Re: Quickie Q1 registered as an E-LSA?

Mike Perry

Okay Pat:

Yes I'm glad to hear I was wrong. This does expose a big communication problem with my local EAA group.

Mike Perry

Patrick Panzera wrote:


Several people are confused about the LSA rule and E-LSA. I don't know
who those people are other than me. At the local EAA chapter I hear a
very different message about experimentals than what you are saying,
Pat. What I read in the various magazines also seems contradictory, and
at times they seem to be saying experimentals can only be flown as E-LSA
if they were licensed as E-LSA. In other words a certificated airplane
can be flown as an LSA but an experimental can't be flown as an E-LSA
because they don't meet the consensus standard. I would be glad to hear
I was wrong.
Hopefully you'll be glad to hear that you are totally wrong.

Anyone flying under sport pilot rules can fly ANY aircraft that he is
appropriately rated or endorsed for, as long as it meets the minimum LSA
criteria. The plane can be S-LSA, E-LSA Experimental or GA. It can be a kit,
plans-built, or an original design. It don't matter.

But don't take my word for it: <>

What seems absolutely clear to me is you can't build an experimental,
register it as an experimental and fly off the 40 hours without a
private license.
Nothing could be further from the truth. A student pilot, be it GA or sport
pilot can in fact fly the 40 off any experimental he's legally able to fly,
if properly endorsed by his instructor.

A licensed sport pilot may fly any LSA-conforming experimental, even one in
which he's acting as the test pilot, weather he built it or not.

This is what Matt wants to do, and I don't think he
can. This is what I want to see the EAA fix.
There's no need to fix it. Mat most certainly can be his own test pilot. In
a very practical sense, he might be hard-pressed to find a CFI who would
endorse him to act as the test pilot if he was still a solo student.

Additionally, as a fully licensed sport pilot, he would need a specific
endorsement to fly a Q-1, so again, it might be tough to find a CFI willing
to make such an endorsement in his log book, but there are no FAA regs
disallowing a SP to be a test pilot.

Great Q&A Page: <>

As far as costs go, the Tomahawk costs too much in the first place; I'm
not impressed with a replacement that costs more.
It is what it is. Flying GA is expensive. Flying LSA is "cheaper".
Affordable is a subjective term.

Back in the mid 1970s when I was making $1.75 per hour, I couldn't "afford"
$15 per hour to fly a $5000 air-knocker. I also couldn't afford the $8 is
cost to tank up my $100 1955 Chevy and my dad cringed at signing a 20 year
mortgage on a $23k home at $225 per month PITI.

FAA Medicals continue as a classic example of a bureaucracy with an ever
expanding mission. I support medicals for anyone being paid to fly but
otherwise -- too much effort for too little benefit. I hate to pull
"I'm a Doctor, believe me" but this time I'm telling you, I am a Doctor
and its a waste of money.
I agree 100% Dr.

Maybe that will be next month's poll for the new EAA Experimenter
eNewsletter about to hatch. Check the editorial in the current (newest)
Sport Aviation or Sport Pilot.


Join to automatically receive all group messages.