The General Aviation Manufacturers Association says it will support the expansion of Light Sport pilot privileges to include four-seat aircraft and will also endorse an increase in “the size, performance and scope” of the aircraft covered by the Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification (MOSAIC) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). “GAMA intends to support the MOSAIC proposal for sport pilots to be able to fly four-seat airplanes,” GAMA said in a follow-up statement to AVweb on comments included in an earlier story on the subject. “As for aircraft, we intend to support the increase in the size, performance and scope, and our comments, which are still in coordination with our members, will lay out the details of how that can be achieved.” In response to that earlier story, GAMA said its comments were “taken out of context” and did not properly reflect its overall support for the initiative.
GAMA will send its comments before the Jan. 22 deadline, as will all other aviation groups, and EAA has published a guide for members who wish to support its suggestions for the new rule, which it says will boost recreational aviation and benefit the flight training industry. EAA is urging the FAA to, among other things, allow Sport Pilot certificate holders to “fill the seats” of aircraft with up to four seats and to increase the clean stall speed of eligible aircraft from 54 knots to 57 knots to capture a much wider range of existing types.
Clean stall seems like a poor safety criterion. Clean is high speed oriented. Dirty seems better suited to takeoff and landing, where most accidents occur.
Finally, Tri-Pacer pilots can legally fly with just a drivers license.
Hmmm … I wonder what impact the previous (yesterdays) article’s mostly harsh or derisive comments had on GAMA’s rapid response now “clarified” position? IF those critical comments got GAMA’s attention … GREAT. It shows ta go ya that those of us who read Avweb regularly and make cohesive comments here can make a difference. And IF GAMA follows through on their now purported support for MOSAIC vs. trying to throw a wrench into the process, also great. I went back and read GAMA’s quote; it DID sound ominous to me. Let’s hope they woke up. IF so … thanks, GAMA.
It’s time for everyone in aviation — in its many forms and individual ways — to recognize that we’re all in it together for the common good. IMHO, MOSAIC has the potential to make a huge difference and should be supported … with the slight tweaks that EAA recommends. Chief among those is a slight increase in the NPRM’s stall speed definition to capture more legacy airframes in the rule. Older legacy airframes are the entry point in aircraft ownership.
Also, in this commenter’s mind, we owe the EAA Government Advocacy Team a great deal of appreciation for their long-time ongoing efforts to arrive at the position where an NPRM on MOSAIC was written, analysis of comments on same are imminent and — hopefully — a USABLE final rule will be implemented on a timely schedule. Toward that end, I again implore all with an interest in the matter to read EAA’s guide on how to comment on the NPRM and then do so IF you have something constructive to add:
eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publications/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/mosaic-commenting-guide?
Do it!
“It’s time for everyone in aviation — in its many forms and individual ways — to recognize that we’re all in it together for the common good.”
That’s an important point. Too often I read comments here and elsewhere of people canceling their decades-long membership in AOPA/EAA because they don’t write enough articles about THEIR favorite plane.
Such selfish short-sightedness only further contributes to the dwindling aviation world we’re in today.
I left AOPA years ago, but I never have heard that complaint. Perhaps it’s a recent thing? Seems to me people either don’t want to support an expensive failure that acts like a mini NRA or think it’s got too much inbred politics or even think AOPA pays too much deference to the turbine crowd.
The failure of the NRA has made room for several organizations which are more efficient and have been actively fighting the destruction of the shooting sports. There also was a similar belief the organization was a clique which saw the members as a source of money and power rather than equals pooling resources to achieve political goals.
Barring a serious house cleaning, I think sidelining the AOPA is crucial to reversing the destruction of piston aviation.
Hey all,
i was just about to leave a comment on yesterdays article from GAMA, but saw this new headline post. Im sick and tired of groups like LAMA, GAMA, ALPA, trying gum up the works for GA/ LSA. Also Dan Johnson needs a pat on the back for all his work and keeping mosiac in the spotlite. Lets celebrate mosiac becoming a reality .Thanks EAA
for supporting mosaic and good input to up the clean stall speed from 54 to 57 kts to capture more legacy aircraft.
Looks like GAMA read the comments on yesterdays post and realized they made a mistake.
michael
faa retired
natca
aopa
eaa
Cessna tried their hand in the light sport category. The 162. And it failed. If Cessna cannot make it work, who can?
Kind of like a moped. Good in theory. In practical purposes, another failed venture.
Would some of the Vans RV models qualify under the proposed new rules? If so, that’s HUGE for those owners! I haven’t yet read the critreia but maybe someone here has…
“And it failed. If Cessna cannot make it work, who can?”
We’re not talking about legacy LSAs here. This is about MOSAIC. Did Cessna make the 172 “work”?
Given the numbers produced, I would say yes. In theory, the 172 (and other successful GA aircraft) would fall under MOSAIC and suddenly, you’ve got a capable airplane that you can fly under a drivers license medical.
My only worry, is that MOSAIC will inflate the cost of those legacy aircraft, and significantly.
No, Cessna has NOT made the 172 work for the pilot community for over 40 years. Of course, it’s worked okay for them holding a stranglehold over entry level planes.
You do have a point that antique Skyhawks could see a jump in value if allowed to be flown by SP’s. However, what would be the good argument based on safety to not allow it? I would argue it’s outdated and its continued production prevents investment in safer solutions, but who would agree? At any rate, letting SP’s fly well maintained examples, especially as rentals, seems to me to be justifiable since most LSA’s are no safer statistically.
“ No, Cessna has NOT made the 172 work for the pilot community for over 40 years.”
Over 44,000 172’s built and sold.
If you want to argue better, safer, faster, sure. Wait for that article on AVWEB and we’ll have that dialog.
However, the OP seems to be confused about where the 162 lies on the MOSAIC spectrum. The 162 was built as an LSA, not under MOSAIC.
I’m not saying the 172 didn’t work. I’m saying they did not make it out of a love for pilots. They mostly have not improved it at all except where some other organization made something for it, and they wisely went along.
Cessna laid an egg with the 162 Skycatcher. Payload with full fuel was a meager 340 pounds; day VFR only; made in China; uninteresting cruise speed.
I wish they’d stayed with it and corrected the problems, but they didn’t.
You’d think that Castro, being a two times “Communication Director” (GAMA, and for Congressman), with three previous stints as a “Campaign Manager” and one of “Press Secretary” would have made him more careful in what he says publicly. Yeah, I’ll keep the opinion these people can’t be trusted.
Actually there’s a lot of companies that made producing LSAs work. Vans needs to do some work on their internal processes but they’ve made a lot of pilots happy. But maybe Karrpilot was referring to certified A/C and not ASTM A/C.
I disagree on Cessna. As one of the people who stepped up to the plate and put $5K down on a FlyCatcher mostly c. 2008 because it was built by “Cessna,” I was totally befuddled, mortified and — frankly — peeped off that they announced it would be built of Chinese parts. I balked and threatened them with a lawsuit. They caved. When I bought the thing, they ‘assured’ me that parts were either going to be built in Mexico or Europe. SO … they out and out lied. Beyond that, the performance of the thing was severely hamstrung by the 1,320# MGTOW limitation. Had the LSA rule specified — say — 1,600 lbs,, I think they coulda made it work. In fact, they coulda improved the 152 and built them again and it would have worked. And, the final nail in the FlyCatcher coffin was set when they raised the price. At THAT time, if they could have sold a new improved 152 for the money they were asking for the FlyCatcher, it woulda worked.
SO … the MGTOW limitation is what was the downfall of that airplane. MOSAIC seeks to capitalize on the success of LSA and make it applicable to mostly entry level legacy existing airplanes. In the intervening years, the cost to manufacture an airplane has gone up to the point where factory built airplanes of any ilk are prohibitively expensive for most aside from flight schools. Who in their right mind would spend $300K for an airplane with a MGTOW of 1,320# ? So an older legacy airplane is really the only pathway to airplane ownership.
And even if MOSAIC is passed, I see another just as severe problem on the horizon … the lack of A&P’s and IA’s … mostly the latter. There is absolutely no reason to require an airplane flown recreationally to be inspected year after year after year by an IA. If an RV of ANY series (a high performance airplane) can be conditionally inspected by an A&P, why are we requiring certified airplanes used by private individuals to be inspected by IA’s ? Had the FAR Part 23 Rewrite Appendix recommending a new category of airworthiness called “Primary” (NOT the same as the current primary category), an A&P would have been able to conditionally inspect — say — a 172 flown by a private individual recreationally. There are a lot more A&P’s out there than IA’s. MY idea was to move the IA requirement out to every five years with the intervening years having a condition inspection by an A&P.
Larry i certainly feel your frustration with the Sky Fly Cather. However, on the issues of inspections, everyone is out of the loop on the skill set of both A and P and A LOT of IA’s. Trust me, the new ones coming into the workforce, if it wasn’t for additional inspection requirements, you may hang up on flying altogether. This is the issue i have with Mosaic, hitting too many codes and FAR parts to modify. Working with a owner of a 1946 Bellanca, the last IA”, ( over couple years no less) lets just say missed a awefull lot of critical items,,, the owner was lucky he asked me to get acquainted with his new acquisition. Lucky guy fixing a LOT of safety items that others ignored or were ignorant of. Plane was imminent gear up waiting to happen.
I have seen over the years a lot more variability in inspections with different IAs. I have reached the point where I do my own “pre-annual” annual inspections, AD searches and compliance inspections to the maximum extent possible before the annual inspection signoff.
Over the years I have read most of the ACs on Part 23 maintenance and repairs, and what owner authorized preventive maintenance permitted. That way, I have a very good idea of what to expect come the actual annual, a list of discrepancies on my Inspection Checklist taken from the service manual checks, everything lubricated to spec, brakes checked and pads changed if needed, wheels greased and tires/tubes to snuff, struts serviced, plugs cleaned gaps checked, or replaced, compressions and borescope done with photographs of cyls, valves and seats for each cylinder. I’ve reached the point where I’m considering getting an A&P rating just to work legally on my own bird. MOSAIC could be very helpful there too, with an equivalent “repairman/condition inspection” program similar to EAB down the road once we can demonstrate safety and effectiveness.
With Part 23 aircraft, we would also have a continued backup through the SDR program to alert the FAA of potential problems before they become catastrophic.
Art it is worth mentioning again on this forum that a simplified path to A&P exists. If you do the LSRM (3 weeks training) you will become and A&P/IA equivalent for LSA. Holding that ticket for 30 months you can sit for the A&P without further training and then apply for the IA after meeting the same requirements as any other A&P. The LSRM course costs about $3-4 IIRC. I found it to be a great experience.
Guys, guys, guys! MOSAIC is NOT going to change the certification basis of — say — a 172 flown under any new MOSAIC/LSA rules. It’ll STILL be a FAR Part 23 airplane with the same maintenance requirements.
Did anyone say otherwise ?
Just for the record, the current SDR system is way out of wack, It COULD be very valuable, but in its present form, with out any FAA oversight to make sure it is used where it is supposed to be, it is a shell game. There is some good historical data, some usable almost current data but that is about it, especially for those outside of 121 135 ops.
United is always better than divided. Bonanza guys, Cessna guys, Ultralight guys, experimental guys; we all need to become aviation guys. Quit looking down on someone just because he flies something different than you do. Unite for our common good.
I’d add uniting with any and all enthusiasts of all the things being regulated to death in this country. Shooters, boaters, small businesses, hunters, RC pilots, hikers, climbers, etc.
I’m sorry to see the AOPA-bashing here. It’s far from perfect, but NO ONE is doing the work they do in keeping GA airports open. I was an ASN volunteer for a long time, and it never took more than one call or email for support to come pouring in from them. Educational materials, PR outlines, governmental insight and testimony if necessary, and end-to-end handholding for volunteers. They don’t always succeed, but we don’t hear about all the times they do.
I don’t fly anymore 🙁 but I still pay my dues and contribute to their scholarship fund. Someone has to pay to make sure my grandchildren have the right – and the places – to fly.
Has anyone else noticed the caption to the red Foxbat photo….
” Attractive young woman in sunglasses sitting in red small private plane. Low angle”.
I guess that’s how the photo was filed in the “light aircraft & pilots” photo library.
A good compromise would be to let those with a private fly filled four-seaters with their driver’s license medical.
For the most part, that is what BAsic Med allows us to do.