54 knot CAS MOSAIC requirement, and only that. :)

Kiddo's Driver

Kiddo's Driver

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
1,500
Location
Somewhere in the Southeast
Display Name
Display name:
Jim
Can we talk about the 54 knot CAS MOSAIC requirement, please.
I'm one of those poor suckers with a plane that has a Vs1 of 58 knots.
I'm struggling to understand how/why 54 knots was selected and how to argue that it should be higher.
And why the "...since its original certification..." part? I have flap and aileron gap seals. I assure you my Vs1 is lower than 58. How low? I don't know. I would be happy to slap on some vortex generators and apply for a single serial number STC if that were allowed. :)
"61.316 (a)"[...] you may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that, since its original certification, meets the following requirements:"
There is no weight limit in there now and the Vs1 is rumored to some how take its place, but it bites me in the rear. How about a 54 knots CAS OR 3000 pound weight limit?
-Jim
Socata Tampico TB9 driver
 
Last edited:
And it also just barely excludes even a Cherokee 140 from what I can find. I agree it should be a tad bit higher. Cherokees are some of the most plentiful and affordable planes.
 
Yeah, I'm not happy about that either as it appears that just adding a 30° flap gate limit, a new AS indicator and the STC paperwork knocks my aircraft out by 1 KT. Seems strange to not allow removal of the STC, but it is the FAA, so why make too much sense? I'm waiting for the alphabets to weigh in on suggested comments, but if they don't I'm going to suggest a 54 KCAS Vs0, that at least makes more sense to me if they're looking at it from the pattern stall/spin angle...

Overall I'm still happy and supportive of the NPRM if it makes it as written...
 
Looks like the Cessna 150 or 172 fits the 54 KTS probably going to add more value to it as if the price on them needs to go up again.
 
Maybe they are more concerned about the aircraft 50 years from now than from 50 years ago.
 
The limit has to be set somewhere. If it was 56 or 58 there would still be people complaining that theirs is just slightly faster and should have been included.
 
more to come on this....I axe a question in a meeting and requested they put out a matrix with explaination of what legacy aircraft are affected. We shall see how they respond.
 
The green arc on my 1979 Warrior's (-161) ASI starts at 50 kts, so the Warrior II falls under the MOSAIC Vs1 requirement.
Are V-speeds documented in any standard place other than on the ASI? There is a stall speed performance chart in the POH that graphically represents Vs1 and Vs0, but no explicit textual declaration. The chart reflects the ASI arc markings.
There are some V-speeds defined in the TCDS but not Vs1.
 
GeorgeC said:
Maybe they are more concerned about the aircraft 50 years from now than from 50 years ago.
Click to expand...


They are more concerned about opening the US market to light European aircraft, and that’s why you see Vs1 set to a nice round number in metric units. Manufacturers, and hence the AOPA and FAA, don’t give a rip about our 50-year-old birds. Any legacy aircraft that fall within the proposed rule are purely incidental.
 
Domenick said:
The green arc on my 1979 Warrior's (-161) ASI starts at 50 kts, so the Warrior II falls under the MOSAIC Vs1 requirement.
Click to expand...

Maybe not. IAS != CAS…

c747314c4f591cb0cf0c95fcb9a8f306.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Can we all just agree that Textron has abandoned thr GA market? Cirrus is for the rich. Diamonds aren't far from unattainable to most people.

The EU LSA are back within the realm of the 5% being able to purchase instead of the 0.5%.
 
wheaties said:
Can we all just agree that Textron has abandoned thr GA market? Cirrus is for the rich. Diamonds aren't far from unattainable to most people.

The EU LSA are back within the realm of the 5% being able to purchase instead of the 0.5%.
Click to expand...
but they can still be flown by Private Pilots. This isn’t about availability of aircraft, it’s about increasing the range of aircraft that can be flown by a specific demographic (Sport Pilots.)
 
MauleSkinner said:
but they can still be flown by Private Pilots. This isn’t about availability of aircraft, it’s about increasing the range of aircraft that can be flown by a specific demographic (Sport Pilots.)
Click to expand...
The EU LSA standard is much more permissive. They allow higher weights with landing gear that can actually survive repeated us my students.
 
wheaties said:
The EU LSA standard is much more permissive. They allow higher weights with landing gear that can actually survive repeated us my students.
Click to expand...
Much more permissive than the MOSAIC proposal?

(I’m just trying to figure out what Textron has to do with any of this.)
 
Last edited:
My 182P with Peterson canard STC with Vs1 of 35kts would not qualify. That’s kinda funny. That’s probably the most extreme example of a modification, that can’t simply be removed or reversed, and almost 20 kts lower than the proposed number.
 
It matters not to me. With BasicMed I have nothing to gain with LSA. It might help guys who can’t get an initial 3rd class SI, but other than that it isn’t a big deal.
 
MauleSkinner said:
...it’s about increasing the range of aircraft that can be purchased by a specific demographic (Sport Pilots.)
Click to expand...


FIFY.

Folks, this isn’t about helping more people fly, it’s about helping more people buy. The airplane industry has no motivation to have more customers for 50-year-old Cherokees. But they would like to sell more new aircraft. And frankly, they harm themselves a bit by injecting more legacy planes into the LSA marketplace.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Much more permissive than the MOSAIC proposal?

(I’m just trying to figure out what Textron has to do with any of this.)
Click to expand...
There's planes that are legal in the EU already being built for a price point lower than anything Textron has to offer which would not be possible in the US without MOSAIC. I want to try out the VL3 one day, shark, Bristell RG...
 
Stewartb said:
It matters not to me. With BasicMed I have nothing to gain with LSA. It might help guys who can’t get an initial 3rd class SI, but other than that it isn’t a big deal.
Click to expand...


You might find it matters if you ever decide to sell your plane. Or if you develop one of the SI-required conditions.
 
Half Fast said:
FIFY.

Folks, this isn’t about helping more people fly, it’s about helping more people buy. The airplane industry has no motivation to have more customers for 50-year-old Cherokees. But they would like to sell more new aircraft. And frankly, they harm themselves a bit by injecting more legacy planes into the LSA marketplace.
Click to expand...
There's a fixed number of those though. If they can start rolling out new LSA-compliant aircraft that have greater capability than the current LSAs, wouldn't that also make them more attractive to PPL holders?
If I had a PPL, something with 500lb useful load and two seats would seem less attractive to me than a 172 or a Warrior. But under the new rules it seems LSAs can be built to rival the specs of those, no?
 
Baked Potato said:
There's a fixed number of those though. If they can start rolling out new LSA-compliant aircraft that have greater capability than the current LSAs, wouldn't that also make them more attractive to PPL holders?
If I had a PPL, something with 500lb useful load and two seats would seem less attractive to me than a 172 or a Warrior. But under the new rules it seems LSAs can be built to rival the specs of those, no?
Click to expand...


That’s the point.

The purpose is not to move more legacy planes under the LSA umbrella. The purpose is to sell more new planes. So there’s a reason to exclude legacy planes.
 
Half Fast said:
That’s the point.

The purpose is not to move more legacy planes under the LSA umbrella. The purpose is to sell more new planes. So there’s a reason to exclude legacy planes.
Click to expand...
I see. So you're saying that the inclusion of legacy aircraft is just an unintentional artifact of the new rules?
So our arguments made during the public comment period, asking why certain otherwise obvious legacy candidates are excluded, won't be seriously considered because that's not really the objective of the legislation?

Edit - I see you explained that above, earlier
 
Baked Potato said:
I see. So you're saying that the inclusion of legacy aircraft is just an unintentional artifact of the new rules?
So our arguments made during the public comment period, asking why certain otherwise obvious legacy candidates are excluded, won't be seriously considered because that's not really the objective of the legislation?

Edit - I see you explained that above, earlier
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
wheaties said:
There's planes that are legal in the EU already being built for a price point lower than anything Textron has to offer which would not be possible in the US without MOSAIC. I want to try out the VL3 one day, shark, Bristell RG...
Click to expand...
Does MOSAIC specifically address import/purchase of these airplanes?
 
Baked Potato said:
I see. So you're saying that the inclusion of legacy aircraft is just an unintentional artifact of the new rules?
So our arguments made during the public comment period, asking why certain otherwise obvious legacy candidates are excluded, won't be seriously considered because that's not really the objective of the legislation?

Edit - I see you explained that above, earlier
Click to expand...


Put it this way: the true influencers of this rule are not thee and me. They are the people wielding money (manufacturers) and their supporters (AOPA) plus some supporters of kit planes (EAA). The Piper and Cessna and Beech type clubs swing no weight here.
 
Half Fast said:
Put it this way: the true influencers of this rule are not thee and me. They are the people wielding money (manufacturers) and their supporters (AOPA) plus some supporters of kit planes (EAA). The Piper and Cessna and Beech type clubs swing no weight here.
Click to expand...
Ok, thanks for the daily dose of cynicism :(

It makes sense though, and I believe you :)
I was planning on making a public comment before the period expires, but may have to change up the language that was being formulated in my head.
 
Cessna and Piper can introduce new models to fit the rule, and if the market potential makes sense? They may.

I’m not buying that this rule will have an impact of current fleet prices. In fact if adopted? I doubt we’ll see any important change to anything. I, too, see the rule as easing the path for new models in GA, and not much else.

I’m a former SI airman and happy BasicMed pilot. I don’t think the numbers of pilots who are waiting to fly because they can’t get an SI is important for any segment except the ADHD/SSRI pilots, and that illustrates an aeromed regulations problem. The FAA needs to address that problem.
 
Half Fast said:
FIFY.

Folks, this isn’t about helping more people fly, it’s about helping more people buy. The airplane industry has no motivation to have more customers for 50-year-old Cherokees. But they would like to sell more new aircraft. And frankly, they harm themselves a bit by injecting more legacy planes into the LSA marketplace.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Finally someone who gets it on these aspirational wish upon a wishing star threads. This was never about including the only demographic of airplane most on here can actually afford. They want them out in the scrap yard (fac-built OEMs in particular), which is why I find it ironic people are cheerleading for the further gentrification of their own hobby.

Just like the first LSA rollout, this so-called expansion will have the same price point disappointment as the first, for the same reasons. Naturally, people are latching on to the incidental impact (inclusion of a minority of legacy airplanes, and I include VS1-compliant EABs in that definition of "legacy" ) and rendering it the "primary effort" in their expectation-biased heads.

Which is why they're gonna end up without a balloon at the birthday party, and act chagrined when the NPRM comment process manifests itself yet again "unresponsive" to a demand that was never part of the impetus behind the legislation in the first place. Truly a blindspot on the part of the aspirants, and in fairness to them, further evidence of the legislative Pareto Rule of our pay-to-play governance.

Baked Potato said:
I see. So you're saying that the inclusion of legacy aircraft is just an unintentional artifact of the new rules?
So our arguments made during the public comment period, asking why certain otherwise obvious legacy candidates are excluded, won't be seriously considered because that's not really the objective of the legislation?

Edit - I see you explained that above, earlier
Click to expand...
Sucks to "lose your religion" in public, but you're making progress. We're finally past denial. Now comes anger. Others are already a bit ahead of you, spinning their spun bearings over on the NPRM, writing impotent rage letters into the ether. That's the bargaining stage. That's the most pitiful stage imo in witnessing grief, the debasement. Maybe you can luck out and skip a stage or two altogether.

I was ahead of all y'all already in 2015 in step 4, as the part 23 re-write was my mosaic moment. Today I'm happy to report I've stipulated the futility and insolent unresponsiveness of said legislative process, and gone past grief outright and into an actionable (albeit machiavellian) philosophy that has "justice delayed is justice denied" at the center of its axiom. @Ted and others' exit from the hobby was somewhat informative in being at ease with sidestepping the stupidity of the whole thing. My own bout of mid life crisis in hitting 40 a few years back also clued me into the speed at which this whole short-lived affair we call life is running past me.

BL, waiting for godot is for the birds. Catch me if you can / sometimes the best hand is knowing when to fold them / pick your platitude. But Run-the-clock offense is an outright cruelty to endorse in a medical-qualified-finite life, and something I will not tacitly endorse with bargaining naiveté. As always, I encase my comments with a respectful TETO as the footnote: People are free to expend their time in the manner their hearts should choose; it's a hobby after all. Cheers.
 
Half Fast said:
And frankly, they harm themselves a bit by injecting more legacy planes into the LSA marketplace.
Click to expand...
Nothing cash for clunkers and/or emissions/mpg requirements can't fix ;)
 
Baked Potato said:
Ok, thanks for the daily dose of cynicism :(

It makes sense though, and I believe you :)
I was planning on making a public comment before the period expires, but may have to change up the language that was being formulated in my head.
Click to expand...

If you don’t mind, please PM me the text you use, I’d like to use some of it.

Again, similar to the “save my investment” motive in the leaded-fuel thread, getting an STC to be applicable or raising the Vs1 I believe will make my investment more valuable and marketable to the next buyer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top