Convert Champ to Sport Pilot

[John]

As I approach 70 , the odds of uncle renewing my medical certificate become a little lessor and I get more interested in seeing how I can put my almost done restored 7EC into the sport pilot catagory . Seems I heard several months back that the 7EC's which have the lighter weight gears will actually qualify for the sport pilot cat. but that Uncle says they had to have come from the factory with the lighter gear ? .....Seems like one could just swap the no bounce gear for a regular gear and send certified paperwork etc. in for approval.

Does any one know of a way that Uncle will allow a converted 7 EC into the Sport Cat. ? Would they accept it as an experimental Sport Pilot ship.?

Thanks , Sure appreciate some help here.

John

[bernie]

to qualify for the light sport aircraft catagory the max "certified" gross weight for SEL is 1320 and SES is 1430. check out the type certificate # a-759 for the 7ec( section VIII ). it states that the max gross weight of the 7ec is 1300 lbs with aeronca drawing #3-433 installed, which is the light landing gear. all you need is a log entry stating the installation of the different oleo's iaw aeronca drawing # 3-433.

the trick with"uncle" is to let your medical lapse, don't even apply for a new one. if you apply and are turned down, you can't use your drivers license as medical certification.

contact american champion aircraft corp and have them get the drawing and a copy of the type cert. to you. bernie

[joea]

Believe that the way the regulation is written that if the plane has ever had the "higher gross weight" landing gear installed and recorded in the logbook that its not legal to retrofit the "lighter gross weight" gear at this time and use the plane under the sport pilot regulations.

Since normally nothing is sent into the feds when a gear is changed (no 337), some people have mentioned that if the logbook with the first entry was lost at some period in the past that the current logbook showing the installation of the "ligher gross weight" would allow the plane to fly under the sport pilot regulations.

Not advocating anything, just passing along what previous posters have talked about.

Fly safe,

Joe A

[bernie]

who would ever know which gear was installed. they came from the factory with one or the other probably without a log entry. i think i would" inspect" the gear and verify the light gear was installed( hint) and have a mechanic sign logs accordingly. food for thought. does anyone really think the fed's have a clue ? bernie

[joea]

Bernie,

I have heard of several cases where the heavier gear was installed using the factory blueprints and TCDS as the approval and noted as such in the airframe logbook, with no 337 as it was not needed. (would be needed if it was done along with other work requiring one) If a 337 was ever sent into the FAA showing this, then its a moot point. Once any plane has ever been put into a configration where its over 1320, and the feds know about it, its SP illegal forever.

Fast forward to 2004 and the Sport Pilot rules come out. All of a sudden the plane may not be legal for this with the heavy gear installed. Have heard of people returning the plane back to the lighter original gear, "misplacing" the logbook that showed the other gear being ever installed on the plane (if it has and its shown in the logbook, then its no longer SP legal FOREVER) and generating a new logbook making the plane SP legal.

Not advocating this, just putting it out for educational purposes.

Joe A

[brink]

This is really an old post, but I’ve been reading it, and in 2019 a few STCs have spiced up the definition of light sport. Which has gone into newer models and and Light Sport popularity. The program has really taken off, a lot more than the FED ever realized, and why not, it’s a good program,but the weight needs to be increased, not The HP, just my opinion, not ment to offend.

[rkittine]

If you haven't already, get yourself a copy of the FAA CD for your plane (a great $10.00 investment) and see what documents are already on file for your plane. A 7EC is a problem, where the 7DC and the optional MGW increase is the one thing that usually screwed up those planes for being Light Sport. I went through this with the Albany FISDO and actually got one examiner to answer in writing what he believed could be done, though this was for a 1350 MGW 7DC. I had the letter published in one of the Aeronca magazines. Though I do not believe it is technically correct, he said and put it in writing:
Return the gear to the original NON-No Bounce and then you have to, by the requirements of the Type Certificate, reduce the Max Gross Weight back to 1,300. Then convert the gear back (or do it by paperwork ) and don't opt to up to the 1,350 allowable.

Also, technically, if you KNOW YOU WOULD FAIL an FAA medical you are supposed to ground yourself and not fly even with LS and a drivers licenses, but that is usually not followed. Same thing for being on a disqualifying drug or having other medical issues that preclude you flying.

The other option is let your medical lapse and see if you can find a doctor(s) to sign you off on BasicMed, good for four years with a lot less restrictions than Light Sport. That is the way I went and am now flying my C-340A IFR and at night again and though I can not fly commercially any more, I can teach as you are getting paid to teach and not to fly.

Bob

[Paul Agaliotis]

This is an area that the FAA should clarify. The Aeronca is NOT a LSA aircraft and any of their information doesn't apply. You can increase G/W and decrease G/W as required and not effect the certification. The Aeronca is a Standard category aircraft and is eligible to be flown by a Sport Pilot, IF the G/W meets the allowable limits of his/her pilot certificate limitations.
Paul

[rkittine]

Thank heavens for BasicMed

[Paul Agaliotis]

The reduction of G/W only applies to LSA aircraft, and the Aeronca is not an LSA aircraft. It is a Standard Category aircraft. The Aeronca can be increased in weight and decreased in weight as the mission changes. The pilot is responsible to make sure the aircraft meets the privileges of their license.
I think people are confusing the Sport Pilot privileges with LSA requirements. The consent decree that the ASTM created seems to be working. The FAA added the G/W statement to prevent manufactures from producing a LSA aircraft and using factory modifications to produce an experimental aircraft with no oversight.
If you increase the weight of your LSA above the published maximum, the FAA may not issue you a A/W certificate. And the FAA will not decrease the certificated G/W of a Standard Category aircraft to meet Sport Pilot requirements.
Now with all that mumbo-jumbo, the FAA just INCREASED the G/W on, I think the ICON, above the maximum ASTM weight. Just to confuse it even more.
Paul

[rkittine]

ICON got an exemption in MGW in return for ICON adding Anti-Spin equipment to the ICON. Having flown one, I have no interest in one of those at any price.

Bob

[Paul Agaliotis]

Agreed,
They broke one of the factory demonstrators at Lake Berryessa by turning up a blind canyon.
Paul

[rkittine]

We had two towed to East Hampton Airport last season. I will stick with my Sedan on Floats.

Bob

[Richard Murray]

Paul your understanding of the CFR never ceases to amaze me. We have blindly been led to believe that if an aircraft at any time since its certification had its MGW increased above 1320 it was no longer eligible to be considered a light sport aircraft (which it never was in the first place). Robert's golden letter supports your position that the certificated MGW contained on the TCDS is the governing factor when determining if a person operating the aircraft with light sport priviledges is legal to fly it.

Now to add more suspense we have the heretofore neglected 11CC. The FAA refuses to include it on their list of eligible aircraft that can be flown by light sport pilots. My hypothesis is if you operate the aircraft in the UTILITY category it is eligible to be flown by a light sport pilot. It is certified as 1350 in the NORMAL category and 1290 in the UTILITY category.

SEE TCDShttp://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... /A-796.pdf

[rkittine]

It would be nice if the FAA would get their act together and set some guidelines that are well defined and easily understood. Now that BasicMed is available (though for many not easy to accomplish) I think some of the pressure has been taken off.

My Chief came from the Factory as an 11AC. Put in a Don's Dream Machine, C-85-12 conversion, that would technically have made it an 11CC if it came that way from the factory, but by service letter, it was still just an 11AC, so, I was able to fly it under LSA regulations when I let my 1st class medical lapse and did not try to renew while I was going through throat cancer treatment. You can't just arbitrarily set what you want to have as a MGW or people would be placgarding C-150s as MGW 1,320 and flying them as single pilot aircraft with little fuel (yeah right). I have also always considered the ability to use a Chief in Utility Class to use the lower MGW. Again though, it is really somewhat meaningless as almost every old airplane I have seen has put on weight with age, as have I, and I would not be at all surprised if we could find out that a very high percentage of the planes out there are being flown at about legal MGW. I remember in the days of the C-150 being the basic PP trainer, two adult males and some fuel put them over gross weight. Same was true of the Cessna attempt at an LSA, that unless it was two kids flying it, was over its 1,3120 MGW.

In my opinion for all those pilots with hundreds or even thousands of hours of C-172 time, when they gave up their medicals, would have been safer in a tricycle gear C-150 / Colt, etc. then a tailwheel aircraft with little or no experience.

I have been amazed at how many hours it has taken some of my students to do their tailwheel endorsement.

In any case, again, hoorey for BasicMed.

Bob