Talk:Light-sport aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Merge with Ultralight aviation

KEEP Light Sport Aircraft is not Ultralight Aviation. Please see the Federal Aviation Regulations for more details.24.9.10.235 03:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on Talk:Ultralight aviation. McNeight 04:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LSA separate

LSA are a separate category from "ultralight aircraft" in the US, in terms of both performance and basis of certification. Ultralights are currently regulated under FAR Part 103, while LSA are regulated as traditional aircraft.

How it is written

This article is about the FAA LSA category of aircraft. They write it "Light-sport Aircraft". So should we. The hyphen is weird but it is their hyphen. But the A is capitalised. The term was NOT in common usage before the FAA invented it. It is a proper name. (When the term is in common use, if ever, to refer to aircraft which are generally of lighter weight and generally of sporty character then we need an article "light sport aircraft". No caps, no hypen.) Article renamed to capitalise the A. Paul Beardsell 07:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caps?

Shouldn't this article be titled "Light-Sport Aircraft" if it is the proper name referring to the FAA category, or Light-sport aircraft if it is converted to Wiki standard caps? Dhaluza 14:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the preceding section. That is how the creators of the term write it. And it is regular English that only the first letter of a hyphenated word is capitalised. The hyphen is weird, but they (the almighty FAA) use it. And I believe the article's name complies correctly with WP recommendations for proper nouns as article names. Paul Beardsell 22:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked both the online and printed versions of 14 CFR Part 1.1, as well as Parts 61 and 91, and the capitalization is consistent. Only the first letter is capitalized, unless all are capitalized in a title. The only instance of the camel-caps was in an FAA web page, obviously an error. Also the AOPA and EAA sites did not use the camel-caps either.Dhaluza 00:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you had entered into a discussion rather than just going ahead despite my objection. Paul Beardsell 03:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This creates a problem. The problem is is that Light-sport Aircraft is the proper noun of a category of aircraft. Caps rules demand the initial letter of each word is capitalised in proper nouns, and for good reason. I suggest that changing the caps as you have done, even though this may be consistent with FAA usage, is not good English (or even good American English). We need to maintain the understanding that an aircraft said to be a Light-sport Aircraft is understood to be an example of something properly defined. Note "proper". In the USA this might not cause much confusion as all involved with aviation in the USA is well aware of this new FAA category. But there is no such thing as Light-sport Aircraft outside the USA. There may be light-sport aircraft but that is just a descriptive term. Imagine that a different driver's license was allowed for a new official category of car, the Light-sport Car, but that this was USA only. The descriptive term light-sport car may still be used in Europe but would have no regulatory or legal effect. But anybody seeing it capitalised would (or should) realise this means it is a proper noun - and thus well defined by someone, somewhere. The FAA has made a mistake here of no or little consequence in the USA. But WP is a global resourse, not an American one. I'll wait a reasonable time for your reply and before I undo. Paul Beardsell 03:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the FAA made this up, so they can call it what they like, and we are bound to the primary sources. It seems the common usage by reliable sources is to capitalize all three words when it is used in a title. You are welcome to make your argument directly to them, correcting their usage, but we are supposed to follow convention, not set it.Dhaluza 04:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The FAA did not say don't discuss on the Talk page. And we are not supposed to slavishly echo the English mistakes of others. Paul Beardsell 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is if it is in fact an "English mistake", and not just another acceptable usage. If it is a mistake, it's rampant on OKC, since I found this tidbit in the new Instrument Flying Handbook: "Turn-and-Slip Indicator". What is your source for this capitalization rule? Dhaluza 22:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly from my own understanding. I (arrogantly) have found that my written English is fairly standard and I (humbly) pay attention to keep it so. I cannot (trivially) find a WP source for the "s" of Light-sport Aircraft to be lowercase or otherwise. I will ask on the caps talk page. But there are many, many references here (proper noun, capitalisation) and elsewhere for proper nouns to be capitalised in English. Paul Beardsell 22:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the FAA doesn't even cap the first letter when they use it in the middle of a sentence, at least not in the online version of the CFR, which is the only convenient copy I have at the moment.--chris.lawson 06:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I was looking at the camel-caps issue specifically, but can confirm that the printed version of 14 CFR is similarly consistent with the online reference you checked. As far as the capitalization and confusion over a legally defined proper noun, if the context of an article requires alternate capitalization, all the various alternatives are redirected to the main article, so the wikilinks will work even if not piped. Dhaluza 12:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But are you saying that is the usage we too should use here? If so Dhaluza has only done half a job - all the links to this article will need editing again to remove the cap L where not at the beginning of the sentence. Paul Beardsell 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not strictly necessary, but I did change most of the major links. I did not do all of the individual aircraft pages. Dhaluza 21:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of some individual pages, and I'm in the process of getting around to all of them, but I'd welcome any assistance.--chris.lawson 21:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not useful to be able to distinguish between "light sport aircraft" - which before the FAA's introduction of the new category, would have meant something like a Pitts Special or a Super Decathlon or a RV6, and "Light-sport Aircraft"? Paul Beardsell 22:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See that hyphen? Mmm, I thought so.--chris.lawson 00:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The easier the ability to distinguish the better. Or don't you think so? Paul Beardsell 02:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the above sounded a bit snippy. Frankly, I think anyone using the term "light sport aircraft" to refer to something that does not meet the FAA's definition of a light-sport aircraft might be better off finding a different term. Like it or no, the FAA has pretty much taken over and monopolised the term, and to refer to anything else with similar terminology is now confusing at best.--chris.lawson 06:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest rewording

Paragraph three begins, "LSA may be operated by holders of a Sport Pilot certificate, as opposed to a private, recreational, or higher pilot certificate, as do conventionally certificated aircraft." The implication is that holders of higher pilot certificates may not operate LSA. In actuality the reverse is true, holders of higher certificates may operate any aircraft for which they are rated (including LSA) while holders of a Sport Pilot certificate may only operate aircraft which meet the definition of the LSA category.

Paragraph eight reads, "In addition to aircraft specifically designed to meet the LSA requirements, certain certificated aircraft, such as the original Piper Cub, happen to fall within the definition of a light-sport aircraft and can be operated by individuals holding FAA Sport Pilot certificates. The aircraft can not be re-certificated as LSA, however; although Sport Pilots may operate conventionally certificated aircraft that fall within the definition of an LSA, the aircraft themselves continue to be certificated in their original categories." Within the context of this paragraph, I believe the phrases, "certain certificated aircraft" and, "conventionally certificated aircraft" might be more accurate if replaced with the phrase, "standard category aircraft."

Froghair 02:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)froghair[reply]

Mermaid Footnote

Rather than move the public Mermaid Amphibian Wiki into Wikipedia whole, I added an external reference to the head of that Wiki as a Footnote appearing in a new section "Notes". The Mermaid Wiki is non-commercial. Schwenn 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it once, and am going to do so again. The proper place for that is for you to create an article on the Mermaid Amphibian aircraft, and put it there. You're putting in an aircraft-specific external link into the parent category article, which is not good content building here.

Please create a Mermaid Amphibian article, put the link there where it belongs, and make a wikilink from the aircraft table to the specific article. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 19:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you for the explanation. Schwenn 21:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special Light Sport Aircraft: new article, or add a section here?

I read about this category which "Is certified by the manufacturer to meet a set of industry-developed "consensus standards" that specify design, testing, manufacturing, and quality control requirements. Note that, unlike type certificated "standard" aircraft, the FAA is not at all involved in the design, testing, manufacturing, and quality control of S-LSAs." Some kit mfgs. also make S-LSAs, and I do find some mentions of such aircraft on Wikipedia, e.g. Evektor_SportStar, but no definition of this subcategory.--Morganw (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some explanation about this. It is a confusing topic. The four categories are existing a/c that meet LSA, S-LSA, E-LSA and E-AB that meet LSA. Altaphon (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Light sport aircraft

Contrary to the first line in the article, light sport aircraft is not unique to the USA. The same category exists in Australia since 2006. In Australia the definition follows generally similar guidelines to those of the USA (same weight limits, seats, one engine, fixed landing gear, visual flying, ...), but also has more generous components (no speed limit, adjustable prop). LSA is a different category to microlight/ultralight and should not be merged. Bandediron (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have referred to this page many times over the past several years as a quick way to refresh myself on the FAA's LSA requirements, only to remember each time that they aren't here. A list of aircraft that may meet the FAA requirements IS present, begging the question, "Why would there be a list of members of a certain set without including a definition of the set? In other words, no one's ever added the FAA's LSA requirements to the article, even though the article is somewhat USA FAA-centric already given the list of FAA LSA aircraft.

If one is there, the other should be there, so I've added it. I think this article needs some reorganization, and more importantly it needs to decide whether or not it's USA-centric. Either we need a separate page for every country's LSA requirements, or we need to include them all on this page, or we need to make this an FAA LSA article. I'll leave those decisions to another edit or another editor. Voronwae (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medical

Someone keeps adding text about the drivers license medical exemption being discontinued. No such change has occurred. Altaphon (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CS-LSA

Please add a section about comaprision with CS-LSA. This is useful because of most producer are sitting in European area today --178.195.250.68 (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See diff. Thanks for the suggestion. Dolphin (t) 23:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

limits

I wonder if "Max. Speed in Level Flight (at sea level at standard temperature):138 mph / 120 knots CAS" could be satisfied by a flight computer that prohibited entering that condition. For example, when flying faster, do not allow descent to sea level if the temperature is standard. Alternately, allow descent but prohibit leveling off. (!!!) This seems to meet the requirement. A bit less crazy would be to reduce power when there is a threat of entering the prohibited condition. For example, as the air warms to standard temperature, cut power, restoring full power once the air is above standard temperature. 97.104.88.146 (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice "Engines / Motors: One (max. if powered.)" and "Propeller: Fixed-pitch or ground adjustable" listed. Would the Wright Flyer qualify? There is one engine, but two propellers. Assuming that is OK, what about an opposed-piston engine that drives one propeller off of each crankshaft? 97.104.88.146 (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The maximum weight in pounds, in the first para, has been incorrectly converted. The max weight is 600KG (1320lbs). The FAA lists the weight in pounds as 1320 also. Dlookup (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing the FAA it would be impossible to get a performance averaging device certified. Anything so complicated could never meet the FAA's standard for reliability. And anything that would change the flying characteristics/handling of a plane and surprise or confuse a pilot would never be allowed. They won't even allow inflight adjustable props. Pilots can become completely disorientated by merely flying through a fog bank. But it was a good thought. Dlookup (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could get most of the benefit of adjustable props, and a bit more, by placing numerous canards right behind the prop or right in front of the prop. They would serve as stators (as in an axial compressor) and could provide thrust vectoring. 97.104.88.146 (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not discuss the subject here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. See WP:TALK#USE Jan olieslagers (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Light-sport aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speed discrepancy

The maximum stall speed of a Light-sport aircraft appears to be rounded to 52 MPH in one section of the article, and then farther down is stated as 51 MPH. Does the other speed need to be rounded as well, or should neither of them be? Gorkypickeral (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia’s conversion tool was used in the lede but not further down the page. I made the change so the tool is used in all places. (52 mph was more accurate than 51 mph.) Problem solved. Dolphin (t) 02:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of prices column in table

These values are already out of date. And are liable to change. What purpose do they serve? Would it not be straightforward to remove them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Impossible to keep up, plus they can only be an indication. Few things more open to negotiation/bargaining than the price of a light plane! Jan olieslagers (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Best part of a week and little other interest. I'll take the column out and see how it looks. I, or another editor, can always revert. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]