Talk:Light aircraft

Meaning of "light aircraft"
To me the term "light aircraft" refers to anything from a Beech Duchess downwards. The current article seems to think it only means ultralights/microlights. The "background" section in particular is very misleading since light aircraft have been popular since the 1920s, and most aircraft prior to that would be considered light by today's definition. Either the article needs to be greatly expanded to include all the types considered "light", or else renamed to microlight aircraft or ultralight aircraft. Graham 00:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct, and I intend to expand the article as such. However, for right now, I am attempting to focus on ultralights/microlights because the current article on ultralights is very confusing as to which country considers which category. For example, advanced ultra-light aeroplanes in Canada are equivalent to the light-sport aircraft of the US. Personally, I don't consider the Duchess a light aircraft because it has two engines. However, in Canada, they are working on a new category of aircraft called Personal Light Aircraft, which actually would include the Duchess. Bringing in perspectives from other countries will help expand the article.


 * Not true. Would not include the Duchess.  This Canadian proposal seems to be the local equivalent of the USA FAA LSA and the European EASA VLA.  Paul Beardsell 15:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, comparing ultralights and microlights provides a useful baseline to establish what a light aircraft is. While I am not attempting to write the article based solely on government regulations, the term "light aircraft" is vague enough that some lines, no matter how crudely, need to be drawn. McNeight 01:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I only mentioned the Duchess off the top of my head, it doesn't represent anything definitive. It would probably be called a "light twin", though that's still light. We'll probably need a list of what certain example countries do consider light in terms of actual MTOW, otherwise it'll end up mired in just the sort of personal interpretations you mention. Graham 02:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Specific Definition of "light aircraft"
Graham is right. There is nothing vague about the term "light aircraft". It is well defined. ICAO, EASA, FAA. Hence the term is not used by any of these bodies to refer to the new categories. The EASA term VLA (Very Light Aircraft) is to distinguish them from Light Aircraft. VLA is sub 800kg, Light Aircraft is below 5700kg. Paul Beardsell 15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am curoius as to what reference you have that there is a specific definition of "light aircraft". Searching the FAA and ICAO web sites have not revealed anything more specific than what was already written. Can you cite a specific document? McNeight 21:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This article should make precisely the point in my para above. It should briefly contrast what qualifies an aircraft as what. And then decline to discuss US FAA LSA further - there should be and is a separate article for that. And decline to discuss EASA VLA further - there should be (is there?) an article for that. And decline to discuss micro/ultralight aircraft further - there should be and is an article about that. Paul Beardsell 15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This article should be about Light Aircraft - those aircraft which I can fly anywhere (in any ICAO country) using my ICAO PPL (once it is validated for use in that country). And (usually) this will include LSA / VLA / micro/ultralight aircraft. Paul Beardsell 15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And the Duchess is officially a "light twin". Two engines. Sub 5700kg. Paul Beardsell 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So far, I've found a comparison chart in an FAA training document on wake turbulence. On page 3, it lists the ICAO definition of light aircraft as "maximum gross weight < 15,500 lbs (7000 kg)", the UK definition of light aircraft as "maximum gross weight < 37,500 lbs (17,000 kg)", and no definition for the FAA.


 * For small aircraft, it lists no definition for ICAO, a UK definition of "maximum gross weight > 37,500 lbs and < 88,200 lbs (40,000 kg)", and an FAA definition of "maximum gross weight < 12,500 lbs (5670 kg). Again, not as clear cut as one would hope. McNeight 22:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

EASA CS-23
"Light Aeroplanes. This group is defined by EASA CS-23 as normal, utility, aerobatic and commuter type aeroplanes. They may seat 9 or fewer occupants, excluding the pilot, and must have a maximum certified take-off weight of 5,670kg or less. Also classified as light aeroplanes are those propeller driven twin engine aeroplanes in the commuter category that have a seating configuration of 19 or fewer occupants and a maximum certified take-off weight of 8,618Kg or less." Paul Beardsell 16:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there is nothing in EASA CS-23 that specifically spells out what a light aircraft is, and the definition you give above directly conflicts with the definition you gave on the main page.


 * Directly conflicts? How?  Paul Beardsell 06:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I will relocate your definitions here until we can reach some consensus on which definitions to use. McNeight 21:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I overstated my case somewhat in that I too cannot find the ICAO definition which I asserted exists. Sorry. But what I said is largely correct. The term "light aircraft" is well understood and was in common(!) usage well before USA FAA SLA and Euro EASA VLA. Many country's regs pre-date ICAO regs they later signed up to and that is why there are differences. 5700kg (ICAO and Australia etc etc) 5670kg (UK?) etc etc. But all understand that there is such a thing as light aircraft BUT they can be MUCH heavier than you think. The cited example, the Duchess, is MOST DEFINITELY a "light twin". The C172, the PA-28 etc etc are light singles. That is why the terms microlight and ultralight exist: They are much lighter than the existing light aircraft most traditionally licensed private pilots are licensed to fly. If you write the article as if it applied to only the new very light categories then the article is wrong. And the existing ultralight article is currently doing a better job at explaining ultra, micro, VLA, SLA than this article does. So, let's not duplicate the effort: Let's link there. And recognise that light aircraft can have 20 seats (in some jurisdictions) and weigh 5700kg (or thereabouts) in most jurisdictions. Paul Beardsell 06:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Certified light aircraft
All ICAO member countries agree: A light aircraft is one with a maximum take off weight of 5700 kg. Usually an aircraft model must be "type certified" by the civil aviation authority of a country before it can be registered in that country.

By ICAO rules, any certified aircraft registered in any member country can be flown in any ICAO country by a pilot holding an ICAO-recognised license issued by the same country the aircraft is registered.

Non-certified light aircraft
During the late 1970s and early 1980s (and, in some countries, or for some categories of aircraft, much earlier), many people around the world sought to be able to fly affordably. As a result, many aviation authorities decided to allow certain aircraft to be flown without certification. Alternatively approval to fly for certain aircraft was delegated to a sports body or a pilots' association. For example, this had long been the case in many countries for unpowered aircraft (gliders or sailplanes). New categories of aircraft were defined which would be subject to no regulation or to "light touch" regulation. These include hang gliders, paragliders, low powered, low speed and low weight aircraft.

Whereas the rules for light aircraft are harmonised by the ICAO, this is not the case for the new categories. Aircraft flown solely under the rules of a local category are not "certified" and therefore cannot automatically be flown in other countries according to the ICAO.

A full ICAO recognised pilot's license is usually not required to fly a non-certified aircraft.

The definitions used are most commonly called ultralight or microlight, although the actual weight and speed limits are rarely the same between any two countries.

Reversion of recent changes
The article is profoundly flawed: "Light aircraft" are not what the author of this article represents them as being. Now, the changes I had started doing were untidy but they were a step in the right direction. I think. A wholescale reversion of them requires explanation. It cannot be the case that the reverter thinks NONE of my edit should be allowed? The wikipedia edit boldly principle must be allowed here to fix this article. Paul Beardsell 06:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you believe that my moving your statement here was because you were offering misleading information. This isn't the case.


 * My original purpose in this article was to have it be a quasi-disambiguation page along the same lines as Pilot licensing and certification, which links to various licencing pages for individual countries. I had tried searching for a definition of "light aircraft", but primarily limited the search to FAA pages. So, by just reading FAA information, I didn't find a definition for light aircraft and (falsely) believed that it was a generic definition. I also believed that, lacking a specific definition, it would be nice to combine all of the international terminology (microlight, ultralight, LSA, VLA, etc.) into one Wikipedia page on the subject. I also began to do the same thing on the ultralight page, figuring I could merge the two at a later point.


 * Having said that, and finding out through your information that light aircraft is a well defined (and multiply defined) category, I would like to see the multiple references to light aircraft enumerated (ICAO, UK, others?), complete with references to regulatory documents. And yes, specific information about ultralight aircraft categories can be removed.


 * The reason I moved your statements here was to foster discussion and better understand that which I didn't understand. I apologize for any misunderstanding. McNeight 16:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I was being perhaps a little too sensitive. And overly assertive! It seems that we agree on the significant points as to how this ought to proceed. Paul Beardsell 09:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

--

I have once again said quite plainly at the top of the article what a light aircraft is and have given some examples. I have been very careful not to overstate my case on this occasion. I STILL think that this article is NOT the place for a discussion of ultra/microlights and EASA CS-VLAs and FAA SLAs - all of which is done well (or should be) on pages specific for them. If there is material here not in those articles then should be moved to the appropriate article. Generally duplication of info within Wikipedia is considered a BAD IDEA. Link to the info, do not repeat the info. This requires careful article naming and careful categorisation and careful consideration of content. Paul Beardsell 08:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree and have split all the information on ultralights, LSAs etc to very light aircraft. FiggyBee (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

History
First light aircraft were constructed and built in 1918/1919 by German engineer Hanns Klemm
 * Zeitreise-bb.de: Hanns Klemm, Der Schöpfer des Leichtflugzeuges (German)--Maroklok (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I see that the ref you have cited claims that, but it is a ludicrous claim. What did the Wrights fly in 1903 if it wasn't a light aircraft? The whole of WWI was fought with light aircraft as they were almost all under 12,500 lbs. - Ahunt (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Does Aero East Europe Sila belong on the list?
One editor has been edit warring to include the Aero East Europe Sila on the list. I propose it be removed as a very obscure example of a light aircraft, not even close to the other examples given in prominence. - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No - although arguably we should just delete the list completely as it can never be anything other than an arbitrary selection.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that. this kind of article does not usually have such a list. Enough suitable examples should be mentioned in the main text - a few firsts, famous examples, that sort of thing. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I support just deleting the list to avoid any more "fan additions". An admin has gone ahead and removed the list from the article citing this discussion, so unless anyone has anything more to add, I think we can just go ahead and close this as a "consensus to delete the list". - Ahunt (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

"🛩" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 🛩. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 19 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 10:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)