Take Action! MOSAIC comment period.

I know a lot of people are saying "Why can't they make the 54KTS limit apply to VS0 instead of VS1"?, but the FAA is using the stall speed as a rough proxy for aircraft weight, and gross weight is proportional to the square of the stall speed.

The FAA obviously considers 3000lbs to be a good rough maximum for light sport weight, but allowing faster stall speeds would up the maximum feasible weight, so that's not going to happen.

For instance, if you assume VS1 is normally around 15% faster than VS0, then allowing a VS0 of 54kts would suggest a VS1 of around 62KTS, which would result in a upper weight limit of around 4000lbs.
 
I submitted a comment, can't hurt. One of the things I said is that the medical requirement for night flying is inconsistent with everything else in SP, which requires no medical.

I also pointed out that the "aircraft has even been certificated with" language is pointless and does nothing to enhance safety.

Of course when the original SP rule came out, the FAA addressed many of the comments in the introduction. Their most common response was, "The FAA disagrees."
 
It doesn't effect me personally, but one thing I do wish they would fix is the maintenance rule for SPs. Unlike PPs, SPs cannot do preventive maintenance on a certificated aircraft. So a SP is fine to do some wrenching on his own Tecnam LSA, but not on his Ercoupe or Aeronca LSAs. That would require a PP, despite the fact that there is NO maintenance training whatsoever in the PP curriculum.

Makes no sense.
 
CaptainXap said:
I know a lot of people are saying "Why can't they make the 54KTS limit apply to VS0 instead of VS1"?, but the FAA is using the stall speed as a rough proxy for aircraft weight, and gross weight is proportional to the square of the stall speed.

The FAA obviously considers 3000lbs to be a good rough maximum for light sport weight, but allowing faster stall speeds would up the maximum feasible weight, so that's not going to happen.

For instance, if you assume VS1 is normally around 15% faster than VS0, then allowing a VS0 of 54kts would suggest a VS1 of around 62KTS, which would result in a upper weight limit of around 4000lbs.
Click to expand...

From my limited experience I believe the difference for most aircraft would be less than 10% but your point is valid. Seems to me that stall speed in the landing configuration would be the target. If you have flaps, speed brakes, spoilers, etc., that is great ... use 'em. If you don't have them you still have a landing stall speed.

But I can understand why they would want to use clean stall as that is fixed whereas flap settings can vary and so would stall speeds. But in a small plane such as mine the difference isn't great ...
 
Me likey bash FAA - mostly because they are a bloated, capricious, and arbitrary org lacking real accountability in all except the most egregious cases. . . BUT. . .having vented my spleen, MOSAIC looks rational, reasonable, and well considered. . .maybe they've even sped up a little. It took decades, no a lifetime, to get to BasicMed in place (sometimes) of the useless II Class. At blush it appears MOSAIC may get air under more asses; it's a bit cautious but not terribly so. It might be good for GA all around. I'm good with the one pax limit, or requiring BasicMed or better for night VFR.
 
Night VFR seems as if they want a medical or basic medical doesn't make any sense why a light sport pilot would want to get a medical. FAA I guess can't let go of that medical completely.

What is odd they say because sport pilots without any night VFR training can be pressured to fly during winter months at night, they proposed these changes. Yet they throw in the medical at the end of it how does that mitigate the problem they are trying to solve?
 
Last edited:
What is the specific section or sections that require a sport pilot to qualify under BasicMed in order to qualify for night flight?
 
The part I have yet to totally finger out is they talk about multi engine here and there - OK, they are going to allow multi engine aircraft to be certificated under the consensus standards. Fine. Think multicopters. And they have to not adversely affect directional control - simplified (automated) control systems and/or centerline thrust(?). But who gets to fly them - at least airplanes? The Sport Pilot verbage says "single engine" everywhere. A private pilot with a multi rating opearating under S.P. rules? Seems like another narrow carve out. Or did I get it all wrong? Again.
 
Palmpilot said:
Thanks - I didn't read it carefully enough the first time.
Click to expand...
I find it hard to imagine that you would have missed something in the hundreds of pages of riveting text in the NPRM. I could hardly put it down. (Do I have to insert a smiley here, or is it obvious enough?)
 
I guess I'm young and naive enough to hope that if enough of us comment on the NPRM, with rational thought-out input, maybe, just maybe we can make a difference. If not for this rule, maybe in 20 years when they revise the regs again. I will say I was very pleasantly surprised with the NPRM.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I find it hard to imagine that you would have missed something in the hundreds of pages of riveting text in the NPRM. I could hardly put it down. (Do I have to insert a smiley here, or is it obvious enough?)
Click to expand...
Actually as far as these things go this one is not that badly written - I can actually understand most of it …
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top