MOSAIC and Light Sport Changes?

[Jim Meade]

It seems that MOSAIC proposes that some standard certificated aircraft for example the Cessna 172 may fit in a revised FAR 1.1 definition of Light Sport so that Sport Pilots could fly them.

How about the CT?  Some countries fly what I understand to be an identical airplane to ours at higher VNe, higher Vh, higher gross weight, different flap retractions settings, not to mention an in-flight adjustable prop.

If MOSAIC is passed what is your sense that we could change the characteristics of our CTSW based upon existing approvals in other countries for the identical airplane?

Take gross to let's say 1550, flap reflection to 12 degrees, VNe to whatever Australia permits, etc.  All these changes would be to align our CTSW with what is already permitted, so I don't see why we'd need to do any flight testing.  Don't even see why we'd have to go to op Limit #1 for testing.

[Anticept]

S-LSA will require a letter from the manufacturer approving it and changing those rules.

E-LSA is kind of unclear in the proposal, if E-LSA is under the "experimental" label they are using, then you can go through processes to change things yourself.

That reminds me, I need to make a comment asking them to clarify that.

[Anticept]

Took a closer look, it very specifically only calls out S-LSA requiring a statement of compliance to raise limits, and lists out the limitations for aircraft certificated before the rule goes into effect that are basically the current 1.1 definition of light sport. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/07/24/2023-14425/modernization-of-special-airworthiness-certification#sectno-citation-21.181

I can't find anything on experimental light sport, so either there is an existing regulation that covers that base, or perhaps it's an oversight, or there are plans to use the airworthiness certificate limitations sections to cover this (this last one is what I believe is most likely to happen).

[Jim Meade]

What would the manufacturer say?  That the U.S. plane is identical to the Australian plane so it is subject to the same limitations?

What authorization would be needed to reflex the flaps 12 degrees instead of six?

[Roger Lee]

I've  done 4 CT's to -12 flaps. Don't  waste  your time and -12 is a detriment at high altitudes and or heavy CT's.

[Anticept]

1 hour ago, Jim Meade said:

What would the manufacturer say?  That the U.S. plane is identical to the Australian plane so it is subject to the same limitations?

What authorization would be needed to reflex the flaps 12 degrees instead of six?

That the new allowed configuration is still ASTM compliant and safe.

Basically, there might be light sports out there that were designed to thr 1320 lbs spec for example. Increasing the weight might be dangerous.

Then you have jabirus which are just 4 seat aircraft with the 2 rear seats removed and certificated for a lower weight despite being no different than their aussie counterpart.

[FlyingMonkey]

E-AB weight limits are raised by putting the airplane back into phase I testing, and putting the airplane through a test program at the higher weight.
 

E-LSA could go through a similar process, or the FAA may stipulate it’s safe if the manufacturer approves higher weight for the same model as S-LSA.

[Jim Meade]

Since E-LSA must be identical to S-LSA when they are recertified as E-LSA, I wonder if the FAA would say that an E-LSA that wanted to go to a different allowance (weight, flaps, constant speed prop, etc.) would have to go back to being an S-LSA before it changed?  There is logic in that approach.  What manufacturer would want to say your E-LSA (who knows what changes you made) is OK to go to a different spec just because some S-LSA version in a different company was already there?

[Tom Baker]

10 hours ago, Jim Meade said:

Since E-LSA must be identical to S-LSA when they are recertified as E-LSA, I wonder if the FAA would say that an E-LSA that wanted to go to a different allowance (weight, flaps, constant speed prop, etc.) would have to go back to being an S-LSA before it changed?  There is logic in that approach.  What manufacturer would want to say your E-LSA (who knows what changes you made) is OK to go to a different spec just because some S-LSA version in a different company was already there?

Don't forget the other type of ELSA. It is not tied to a manufacture.

[Anticept]

For flight designs, the main limiter for them I feel, would be the parachute. The structure on them is stupid strong (save for the tail section, but even that is still very strong). Parachute deployment though applies forces we wouldn't normally see and I believe I have said it before, I think the type we have is only tested to 1600 pounds.

[207WF]

... and I am not sure what a constant speed prop would buy a CT relative to Eprop.

WF