Morgans wrote: "Gig 601Xl Builder" <wrgiacona@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote Because the IFR certification process and the airframe certification process are separate. Yes, I know, but I still don't see how it got passed with allowing a VFR classification aircraft certified through consensus standards to be legal to fly IFR. It seems like it would not give the major aircraft manufacturer
"Gig 601Xl Builder" <wrgiacona@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote Because the IFR certification process and the airframe certification process are separate. Yes, I know, but I still don't see how it got passed with allowing a VFR classification aircraft certified through consensus standards to be legal to fly IFR. It seems like it would not give the major aircraft manufacturer any reason to
On Aug 3, 10:54 am, Rocky Stevens <rocky.stev...@gmail.com> wrote: I do like the amphibious capability though; being able to take off on land and land on water (and visa versa) would be pretty handy. The more I think about this, the more I like the amphib idea. I did some searching and only found one existing amphib LSA; The Mermaid. Does anyone know anything about this aircraft? The
On 2008-08-04, Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.com> wrote: On 2008-08-04, Morgans <jsmorgan@charterJUNK.net> wrote: How can an airplane that is certificated by LSA, (a certification process that is day VFR only) be allowed to be equal with those that went through the full part 23 process? Because the LSA certification rule says that the aircraft may be used for anything
Certificated!! Certificated!! /certified/ {;-) Jim -- "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." --Aristotle "Morgans" <jsmorgan@charterJUNK.net> wrote in message news:g73i66$q4g$1@aioe.org... "Jay Maynard" <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.com> wrote Who says an LSA has to be VFR-only? Mine's not. That
