued to meet" as it relates to the current configuration of a craft? So a plane was fitted with an LSA ineligible piece of equipment ages ago, but has been flying safely without it for the last 50 years. What is the reason to exclude it from the LSA category if that's what the owner would like to do with it? Why would they not want people stripping down an airplane to meet the LSA requirements? Couldn't it just be recertified as an experimental at that point? I could see them not wanting to let an aircraft, once it was modified to meet LSA requirements, restored back to a certified type.

It doesn't make sense that if you can manage to cobble together some tubes and fabric into an airplane shape of your own design, strap an engine on it and find a seat big enough for you and your enormous balls, then more power to ya. But to simply lighten up a time tested design is verboten?

I can't figure out if this part of the rule was added by lawyers trying to shelter the FAA from some kind of liability, by curmudgeons trying to protect the sanctity of aging classic airplanes, or by elitists trying to keep their little hole in the sky free from the encroachment of "shortcut" pilots. It certainly wasn't written to bring more people into aviation.

 

[docmirror]

It doesn't make sense that if you can manage to cobble together some tubes and fabric into an airplane shape of your own design, strap an engine on it and find a seat big enough for you and your enormous balls, then more power to ya. But to simply lighten up a time tested design is verboten?

Well, that was worth a good chuckle anyway. Sigh,,, yes, it's verboten to modify a cert aircraft time tested design to specifically meet the LSA rules. I can see why, cause we would have some enormous ball rednecks down her in TX sawing the unneeded struts off that 150 to save weight. The FAA was trying to avoid stuff like that. And, to modify it sufficiently to get it into the EXP realm, you might as well start fresh with your proverbial tubes and rags.

 

[RyanShort1]

I personally totally don’t get it. What's the purpose of "have continued to meet" as it relates to the current configuration of a craft? So a plane was fitted with an LSA ineligible piece of equipment ages ago, but has been flying safely without it for the last 50 years. What is the reason to exclude it from the LSA category if that's what the owner would like to do with it? Why would they not want people stripping down an airplane to meet the LSA requirements? Couldn't it just be recertified as an experimental at that point? I could see them not wanting to let an aircraft, once it was modified to meet LSA requirements, restored back to a certified type.

It doesn't make sense that if you can manage to cobble together some tubes and fabric into an airplane shape of your own design, strap an engine on it and find a seat big enough for you and your enormous balls, then more power to ya. But to simply lighten up a time tested design is verboten?

I can't figure out if this part of the rule was added by lawyers trying to shelter the FAA from some kind of liability, by curmudgeons trying to protect the sanctity of aging classic airplanes, or by elitists trying to keep their little hole in the sky free from the encroachment of "shortcut" pilots. It certainly wasn't written to bring more people into aviation.

Just about anyone these days should recognize that our perverted form of government seems to be more about protecting big businesses and special interests rather than real safety or the individual.

My T-cart was flown for 6 years by a sport pilot who didn't realize it was illegal. There's no difference between it in it's current configuration, and any other BC-12D except for some paperwork on file in Oklahoma City... and in the logbook.

 

[docmirror]

Just about anyone these days should recognize that our perverted form of government seems to be more about protecting big businesses and special interests rather than real safety or the individual.

My T-cart was flown for 6 years by a sport pilot who didn't realize it was illegal. There's no difference between it in it's current configuration, and any other BC-12D except for some paperwork on file in Oklahoma City... and in the logbook.

Actually your solution is quite simple. You don't need a whole airplane, all you need is a data plate for a BC-12D. Couple rivets and 'fixed'.

 

[RyanShort1]

Actually your solution is quite simple. You don't need a whole airplane, all you need is a data plate for a BC-12D. Couple rivets and 'fixed'.

LOL. It's crossed my mind, but would have to have my current plane stricken, etc... "re-installed the engine" "re-installed the prop"

Ryan

 

[QuiQuog]

Well, that was worth a good chuckle anyway. Sigh,,, yes, it's verboten to modify a cert aircraft time tested design to specifically meet the LSA rules. I can see why, cause we would have some enormous ball rednecks down her in TX sawing the unneeded struts off that 150 to save weight. The FAA was trying to avoid stuff like that. And, to modify it sufficiently to get it into the EXP realm, you might as well start fresh with your proverbial tubes and rags.

Good point. Changing the design of a time tested design changes it from time tested to "time to be tested". And I suppose there will always be some people ready to make a chopper out of good plane just to see if they can do it. Then again, that's what experimental is all about. But why keep an otherwise qualified airplane forever out of the LSA category when it can easily be reverted to the way it was before? What might be the rationale for that?

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

I personally totally don’t get it. What's the purpose of "have continued to meet" as it relates to the current configuration of a craft?

Because without that clause, you are going to have people developing STC's for Cessna 150's to drop them down to 1320 lbs. You would have had better luck with this argument 8 years ago before you had a ton of manufactures who want the status quo.

 

[bbchien]

Because without that clause, you are going to have people developing STC's for Cessna 150's to drop them down to 1320 lbs. You would have had better luck with this argument 8 years ago before you had a ton of manufactures who want the status quo.

Ryan, this is the problem with your Aeronca. Right in this post.

 

[Skylane81E]

I think that if the plane can meet LSA requirements when configured per the TCDS then you should be able to return it to that LSA standard.

I'm not for a blanket ban on weight reduction as I would have no issue with a metalized Aircoupe having a gross reduction STC applied and put back into LSA limits.

 

[JHW]

I think that if the plane can meet LSA requirements when configured per the TCDS then you should be able to return it to that LSA standard.

while that may make sense to you, it is dead wrong. For example, there are some luscombs that met the definition of LSA when manufactured but could later have the gross weight raised by a STC. You can't undo the STC and make it again LSA compliant, yet an identical luscomb that never had the STC paper filed for it is still considered an LSA. Might not make any sense but that's the way it is.

btw anyone who would metalize an ercoupe should have their license revoked for mental incompetence.

 

[Skylane81E]

while that may make sense to you, it is dead wrong. For example, there are some luscombs that met the definition of LSA when manufactured but could later have the gross weight raised by a STC. You can't undo the STC and make it again LSA compliant, yet an identical luscomb that never had the STC paper filed for it is still considered an LSA. Might not make any sense but that's the way it is.

btw anyone who would metalize an ercoupe should have their license revoked for mental incompetence.

I know you MAY not put it back into LSA,

I think that you SHOULD be allowed to.

Pre LSA there was a reason to metalize an Aircoupe, now not so much

 

[RyanShort1]

I agree, but I wonder if we couldn't get a twist in the wording of 1.1 changed to allow for a legal modification per the TCDS to be reversed taking the aircraft back in.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[JHW]

I know you MAY not put it back into LSA,

I think that you SHOULD be allowed to.

Pre LSA there was a reason to metalize an Aircoupe, now not so much

there was never a reason to metallize an ercoupe. A good friend and neighbor developed the STC that was most commonly used. To the day he died he claimed that was his biggest mistake in life.

 

[Skylane81E]

there was never a reason to metallize an ercoupe. A good friend and neighbor developed the STC that was most commonly used. To the day he died he claimed that was his biggest mistake in life.

Upgross on many

 

[JHW]

Upgross on many

doesn't matter after you scrap the plane due to corrosion

 

[VanDy]

I agree, but I wonder if we couldn't get a twist in the wording of 1.1 changed to allow for a legal modification per the TCDS to be reversed taking the aircraft back in.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

This I completely agree with. If the change can be done with a logbook entry, it should be no big deal.

 

[Skylane81E]

doesn't matter after you scrap the plane due to corrosion

Now there you aren't wrong!