All,
In addition to the exchanges "on the list", there are others where
individuals and I discuss more privately. While responding to one of
those today I suddenly "saw the other side". We have all heard the
expression that someone "can't see the forest for the trees". To
actually experience that situation is a supremely humbling experience.
For days I have sought to explain my perspective on this issue such
that it appears to others as reasonable as it did to me. My motivation
is always to expose the truth. In this case some of the time and
priority devoted to explaining my perspective would have been better
invested pondering more deeply other perspectives. The truth is that
each "side" debating our LSA ambiguity is equally valid.
My lengthy inability to understand did not arise out of any personal
reluctance to do so. I just genuinely didn't "get it".
For those interested:
On Sep 11, 2009, at 21:52, Ed Burkhead wrote:
Actually, here are the exact words of the regulation:
Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or
powered-lift that, since its original certification, has continued to
meet the
following:
(ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for
operation on water;
The specific regulatory intent as to what the words "...continued to
meet..." and "1,320 pounds"pertain to is not clear.
It seems everyone has had difficulty trying to meaningfully relate
"original certification" with the concept "...continued to meet..." and
an apparent (but unstated) limit of "1,320 pounds". I took the "1,320
pounds" as an upper limit of acceptable operation. This is an
"operational world" interpretation (which I tend to favor), that would
require some FAA presumptions or rulings to make clear.
As pointed out before, the words "legal" and "gross weight" are
conspicuously absent. I now realize that John Cooper, Ed, and others
took the "1,320 pounds" as an upper limit of FAA certification. Such
context would directly relate to the gross weight allowed a certified
airframe by the applicable Type Certificate, which then makes the
status and accuracy of related FAA records pertinent. Whew! This is a
"paper world" interpretation that would also require some FAA
presumptions or rulings to make clear.
Even the term "FAA records" is a snarl. The FAA Registration group is
an entirely different and separate entity from FAA Engineering, the
latter I understand to supervise and coordinate the various FAA FSDOs.
The work product of FAA Registration is an absolute mess, at one time
having more than different numeric codes for Ercoupe 415-E models.
When you order the CD for a given airframe, there are two files. I
would speculate that ownership records originate with the FAA
Registration group , while the registration, airworthiness, 337s, etc.
originate from FAA Engineering.
It's certainly possible that as many as a hundred Ercoupes are in LSA
"limbo" because of previous good faith attempts to convert 415-Cs or
CDs to the 415-D Model (so as to increase useful load by 140 lbs.).
Since the LSA "option" has increased the value of unconverted airframes
considerably, the financial incentive to find such "loopholes" as would
unwind such a "conversion" is great.
Ed (and a few others) are of the opinion that we should not push for an
interpretation from the FAA. I understand that presently some
mechanics are "working magic" and getting favorable decisions in
individual instances as to an airframe's LSA status, and any "official
interpretation from higher up" might "shut the door" on this once and
for all.
That reasoning, unfortunately, validates a perception of the FAA as
mostly untrustworthy bureaucrats who prefer to rule the aviation
community by intimidation and fear rather than by way of competent and
equitable administration. It encourages intentional ambiguity in the
drafting of FAA Rules and Regulations so as to increase the
discretionary power of the agency and its individual representatives.
True or not, I find such possibilities so utterly and intensely
repulsive as to oppose such almost reflexively.
If it were up to me, I'd push for an official interpretation on FAA
letterhead from a representative of appropriate authority. I deem it
"bad for the fleet" as a whole when different FSDOs are free to
differently interpret and enforce applicable rules in their individual
feifdoms. Such violates the constitutional right of each and every one
of us to equal application of the law, and substitutes the rule of men
for the rule of the law.
But it's not up to me and I shall leave that decision to others.
Regards,
WRB
