I suspect that the LSA standards were penned with something that looks more like an fat ultralight than a Normal or Utility category airplane in mind. I think they envisioned something that looks more like the
Quicksilver GT-500 (which actually is certificated in the Primary category), for example, than something that looks like a C-152. After all, adding another couple hundred pounds to the MTOW would have allowed all those existing (and proven) C-140s, C-150s and C-152s to be flown under the SP rule. But the 1320 pound limit prevailed in the end.
Most new LSA airplanes sre designed to look and feel as much like conventional, Normal category airplanes as possible, however, which I think is both good and bad.
On the "good" side, it's obvious that the LSA standards have stimulated the birth and growth of an entire new segment of the industry. I also think the LSA standards allow for the development of a great deal of innovative technology in both airframe and powerplant design that would have been difficult to accomplish under the stricter Part 23 standards, but which will eventually benefit all of GA once these technologies and techniques prove themselves.
On the down side, it's simply more difficult to build a structurally safe aircraft that looks and feels like a Normal-category airplane while staying within the LSA standards. Surely designers don't intentionally cut corners on safety. Nonetheless, it's difficult for me to imagine that engineers designing LSA don't, from time to time, wish they could incorporate a beefier spar or more ribs into a wing without increasing weight and thus sacrificing useful load. And although some of the weight-saving innovations they've come up with are novel and even admirable, the LSA fleet is still put into the position of being a test bed, and those who fly these aircraft into being test pilots.
That many of these test pilots may have had streamlined training and may not be the picture of perfect health (the SP rule being designed, in my opinion, with flying something
really simple, like the GT-500, in mind) further complicates the question of how safe LSA are. Granted, not even Sully would be likely to survive his airplane's wings folding up in flight. But is it possible that a general lack of skill and experience on the part of low-time, minimally trained pilots causes these LSA (especially those used for flight instruction or rental) to suffer the cumulative effects of frequent maneuvers outside the limits of their design envelopes?
Nonetheless, I think there exist some common-sense guidelines for pilots and potential purchasers or LSA. One is simply to be realistic in one's expectations. Don't expect an LSA to look and feel just like a Normal-category airplane. It's not. It was designed to stay within very inflexible weight limits, and
something had to be sacrificed in order for it to comply. What was that "something?" I would prefer that it be a "something" that's not going to get me killed.
In addition, I think researching how extensively a design was tested before being put on the market, and waiting until it has proven itself in real-world flight, is a necessity when considering an LSA, perhaps more so than when considering any other purchase I could contemplate. I don't want to be a test pilot. The Skycatcher failures, for example, demonstrate that Cessna was willing to put its design to tests beyond those that were required, even at the cost of holding up production (and revenue) until the problems causing the failures were addressed.
-Rich
