Newest LSA update proposals

I appreciate what Dan is trying to do but there doesn't seem to be anymore here to chew on than before as he admits up front, "Here is an update on what we know, with a disclaimer that everything is subject to change until the FAA finalizes its work."

Later he notes, "These developments have a way of changing in unexpected directions ... " and also says, "Of course, in bureaucratic maneuvering, things can change that were never planned."

Seems we were lead to follow a bunch of talk about the upcoming changes not so long ago and shortly after the word came out that all of that was thrown out the window and they were starting over.

*yawn* :popcorn:
 
OK, this part cracks me up:
"Remember, this happened during the Trump administration when the president was requiring the elimination of two regulations before bureaucrats created a new one. To make changes to the LSA rules as requested by the industry associations, such as the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association (LAMA), it would be required that one regulation cover more — explaining the inclusion of drones with all the rest in the proposed Mosaic rule."

So, you replace two short rules with one rule that is at least twice as long. Mission accomplished.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
OK, this part cracks me up:
"Remember, this happened during the Trump administration when the president was requiring the elimination of two regulations before bureaucrats created a new one. To make changes to the LSA rules as requested by the industry associations, such as the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association (LAMA), it would be required that one regulation cover more — explaining the inclusion of drones with all the rest in the proposed Mosaic rule."

So, you replace two short rules with one rule that is at least twice as long. Mission accomplished.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of the move to "simplify" tax forms. They changed the 1040 so it would fit on a half sheet of paper. "File your taxes on a postcard" was the slogan. They accomplished this by moving half the stuff onto other forms. My tax package went from 15 pages to 30 and takes much more work to find all the forms and collate them.

Government's gonna government.
 
Last edited:
So: Terminology aside, all the things they said "might" be in the rule a year ago still "might" be in the rule now.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
OK, this part cracks me up:
"Remember, this happened during the Trump administration when the president was requiring the elimination of two regulations before bureaucrats created a new one. To make changes to the LSA rules as requested by the industry associations, such as the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association (LAMA), it would be required that one regulation cover more — explaining the inclusion of drones with all the rest in the proposed Mosaic rule."
Click to expand...
..which, of course, is a complete misunderstanding of the Trump "2-for-1" rule. It's what happens when you interpret the shorthand rather than read the rule. Y'know, kind of like trying to actually learn something from a mnemonic.
 
Palmpilot said:
Is that still in effect?
Click to expand...
I am actually surprised if it is … the new administrations seems more like “ two new rules for every one eliminated” type of guys but maybe I am wrong …
 
midlifeflyer said:
..which, of course, is a complete misunderstanding of the Trump "2-for-1" rule. It's what happens when you interpret the shorthand rather than read the rule. Y'know, kind of like trying to actually learn something from a mnemonic.
Click to expand...

The FAR/AIM is 1,216 pages, they couldn’t find two regs???? Really????


Oh FAA
 
CaptainXap said:
You say that, but here's the rule: https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...g-regulation-and-controlling-regulatory-costs - it's only a couple of pages long.

It doesn't sound like a mischaracterization to me.
Click to expand...
The Executive Order goal was to reduce regulatory burden and cost, not to replace simple with more complicated. It absolutely complicated rulemaking by requiring justification for new rules so it has been problematic for regulatory reform and may not have accomplished that goal. Perhaps not that well thought out, but was the goal a bad thing?
 
Last edited:
I cant get excited over lsa's. To small, so slow.
 
Palmpilot said:
During the two years that I was confined to LSAs, I was surprised by how much fun I had.
Click to expand...

During the handful of years, pre-BasicMed, I was confined to LSA’s, I was surprised by how much fun I had. Enough so it’s still my weapon of choice - by choice!
 
Palmpilot said:
During the two years that I was confined to LSAs, I was surprised by how much fun I had.
Click to expand...

I've greatly enjoyed flying "fat ultralights" and light sport category planes for a number of years. I've flown and ridden in a number of GA planes but for my personal taste and mission the LSA planes are a blast to fly.

Some LSA planes are faster than a number of entry level GA aircraft at less fuel burn and have a fair amount of carrying capacity. If you have a family or a lot of friends to carry around I guess you need more seats and weight allowance.

Perhaps my view is skewed a bit in the flying of "experimental" airplanes which tend to have quicker handling and a sportier feeling overall. But the answer is for each to find what works for them. Some don't care for the light wing loading of the LSA planes but when you come from ultralights the part about getting bounced around a little is somewhat easier to get used to.
 
FastEddieB said:
During the handful of years, pre-BasicMed, I was confined to LSA’s, I was surprised by how much fun I had. Enough so it’s still my weapon of choice - by choice!
Click to expand...
Exactly my experience! My LSA is perfect for 95% of my flying. With BasicMed, if I want to carry more passengers or fly faster I'll rent a 182 from my local FBO where I get my flight reviews.
 
Clip4 said:
What is the problem that LSA reform will resolve?
Click to expand...
Because a person has to have held a valid FAA medical certificate before being eligible for BasicMed, it will reduce the number of people who need to expose themselves to bureaucratic arbitrariness and unreasonable delays.
 
Palmpilot said:
Because a person has to have held a valid FAA medical certificate before being eligible for BasicMed, it will reduce the number of people who need to expose themselves to bureaucratic arbitrariness and unreasonable delays.
Click to expand...

Or in other words, let the guy with previous DUI(s), drug convictions, heart attacks, poorly controlled diabetes, strokes and mental issues fly bigger airplanes. Why exactly do we need this?
 
pfarber said:
I cant get excited over lsa's. To small, so slow.
Click to expand...

Maybe they’ll be unlocked someday and the term “LSA” will take on a whole new meaning. 36 MPG at 215 MPH sound good?
 

Attachments

  • F291C3D2-C096-496A-BCE3-A8ECBD562BF7.jpeg
    F291C3D2-C096-496A-BCE3-A8ECBD562BF7.jpeg
    211.1 KB · Views: 14
Clip4 said:
Or in other words, let the guy with previous DUI(s), drug convictions, heart attacks, poorly controlled diabetes, strokes and mental issues fly bigger airplanes. Why exactly do we need this?
Click to expand...

I haven't heard that LSAs have been crashing due to medical issues any more often than larger aircraft that require the pilot to have a medical.
 
Dana said:
I haven't heard that LSAs have been crashing due to medical issues any more often than larger aircraft that require the pilot to have a medical.
Click to expand...

Spot on! The main reasons for crashes, last time I looked, were loss of control, and engine failure. Many loss of control accidents are due to the pilot losing their beautiful disposition after the engine failure and performing a spectacular stall/spin into a smoking crater.
 
Clip4 said:
Or in other words, let the guy with previous DUI(s), drug convictions, heart attacks, poorly controlled diabetes, strokes and mental issues fly bigger airplanes. Why exactly do we need this?
Click to expand...
I agree that is a potential downside. Is there evidence that pilots who have never held a medical certificate have more accidents caused by medical conditions than pilots who are operating under BasicMed rules do?
 
Palmpilot said:
I agree that is a potential downside. Is there evidence that pilots who have never held a medical certificate have more accidents caused by medical conditions than pilots who are operating under BasicMed rules do?
Click to expand...

The flight schools that have aircraft for people to train LS are vey limited. When you increase the availability is when we will find out. Thankfully I am not building hours and won’t have to train those folks, but I will have to share the airport and sky with them.

Just my opinion, but hopefully the NBAA and the airlines will be an end to this reform I don’t see the up side to this and pilot incapacity isn’t the entire issue.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
The flight schools that have aircraft for people to train LS are vey limited. When you increase the availability is when we will find out. Thankfully I am not building hours and won’t have to train those folks, but I will have to share the airport and sky with them.

Just my opinion, but hopefully the NBAA and the airlines will be an end to this reform I don’t see the up side to this and pilot incapacity isn’t the entire issue.
Click to expand...

Nah this is going into other direction - at some point there won’t be any medical required , just as with driving , unless you are doing it for a profit - exactly as it should be .
 
I’m looking forward to them opening up the weight limit to include a lot more certified aircraft. I can see imposing reasonable weight, stall speed and maximum speed limits to include all the trainers and even simple fixed-gear, fixed-pitch prop planes like 172’s, Cherokees, Tripacers etc. Heavier planes may even be easier to land due to being less susceptible to crosswinds, thus safer than the flyweights. Seems like a rather simple solution but so far has proved to be “Rocket Science” to the FAA.
 
Brad Smith said:
Heavier planes may even be easier to land due to being less susceptible to crosswinds, thus safer than the flyweights.
Click to expand...
Did a flight review in a 172 a couple years ago just for the sake of flying one - yea, stupid easy to land.
 
Clip4 said:
The flight schools that have aircraft for people to train LS are vey limited. When you increase the availability is when we will find out. Thankfully I am not building hours and won’t have to train those folks, but I will have to share the airport and sky with them.
Click to expand...

A bit elitist, are we?

There are already many thousands of private and higher pilots who've dropped down to be basicmed or SP due to inability to pass a medical or unwillingness to deal with the BS, and they haven't been raining out of the sky due to incapacitation.

Clip4 said:
Just my opinion, but hopefully the NBAA and the airlines will be an end to this reform I don’t see the up side to this and pilot incapacity isn’t the entire issue.
Click to expand...

Fortunately for all of us dangerous amateur pilots cluttering up your skies, I'm fairly certain your prediction won't come to pass.
 
Andrew Morris said:
Maybe they’ll be unlocked someday and the term “LSA” will take on a whole new meaning. 36 MPG at 215 MPH sound good?
Click to expand...

Was that image supposed to show 215MPH? I don't think it did. Still stand by my to small, to slow statement. If you can't fit to real sized people in it, then whats the point.
 
pfarber said:
Still stand by my to too small, to too slow statement. If you can't fit to two real sized people in it, then whats what's the point?
Click to expand...

My light sport legal plane has a rather cozy cockpit compared to most and I can fit real sized people in it. I'm 190 lbs. of man and fit just fine. Most real sized people are above the FAA recommended 170 lbs. as the average now for men is 200 lbs. and women at 162 lbs. I've flown me and a more than "real sized" person in my plane. An LSA like the Tecnam has more than 600 lbs. of useful load. Too big to fly LSA? Go get one of them school bus planes and ride around in it. o_O
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
So, you replace two short rules with one rule that is at least twice as long. Mission accomplished.
Click to expand...
Decades ago a magazine (I do not recall which one) printed an idiotic government memo (yeah, redundant) inside the back cover of each issue as the "memo of the month."

A favorite was a four or five pager explaining that if a certain form could not be obtained from the Government Printing Office a particular request could be submitted on regular paper provided the unavailable form's number was written on the paper...
 
Clip4 said:
Or in other words, let the guy with previous DUI(s), drug convictions, heart attacks, poorly controlled diabetes, strokes and mental issues fly bigger airplanes. Why exactly do we need this?
Click to expand...

Why are they allowed to pilot vehicles on the ground?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top