MOSAIC NPRM

[ksauce]

Mods, I hope this is OK to post but please don't ban me if not!

The FAA has released the draft NPRM for MOSAIC. I took a quick skim through the document. Interestingly, it looks like all RVs would qualify as light sport aircraft. The main thing is that they're eliminating the specific weight limit although it remains implied with a 54kcas stall speed of, "around 3000 pounds." Also, the top speed is 250kcas, night and IMC are OK, as are retracts.

Four seats are OK but a sport pilot can only fly with one passenger. Interestingly, they specifically addressed a private pilot operating one of these new light sport aircraft with four seats and they can fill the seats.

If MOSAIC finally comes to fruition, we might see completed RVs rolling off the line for sale. Or even kits with more than 51% complete. What a time to be alive.

EDIT: I'm wrong about all of the RV's being applicable. The stall speed requirement is in a clean configuration (Vs1).

 

[tass]

Would this mean a non-builder can sign off the annual with an LSA repairman certificate? Or would that still exclude amateur built?

 

[j4cbo]

I'm happy about a lot of things in this NPRM, but one of the biggest ones is that they're removing "light-sport aircraft" from FAR 1.1. The Sport regulations have always been two almost-entirely-unrelated things:

• Sport Pilot certificates and the set of planes that Sport Pilots can fly
• Aircraft certification based on ASTM standards and corresponding maintenance rules

These are now discussed more clearly as separate concepts, and have both been expanded.
More RVs would now be flyable by Sport Pilots (though a new endorsement for constant-speed props would be needed). However, there would be no change to the certification of existing E-AB RVs. If Van's were to get an S-LSA example approved for other RV types then they could sell them as E-LSA kits and/or prebuilt S-LSAs. Just like the RV-12, it would then be possible to build other RVs as *either* E-AB (allowing deviations from the plans, but restricting only the builder or an A&P to do the annual) or E-LSA (requiring that the plans be followed exactly down to the last rivet, but allowing greater flexibility in who can do the inspection).

 

[ksauce]

Would this mean a non-builder can sign off the annual with an LSA repairman certificate? Or would that still exclude amateur built?

I'm not smart enough to tell. It seems to indicate that the repairman certificate is only valid for aircraft certificated as light sport and not EAB.

 

[KiloWhiskey1]

MOSAIC proposed stall speed

The document references a proposed stall speed of 54 KCAS at Vs1 (clean configuration). I don’t think an RV-10 would meet that requirement. Am I missing something? A typical RV-10 with full flaps would be close. Vans advertises the 10’s stall speed at 63 mph (54.7 knots).

Anyone have any insights?

 

[rocketman1988]

Numbers

Vans numbers are pretty close to what I see in my -10. Not going to see stall clean at 54…

 

[KiloWhiskey1]

I wonder which models would meet the Vs1 stall speed requirement? Maybe: 3, 4, 9, and 12?

 

[MechaSteve]

The document references a proposed stall speed of 54 KCAS at Vs1 (clean configuration). I don’t think an RV-10 would meet that requirement. Am I missing something? A typical RV-10 with full flaps would be close. Vans advertises the 10’s stall speed at 63 mph (54.7 knots).

Anyone have any insights?

Well, that is at the full 2700 lbs.

Theoretically, at 2600 lbs. it would be much closer to 54 kt (~53.7)

That give about 970 of useful load, for 2 people, dogs, and luggage.

 

[KiloWhiskey1]

Well, that is at the full 2700 lbs.

Theoretically, at 2600 lbs. it would be much closer to 54 kt (~53.7)

That give about 970 of useful load, for 2 people, dogs, and luggage.

I’m still trying to figure all this out, but I think the FAA’s intent is to use max take off weight. Which I think would mean 54 KCAS stall with zero flaps at full gross weight.

This is the excerpt that I got this from:

“The FAA determined that an airplane with a maximum VS1 limitation of 54 knots would permit airplane designs up to approximately 3,000 pounds. As proposed in §§ 22.100(a)(3) and 61.316(a), the new stalling speed limitation would apply to airplanes at the maximum certificated takeoff weight.”

 

[BobTurner]

I’m still trying to figure all this out, but ….”

I think what the previous poster meant was that he could have new op limits issued with a max gross weight of 2600 lbs.

 

[KiloWhiskey1]

I think what the previous poster meant was that he could have new op limits issued with a max gross weight of 2600 lbs.

Ahh. Okay, now I understand. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[j4cbo]

I think what the previous poster meant was that he could have new op limits issued with a max gross weight of 2600 lbs.

This would not work. Both the current LSA definition and the proposed new rules use phrasing like “has, since its original certification, continued to meet” in reference to the limitations - once it’s out of range, it’s out of range forever.

 

[jnorris]

I'm not smart enough to tell. It seems to indicate that the repairman certificate is only valid for aircraft certificated as light sport and not EAB.

In the current regulations regarding repairman certificates, the certificate for an amateur-built aircraft is separate and distinct from a certificate for a light-sport aircraft. Unless the MOSAIC rules include changes to the repairman certificate rules as well, this will still be the case.

So your statement is (and probably will continue to be) correct. Repairman certificates for amateur-built aircraft (regardless of whether they meet the LSA definition or not) are only issued to the original primary builder of the aircraft. Aircraft certificated under LSA rules are subject to different repairman certificate regulations.

 

[Michael Burbidge]

Bummer that this would probably exclude the 14, barely, because of stall speed.

 

[ksauce]

The document references a proposed stall speed of 54 KCAS at Vs1 (clean configuration). I don’t think an RV-10 would meet that requirement. Am I missing something? A typical RV-10 with full flaps would be close. Vans advertises the 10’s stall speed at 63 mph (54.7 knots).

Anyone have any insights?

D’oh, you’re right. I transposed Vs1 and Vs0 in my brain. Vans lists the Vs0 in all of the specs.

 

[Radioflyer]

The Mosaic initiative sounds like a good step forward and commended by most. However, it sounds like it really affects only current LSA aircraft/pilots and future designs. Correct me if I’m wrong but….

Will It will have any effect on current amateur-built aircraft (except for some simple commercial uses)?

Will It will allow RVs (and other makes ) currently being home built to optionally be certified as LSAs instead of amateur-built?

Will It will have any effect on the current fleet of factory certified GA aircraft (such as a C150) even though they might meet the updated performance requirements?

One of my greatest wishes was to expand the rights of aircraft owners to do their own annuals or condition inspections. There seems to be little achieved on this point.

 

[AeroEngineer]

The document references a proposed stall speed of 54 KCAS at Vs1 (clean configuration)...

Vans numbers are pretty close to what I see in my -10. Not going to see stall clean at 54…

I wonder which models would meet the Vs1 stall speed requirement? Maybe: 3, 4, 9, and 12?

Well, that is at the full 2700 lbs. Theoretically, at 2600 lbs. it would be much closer to 54 kt (~53.7)

I’m still trying to figure all this out, but I think the FAA’s intent is to use max take off weight. Which I think would mean 54 KCAS stall with zero flaps at full gross weight.

I think what the previous poster meant was that he could have new op limits issued with a max gross weight of 2600 lbs.

Bummer that this would probably exclude the 14, barely, because of stall speed.

This is only the NPRM. There is still time for the regulation to be changed to require a 54-knot VS0 instead of VS1. Other countries are passing or have passed similar regulations, and they (like the FAA's original Light Sport rules currently in effect) specify a maximum VS0 rather than a maximum VS1. So, there is still hope. Fingers crossed!

And actually, we can do more than cross our fingers. Doesn't the FAA's rulemaking process include a period of public feedback? Also, as Dan Johnson likes to point out, anyone can join ASTM and have insights from - and make comments to - the industry committee that actually writes the certification requirements.

 

[N8DAV8R]

The Mosaic initiative sounds like a good step forward and commended by most. However, it sounds like it really affects only current LSA aircraft/pilots and future designs. Correct me if I’m wrong but….

Will It will have any effect on current amateur-built aircraft (except for some simple commercial uses)?

Will It will allow RVs (and other makes ) currently being home built to optionally be certified as LSAs instead of amateur-built?

Will It will have any effect on the current fleet of factory certified GA aircraft (such as a C150) even though they might meet the updated performance requirements?

One of my greatest wishes was to expand the rights of aircraft owners to do their own annuals or condition inspections. There seems to be little achieved on this point.

You have framed most of these questions in a way that the technically factual answer is different from the practical intent of the NPRM. Muddy waters.

Existing airworthiness certificates will not change. Pilot privileges as applied to those certificates will, depending on whether the aircraft meets a definition of light sport.

 

[N8DAV8R]

This is only the NPRM. There is still time for the regulation to be changed to require a 54-knot VS0 instead of VS1. Other countries are passing or have passed similar regulations, and they (like the FAA's original Light Sport rules currently in effect) specify a maximum VS0 rather than a maximum VS1. So, there is still hope. Fingers crossed!

And actually, we can do more than cross our fingers. Doesn't the FAA's rulemaking process include a period of public feedback? Also, as Dan Johnson likes to point out, anyone can join ASTM and have insights from - and make comments to - the industry committee that actually writes the certification requirements.

This is an important point, and it suggests there is some value in an organized response. The proposed rule is complicated enough that people are confusing things like certification categories and privileges. It's very easy for someone to make a comment that is dismissed because it's not consistent with how the rules will actually work. If there is a solid argument for something like a few more knots on the allowable stall speed it might be a good idea for owners to work on a message that is consistent with the structure of the NRPM.

Just by example, someone interpreting things to mean that the AW certs for aircraft meeting the definition for LS would change, might request that the stall speed to change AW certs should be 60kts. That comment would be difficult for regulators to deal with as compared to an argument that privileges under light sport rules be applied to aircraft with a stall speeds up to 60kts.

I would hope to see the NGOs and at least a few manufacturers supporting an effort to encourage this type of fine tuning.

 

[MechaSteve]

This would not work. Both the current LSA definition and the proposed new rules use phrasing like “has, since its original certification, continued to meet” in reference to the limitations - once it’s out of range, it’s out of range forever.

Technically correct, but not quite what we are talking about.

A RV-10, with an E-AB cert. Will never be an E-LSA.

The proposed rules, however, separate Sport Pilot privileges from the classification of aircraft as LSA.

What seems possible is:
- An RV-10 with a "heavy" E-AB certificate, could be re-certified with either a lower max gross, or even a lower max gross when operating with only 1 passenger.

This might require additional clarification or revision to the rules.

 

[Cessnadog]

IMC is OK? I didn’t see that, can you point me in the right direction to find that in the document?

Mods, I hope this is OK to post but please don't ban me if not!

The FAA has released the draft NPRM for MOSAIC. I took a quick skim through the document. Interestingly, it looks like all RVs would qualify as light sport aircraft. The main thing is that they're eliminating the specific weight limit although it remains implied with a 54kcas stall speed of, "around 3000 pounds." Also, the top speed is 250kcas, night and IMC are OK, as are retracts.

Four seats are OK but a sport pilot can only fly with one passenger. Interestingly, they specifically addressed a private pilot operating one of these new light sport aircraft with four seats and they can fill the seats.

If MOSAIC finally comes to fruition, we might see completed RVs rolling off the line for sale. Or even kits with more than 51% complete. What a time to be alive.

EDIT: I'm wrong about all of the RV's being applicable. The stall speed requirement is in a clean configuration (Vs1).

 

[MechaSteve]

This would not work. Both the current LSA definition and the proposed new rules use phrasing like “has, since its original certification, continued to meet” in reference to the limitations - once it’s out of range, it’s out of range forever.

Looking at the NPRM in more detail, current section 1.1 is deleted entirely, and the replacement part 22, does not contain language like this.

the only disappointing part is 22.100(a)(6)

Not have been previously issued a standard, primary, restricted, limited, or
provisional airworthiness certificate

Sadly, you cannot make your existing 172 into an S-LSA.

 

[KiloWhiskey1]

I read where there will be a 90 day comment period starting on July 24th. What would be on your wishlist?

Some of the things I was hoping to see from MOSAIC were:

1. Broadened sport pilot limitations. Night and IMC (happy to see this included in MOSAIC). With the inclusion of IMC I would hope the 10k’ altitude limit would go away (this may already be included).

2. Greater number of aircraft models meeting the limits of LSA including all RVs.

-and therefore allowing Sport Pilots to operate them. I think the “driver’s license medical” appeals to many aging pilots that currently own RVs.

3. CI capabilities for qualified non-builders of these aircraft. I’m thinking experimental home built aircraft here, not certified.

4. Ability to carry three pax in a four seater.

One of the more confusing aspects of the proposed changes are the new names and categories for both planes and pilots. My above wishlist aligns more with the old nomenclature, but hopefully I’ve captured the spirit of the changes I’d like to see.

Also, I think we have some MOSAIC insiders on VAF. Hoping to hear their reaction to the proposed changes. Any surprises? Where is there wiggle room? What will be on EAA’s wishlist during the comment period?

 

[warmi]

Looking at the NPRM in more detail, current section 1.1 is deleted entirely, and the replacement part 22, does not contain language like this.

the only disappointing part is 22.100(a)(6)


Sadly, you cannot make your existing 172 into an S-LSA.

But why would you care ? That’s just a certificate for new planes but with this new proposal a Sport Pilot can fly any planes that match the specified performance limits.

 

[Michael Burbidge]

Here's a little spreadsheet I put together for Vans aircraft qualifying based on Vs1 of 54 kias and 60 kias. I took the numbers from information published by Vans. (https://www.vansaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/speeds.pdf and https://www.vansaircraft.com/service-information-and-revisions/n-rv-14-v-speeds/)

I realize that these numbers are only estimates and that for EAB aircraft each builder determines the actual v-speeds for each aircraft during testing.

For better or worse, my POH doesn't even list a Vs1 at max gross. Does that mean it can never be flown by a sport pilot under these new rules?

The person from the FAA that did my inspection didn't even look at my POH. He did do a thorough inspection of the aircraft and found a couple of items that I had to fix.

So the current proposal seems to leave lots of ambiguity when it comes to EAB.

Is there an aircraft that has a max cruise of 250 kias and a clean stall of less than 54 kias? That seems unlikely.

It seems that this proposal is very much targeted at high drag production aircraft. Low drag aircraft like Vans with large relative flaps will have a hard time qualifying.

I would much prefer to see a Vs0 stall speed of 54 kias, than increasing the Vs1 stall speed to 60 kias.

 

[mburch]

Sadly, you cannot make your existing 172 into an S-LSA.

But why would you care ? That’s just a certificate for new planes but with this new proposal a Sport Pilot can fly any planes that match the specified performance limits.

To me it's not about the pilot privileges but the maintenance aspect. If they are arguing that a light sport repairman is allowed to maintain an LSA the size of a Cessna 172 and with Cessna 172 performance, it seems logical that they ought to be able to maintain an actual Cessna 172.

Canada has a one-way process to convert certain certified aircraft to an "owner maintained" status, which is not dissimilar to this idea. Maybe limit it to Part 23 Class 1 which would broadly encompass most of the certified airplanes that would qualify to be flown by sport pilots.

 

[pv9]

Here's a little spreadsheet I put together for Vans aircraft qualifying based on Vs1 of 54 kias and 60 kias. I took the numbers from information published by Vans. (https://www.vansaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/speeds.pdf and https://www.vansaircraft.com/service-information-and-revisions/n-rv-14-v-speeds/)

I realize that these numbers are only estimates and that for EAB aircraft each builder determines the actual v-speeds for each aircraft during testing. And I don't believe that all these numbers are required at inspection time. If I remember right the only numbers my inspector required were Vx, Vy, and Vs0.

For better or worse, my POH doesn't even list a Vs1 at max gross. Does that mean it can never be flown by a sport pilot under these new rules?

The person from the FAA that did my inspection didn't even look at my POH. He did do a thorough inspection of the aircraft and found a couple of items that I had to fix.

So the current proposal seems to leave lots of ambiguity when it comes to EAB.

Is there an aircraft that has a max cruise of 250 kias and a clean stall of less than 54 kias? That seems unlikely.

It seems that this proposal is very much targeted at high drag production aircraft. Low drag aircraft like Vans with large relative flaps will have a hard time qualifying.

I would much prefer to see a Vs0 stall speed of 54 kias, than increasing the Vs1 stall speed to 60 kias.

The best option is to comment on the NPRM and explain why changing the stall speed to Vs1 will not affect the “safety” of the new standard. Alternatively request an increase by a few kts (even 2 kts) so a large number of RVs are included. RVs are well below the 3000 lb limit and do not pose a hazard. LSA rules were invented to limit the hazard to the general population from wayward aircraft.

 

[KiloWhiskey1]

The best option is to comment on the NPRM and explain why changing the stall speed to Vs1 will not affect the “safety” of the new standard. Alternatively request an increase by a few kts (even 2 kts) so a large number of RVs are included. RVs are well below the 3000 lb limit and do not pose a hazard. LSA rules were invented to limit the hazard to the general population from wayward aircraft.

A few knots would probably get all but the RV-10 and 14 in. I’m probably dreaming, but why not get these two models in under MOSAIC as well? I’m in a partnership in an RV-3 (which meets the new criteria) and I think it’s fair to say that the 10 and 14 are safer models. Don’t you think?

 

[VA Maule]

Part 23 rewrite

To me it's not about the pilot privileges but the maintenance aspect. If they are arguing that a light sport repairman is allowed to maintain an LSA the size of a Cessna 172 and with Cessna 172 performance, it seems logical that they ought to be able to maintain an actual Cessna 172.

Canada has a one-way process to convert certain certified aircraft to an "owner maintained" status, which is not dissimilar to this idea. Maybe limit it to Part 23 Class 1 which would broadly encompass most of the certified airplanes that would qualify to be flown by sport pilots.

Though Primary Non-commercial category was shot down in the Part 23 rewrite several years ago it would be great to have it incorporated into the MOSAIC . As it was proposed owner maintenance and none certified parts could be used and to re-enter it’s type certificated status all that was required was an inspection by an A&P with Inspection authorization to confirm that any un-certified parts were removed and that the aircraft was in conformance with its Type Certificate duly noted in its Logbook by the A&P IA.
I would think the grand success of the E.A.B. category would lend a huge amount of credence to the Primary Non- commercial category. It’s better than the Canadian owner maintenance option as it has an easy way back to a Certified aircraft.

 

[gasman]

Though Primary Non-commercial category was shot down in the Part 23 rewrite several years ago it would be great to have it incorporated into the MOSAIC . As it was proposed owner maintenance and none certified parts could be used and to re-enter it’s type certificated status all that was required was an inspection by an A&P with Inspection authorization to confirm that any un-certified parts were removed and that the aircraft was in conformance with its Type Certificate duly noted in its Logbook by the A&P IA.
I would think the grand success of the E.A.B. category would lend a huge amount of credence to the Primary Non- commercial category. It’s better than the Canadian owner maintenance option as it has an easy way back to a Certified aircraft.

You won't see that happen until owners of E-AB aircraft are allowed and it has been proven over time. E-AB owners can do ANYTHING THEY WANT to their aircraft all year long, and then sit back and watch an A&P try to figure it out. There needs to be a balance to this.

As far as stall speeds, the way it sits now, Piper PA-28 (the entry trainer) would not qualify by one KT. And the 172 would make it by one KT.

What's more dangerous, (apt to happen) landing gear up??? or landing flaps up?? I sure don't understand the thinking of the FAA. They are going down the same path they did 20 years ago when this was introduced. All airplanes (99.9%) has flaps for landing, it's the second most useful accessory for landing only after the landing gear. So why wouldn't they be included in the landing performance of the aircraft.

A speed ratio of 4.6 would be amazing especially coming form a 3000# gross aircraft.... Dave Anders has the fastest RV4 and he can't even match that.

I sure hope WE the people and the EAA and AOPA can come to the rescue of this sad offerings and make it work for the aircraft that it was intended for and not just the C-150's and 172's and 1/2 of Van's fleet....

 

[ryane67]

The crazy thing about the stall speeds is that the 182RG I fly would qualify to be flown as LSA since its clean stall is 50kt but the RV-10 or 14 wouldnt?

Bonkers.

 

[RV8JD]

The crazy thing about the stall speeds is that the 182RG I fly would qualify to be flown as LSA since its clean stall is 50kt but the RV-10 or 14 wouldnt?

Bonkers.

Is that 50 KIAS or 50 KCAS? If it is 50 KIAS, that may be more than 54 KCAS (due to the low speed position error) which the proposed NPRM specifies.

 

[jcarne]

Glad to see this finally happening but I will be one of hopefully many submitting for an increase in Vs1, or better yet, moving to Vs0. Ridiculous a 182RG could qualify but not certain RVs or even a Cherokee!

 

[spatsch]

The way this stands will make E-AB cert RVs pretty random. As vs0 and vs1 are established in phase 1 flight testing and not just copied from Vans ( you actually certify that in the log book) you will have some be flyable by sports pilots and other not.

Oliver

 

[Michael Burbidge]

The way this stands will make E-AB cert RVs pretty random. As vs0 and vs1 are established in phase 1 flight testing and not just copied from Vans ( you actually certify that in the log book) you will have some be flyable by sports pilots and other not.

Oliver

This is particularly applicable to RV 7/7A and RV 8/8A which appears to be close to the 54 knot limit.

Suppose I'm a sport pilot that built an RV 7, can I do phase 1 testing on the aircraft I built? I might discover during testing that Sv1 <= 54 knots or I might find that it is slightly > 54 knots.

By the way, where is it specified that Sv1 should be noted in log book during Phase 1 testing? I'm not questioning you, I'm just curious to read about it.

Thanks,
Michael-

 

[spatsch]

This is particularly applicable to RV 7/7A and RV 8/8A which appears to be close to the 54 knot limit.

Suppose I'm a sport pilot that built an RV 7, can I do phase 1 testing on the aircraft I built? I might discover during testing that Sv1 <= 54 knots or I might find that it is slightly > 54 knots.

By the way, where is it specified that Sv1 should be noted in log book during Phase 1 testing? I'm not questioning you, I'm just curious to read about it.

Thanks,
Michael-

Was referring to Vs0 . Vs1 might or might not be in you operating manual (really up to you) but should be marked on your instrument. Now how you can see a 1mph difference on the green arc on an old instrument I don’t know… .

Oliver

 

[plehrke]

The way this stands will make E-AB cert RVs pretty random. As vs0 and vs1 are established in phase 1 flight testing and not just copied from Vans ( you actually certify that in the log book) you will have some be flyable by sports pilots and other not.

Oliver

Does the NPRM indicate where Vs is tested/calculated? If not, perform stall test at min flying weight and aft CG limit at sea level. Should give you the lowest stall speed.

 

[AeroEngineer]

Does the NPRM indicate where Vs is tested/calculated? If not, perform stall test at min flying weight and aft CG limit at sea level. Should give you the lowest stall speed.

ASTM standards (and common sense) require flight testing to be at (or at least include) worst-case combinations of weight and CG. So VS0 and VS1 must come from tests at max gross weight and forward CG. (This is why, in reality, your airplane always stalls a little slower than those numbers).

 

[cpool]

Just read the whole doc too--I was hoping to see information there regarding what was speculated/anticipated during RV-15 presentations, but didn't. Missing items paraphrased here:

- use of EAB (or possibly some new factory-built Experimental flavor?) for specific hire purposes, including flight training (tricycle-gear -15 was mentioned as good for that purpose, pending appropriate MOSAIC allowances). Much mention is made of LSA for aerial work, but none of EAB for use in provided-paid training or rental.

- (not RV-15 related) much discussion given regarding tiered scale of sport < recreational < private, but having the overhead of such customized and nuanced differences is beyond me--it would make more sense to combine Sport and Recreational, rather than having such slight differences between them. The quantity of registered sport/recreational pilots vs. private probably bear that out.

- (not RV-15 related) very strange that a Cessna 150 would qualify as a LSA under new rules in every way except the "previously certificated" exception--perhaps that is an oversight, perhaps not. If the goal is to open up sensible planes for Sport pilots, that aspect doesn't make sense to me.

- wishful thinking: would be nice to have some avenue for Owner-Builder inspection privileges (even if in some reduced capacity, such as OB must be A&P or get A&P to perform Annual) to be carried over to a non-builder owner upon sale of a kit build that substantially conforms to kit where new owner can demonstrate familiarity either through completion of similar build or other demonstration of competency (partially supported by good original build/modification documentation).

 

[plehrke]

ASTM standards (and common sense) require flight testing to be at (or at least include) worst-case combinations of weight and CG. So VS0 and VS1 must come from tests at max gross weight and forward CG. (This is why, in reality, your airplane always stalls a little slower than those numbers).

I understand that. Just making point that using a stall speed, in my opinion, is a little nebulous and can be subjective in experimentals. I know it is probably being used as a measure of energy in landing but picking the right value as safe for light sport but 1kt more is no longer safe and not allowed is subject to continuous controversy. Needs to be something that has a definite break for what is in and what is out. I guess there is really just no good alternative.

 

[ksauce]

I understand that. Just making point that using a stall speed, in my opinion, is a little nebulous and can be subjective in experimentals. I know it is probably being used as a measure of energy in landing but picking the right value as safe for light sport but 1kt more is no longer safe and not allowed is subject to continuous controversy. Needs to be something that has a definite break for what is in and what is out. I guess there is really just no good alternative.

I think the intention is that you would have to build as an ELSA. ELSA is far more proscriptive and therefore match the factory built model both in terms of configuration and performance. Although I guess it is entirely possible to build an rv-12 as EAB and fly it as a sport pilot so I guess I have no clue!

 

[cgrossl]

Just a quick note about stall speeds. The stall speeds that Van's lists on their website are not the official stall speeds for these ariplanes. The official stall speeds are listed in each aircraft's log when the airplane is signed off for phase II. All of these airplanes are a little different...maybe during phase I testing, the CAS at stall for your airplane was a couple knots slower that what Van got?

 

[RV8JD]

MOSAIC specifies stall speed in CAS. Van's lists stall speeds in IAS. The builder during Phase 1 measures stall speeds of their aircraft in IAS. So some effort will need to be made to measure instrument and position error to get from IAS to CAS.

 

[PhatRV]

Reading the FAA document, almost every section mentioned that experimentals are exempted from the new rules. I think this is for the stall speed is applicable for the new sport aircraft certification.

 

[pv9]

Reading the FAA document, almost every section mentioned that experimentals are exempted from the new rules. I think this is for the stall speed is applicable for the new sport aircraft certification.

So you can’t fly an experimental under the MOSAIC rules?

 

[Jayhox88]

I'm interested to learn how the new Sport Pilot privileges apply. It appears more straightforward on the new light sport aircraft proposed rules, but fuzzy on the Sport Pilot allowances.

 

[Jslow2]

The way I read this, experimental aircraft are not part of Part 22, which is the new performance based requirements section

 

[PhatRV]

So you can’t fly an experimental under the MOSAIC rules?

I think you are twisting words. The new MOSAIC rules are defining the new rules to certify new light sport aircraft. Most of the rules in the document specifically stated that they aren't applicable to experimentals.

 

[pv9]

I think you are twisting words. The new MOSAIC rules are defining the new rules to certify new light sport aircraft. Most of the rules in the document specifically stated that they aren't applicable to experimentals.

So that means one can't exercise sport pilot privileges while flying an experimental aircraft that has previously obtained a special airworthiness certificate (not in the LSA category)?

 

[Swingwing]

Vortex Generators

Adding vortex generators to an RV should drop the stall speed. In my 182 it gave me about 4 knots indicated