Wow! New MOSAIC rules.

I'm surprised that I'm not seeing any discussions about the new MOSAIC rules. Sounds wonderfully exciting to me! If I understand correctly, sport pilots would be able to fly larger planes, such as a 172, and even get endorsed to fly at night or by IFR. Quite a big change. I expect there will be an explosion of new plane designs aimed at the sport market.

I'm hearing that AOPA is planning to propose an even higher stall speed than the planned 54 kcas. I'm wondering what that might allow?

Good times.

Eric

Here's a great set of summary charts produced by the EAA:

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-pub...ca284dc0a.ashx

Ron Wanttaja

"stall speed than the planned 54 kcas. "

I read somewhere that this is the clean stall speed (VS1), and as is would rule out the Piper Cherokees. I may not be correct though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kim

"stall speed than the planned 54 kcas. "

I read somewhere that this is the clean stall speed (VS1), and as is would rule out the Piper Cherokees. I may not be correct though.

---

You are correct. This is one point that a lot of people aren't real happy about. This also rules out much of the RV line.

Remember, this is a notice of PROPOSED rule-making. The issue about including Cherokees and RVs in the category is a good one to comment on. You submit a comment online via:

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...n#open-comment

Don't for a moment think that comments on an NPRM don't matter. Almost twenty years ago, the Light Sport NPRM specified a maximum stall of 39 knots and a gross weight of 1,200 pounds. Both were raised after the comment period.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

Remember, this is a notice of PROPOSED rule-making. The issue about including Cherokees and RVs in the category is a good one to comment on. You submit a comment online via:
https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...n#open-comment
Don't for a moment think that comments on an NPRM don't matter. Almost twenty years ago, the Light Sport NPRM specified a maximum stall of 39 knots and a gross weight of 1,200 pounds. Both were raised after the comment period.
Ron Wanttaja

---

Yes! They DO read the comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by melann

You are correct. This is one point that a lot of people aren't real happy about. This also rules out much of the RV line.

---

Thanks for pointing this out, I didn't realize. I've submitted a comment noting that the RV series has the lowest accident rate of the homebuilt fleet, and suggesting raising the limit to point where RVs are included. Included an attachment; a KITPLANES article where some jughead proved that. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

Thanks for pointing this out, I didn't realize. I've submitted a comment noting that the RV series has the lowest accident rate of the homebuilt fleet, and suggesting raising the limit to point where RVs are included. Included an attachment; a KITPLANES article where some jughead proved that. :-)
Ron Wanttaja

---

If they would just change the stall limit to VS0, it would include most RVs and a lot of other aircraft. VS1 is not a typically "spec'd" limit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by melann

Yes! They DO read the comments.

---

And often, they respond... though the response is often, "The FAA disagrees."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dana

And often, they respond... though the response is often, "The FAA disagrees."

---

To which I reply, "You're certainly within your rights to disagree, but as a taxpayer and therefore indirectly an employer, you're going to have to see this my way."

It's never worked, but it's satisfying to retreat with dignity.

I reviewed the tables and came away with one point.
► Light Sport Crop Dusting!

This all sounds wonderful, but I wonder - how does a light sport manufacturer deal with the legal liability quagmire? EAB you build, the liability is mostly yours. So, I decide to banner tow with a light sport, and it turns out not have the power at the DA and stalls and I crash. The family sues. How does the defense work? Or a hundred other scenarios?

Ernie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ernie

This all sounds wonderful, but I wonder - how does a light sport manufacturer deal with the legal liability quagmire? EAB you build, the liability is mostly yours. So, I decide to banner tow with a light sport, and it turns out not have the power at the DA and stalls and I crash. The family sues. How does the defense work? Or a hundred other scenarios?

---

Works the same as a Standard category aircraft. Why wouldn’t it? The tort system is independent from the FAA’s certification system.

The LSA manufacturers have a choice…they can carry insurance (thus driving up the cost of the aircraft) or go “bare” with no insurance, as companies like Maule have done.

If you don’t like it, talk to your congresscritter. The FAA can’t do anything about it.

Ron Wanttaja

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rwanttaja

Works the same as a Standard category aircraft. Why wouldn’t it? The tort system is independent from the FAA’s certification system.

The LSA manufacturers have a choice…they can carry insurance (thus driving up the cost of the aircraft) or go “bare” with no insurance, as companies like Maule have done.

If you don’t like it, talk to your congresscritter. The FAA can’t do anything about it.

Ron Wanttaja

---

I wasn't trying to suggest the FAA could do anything about it. I'm wondering what the impact will be on startups and even smaller existing providers. Liability insurance is a cost of doing business and will possibly get even more expensive. Prohibitive for shoestring startups. One possibility is to limit activities in the operating limitations, I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ernie

I wasn't trying to suggest the FAA could do anything about it. I'm wondering what the impact will be on startups and even smaller existing providers. Liability insurance is a cost of doing business and will possibly get even more expensive. Prohibitive for shoestring startups. One possibility is to limit activities in the operating limitations, I suppose.

---

I think most of the MOSAIC-related projects have been put forth by foreign firms. They'll be isolated, to a great extent that way, and can set up their US subsidiaries to slough off if lawsuits hit.

Again, no difference because of MOSAIC. It's just the reality of the American marketplace. If companies think their MOSAIC-compatible product will be profitable, and if they're sufficiently funded to develop it, the aircraft will make it to the market.

Ron Wanttaja