3 ms·

This is a great summary of a complex topic, but I wouldn't put safety or experimentation as the primary driver. As you suggested, MOSAIC is likely a way to mig

by w10-1 3y ago

This is a great summary of a complex topic, but I wouldn't put safety or experimentation as the primary driver. As you suggested, MOSAIC is likely a way to migrate people off experimentals to discontinue that little idealistic free-for-all. The vast, vast majority of pilots are aging out. The vast majority of builders are retired. 30-50 years of experimentation has exhausted most people, who now just buy the tried-and-true design and kit from Van's. Many people wasted their lives on projects that never fly, and most deaths and injuries come in the first few flights. Old airplanes are cheap and mostly just as functional as new planes, making it really, really hard to sell a lot of new planes. And there aren't enough numbers to justify selling avionics or engines, etc. unless you already have certificated products and want to reach the Van's customers. So not really enough market, notwithstanding the breathtaking improvements in electronics and composites. The major costs in flying are gas, hangar, insurance, and maintenance, which is not going to change with these rules, particularly since they don't resolve the uncertainty around leaded aviation fuel. Those costs prohibit flying except for the wealthy or the super-motivated upper-middle class. LSA's are safer because they're new and mostly Van's, and don't really invite scud-running or stupid fuel decisions. The push to MOSAIC is mostly the FAA trying to stay relevant, and eventually to kill experimental aviation. I could see a new business model, where a company like Van's offers an all-in-one packages of long-term lease + insurance + maintenance, particularly to buyer's groups. Sharing a plane gets it flown more, and group members can come and go. The company gets the benefit of its own engineering effort in low maintenance and insurance costs. Rotax, Continental, or some new electric consortium et al could make deals with such companies guaranteeing enough new engines to justify new product lines. If there's a behind-the-scenes driver for MOSAIC, it might be some deal-making contingent on more sympathetic and predictable FAA regulation. Private and experimental aviation is not stymied by product fit as much as market fit and transaction cost risks. If MOSAIC helps with that, it could be a game-changer.

Scoundreller 3y ago
Dumb question: how does insurance work? Like, I get it would be a good idea if a bunch of randoms collectively buy a plane or (can you do this:) want to rent it out to randoms. Or required if you get a secured loan for it. But if you own your own (or a close group does), is insurance required? Or do airfields require it and good luck if you don't have a private strip? FAA requirement? Every hanger requires it? Mechanics will refuse work if it's uninsured? Or is it cheap enough there's no point in foregoing it even if it's not required?
- happyjack 3y ago
  Insurance is not a legal requirement. Some individual airports will make you have a "on the ground policy" (couple hundred dollars a year) to cover movement and other people's property. You can get liability only insurance, or full hull coverage (I.e. you crash you get a check). Your premium is based on your flight experience and your age (some insurance companies won't underwrite if over 70, some won't underwrite if they think your experience is low for the type of aircraft). I have a $150k hull value plane, and liability for me is $540 a year, and hull coverage is $3500. I do liability only. Mechanics typically buy whatever insurance they feel they need to be "safe." My mechanic doesn't have insurance, but he also says "hell no" to a ton of folks because working on a flight school plane isn't worth the headaches and putting your name on it, since statistics say they will most likely crash.
- ultrarunner 3y ago
  Yes fractional ownership exists. Once renting is involved, insurance premiums triple to quadruple. There are also certain circumstances under which 100 hour inspections are required, which means maintenance costs go up. Some people get around this by forming a club, which means it isn't quite randos at that point. There are several types of insurance (just like for cars), but public liability insurance is the most commonly required. Most states don't require it as far as I know, though. My understanding is that most FBOs do require it to use their facilities. It isn't cheap, but no one that I've talked to has discussed insurance as though it were optional. I don't doubt for a moment they're out there though.
ryandrake 3y ago
Disclaimer: I built, tested and now fly a Van's kit so I'm biased. I don't think the FAA is trying to "kill" experimental, at least not with MOSAIC. In fact, my understanding is that there was quite a bit of behind the scenes work between EAA and the FAA on MOSAIC. MOSAIC doesn't add really enough to the LSA category that would change my mind and "push" me toward it. If I had to make the choice again, I'd still build and operate a kitplane. To me, the major benefits of the E/AB category are: 1. the builder's permission to perform his own annual condition inspections, 2. the owner's permission to perform major maintenance and make modifications, 3. access to bleeding edge avionics and safety systems not available on certified or LSA. I don't think the MOSAIC rulemaking adds any of this to the LSA category[1]. If anything, MOSAIC helps LSAs eat into the market of Part 23 personal aircraft. If I wanted a fairly beefy airplane, didn't want to build, and was trying to decide between a LSA and FAR23 aircraft, I would lean much farther towards the LSA post-MOSAIC. 1: EDIT: Actually, it looks like it's more complex than I thought, and I'm probably wrong. There are actually pathways for folks to obtain repairman certificates for both ELSA and SLSA aircraft. Interesting topic I'll have to dig more into!
two_in_one 3y ago
> FAA trying to stay relevant, and eventually to kill experimental aviation. They have recent relevant experience with remote controlled aircrafts. Which was an great hobby for many decades. And suddenly it's not.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  Blame ubiquitous cheap drones for that one, or rather: way too many reckless drone pilots doing way WAY too much shit that ended up in the best case "just" violating people's privacy and in the worst case endangering passenger aviation by flying around airports. The eternal september of RC aviation.
  - two_in_one 3y ago
    No, registered sex offenders don't have to broadcast their location. Just register. Armed cops don't broadcast, because they understand it's not safe. FAA members don't put markers on themself or their family members for the same reason. They understand that would make them exposed. But they easily do it to hobbyists. For simple reason: to kill this hobby off. Who might be interested? This remind me that shill in FCC killing net neutrality. Drones, by the way, didn't kill no one in US. RC aircrafts did kill 2 in US through the whole history. Last one was RC helicopter. Pilot killed himself. Legal guns kill illegally many more. Thousands per year? But owners aren't forced to put a target mark and broadcast their location. Obviously why, that would make them a target. But drone owners must. Don't you think it's disproportional?

by w10-1 3y ago

Scoundreller 3y ago

Dumb question: how does insurance work? Like, I get it would be a good idea if a bunch of randoms collectively buy a plane or (can you do this:) want to rent it out to randoms. Or required if you get a secured loan for it. But if you own your own (or a close group does), is insurance required? Or do airfields require it and good luck if you don't have a private strip? FAA requirement? Every hanger requires it? Mechanics will refuse work if it's uninsured? Or is it cheap enough there's no point in foregoing it even if it's not required?

happyjack 3y ago
Insurance is not a legal requirement. Some individual airports will make you have a "on the ground policy" (couple hundred dollars a year) to cover movement and other people's property. You can get liability only insurance, or full hull coverage (I.e. you crash you get a check). Your premium is based on your flight experience and your age (some insurance companies won't underwrite if over 70, some won't underwrite if they think your experience is low for the type of aircraft). I have a $150k hull value plane, and liability for me is $540 a year, and hull coverage is $3500. I do liability only. Mechanics typically buy whatever insurance they feel they need to be "safe." My mechanic doesn't have insurance, but he also says "hell no" to a ton of folks because working on a flight school plane isn't worth the headaches and putting your name on it, since statistics say they will most likely crash.
ultrarunner 3y ago
Yes fractional ownership exists. Once renting is involved, insurance premiums triple to quadruple. There are also certain circumstances under which 100 hour inspections are required, which means maintenance costs go up. Some people get around this by forming a club, which means it isn't quite randos at that point. There are several types of insurance (just like for cars), but public liability insurance is the most commonly required. Most states don't require it as far as I know, though. My understanding is that most FBOs do require it to use their facilities. It isn't cheap, but no one that I've talked to has discussed insurance as though it were optional. I don't doubt for a moment they're out there though.

ryandrake 3y ago

Disclaimer: I built, tested and now fly a Van's kit so I'm biased. I don't think the FAA is trying to "kill" experimental, at least not with MOSAIC. In fact, my understanding is that there was quite a bit of behind the scenes work between EAA and the FAA on MOSAIC. MOSAIC doesn't add really enough to the LSA category that would change my mind and "push" me toward it. If I had to make the choice again, I'd still build and operate a kitplane. To me, the major benefits of the E/AB category are: 1. the builder's permission to perform his own annual condition inspections, 2. the owner's permission to perform major maintenance and make modifications, 3. access to bleeding edge avionics and safety systems not available on certified or LSA. I don't think the MOSAIC rulemaking adds any of this to the LSA category[1]. If anything, MOSAIC helps LSAs eat into the market of Part 23 personal aircraft. If I wanted a fairly beefy airplane, didn't want to build, and was trying to decide between a LSA and FAR23 aircraft, I would lean much farther towards the LSA post-MOSAIC. 1: EDIT: Actually, it looks like it's more complex than I thought, and I'm probably wrong. There are actually pathways for folks to obtain repairman certificates for both ELSA and SLSA aircraft. Interesting topic I'll have to dig more into!

two_in_one 3y ago

> FAA trying to stay relevant, and eventually to kill experimental aviation. They have recent relevant experience with remote controlled aircrafts. Which was an great hobby for many decades. And suddenly it's not.

mschuster91 3y ago
Blame ubiquitous cheap drones for that one, or rather: way too many reckless drone pilots doing way WAY too much shit that ended up in the best case "just" violating people's privacy and in the worst case endangering passenger aviation by flying around airports. The eternal september of RC aviation.
- two_in_one 3y ago
  No, registered sex offenders don't have to broadcast their location. Just register. Armed cops don't broadcast, because they understand it's not safe. FAA members don't put markers on themself or their family members for the same reason. They understand that would make them exposed. But they easily do it to hobbyists. For simple reason: to kill this hobby off. Who might be interested? This remind me that shill in FCC killing net neutrality. Drones, by the way, didn't kill no one in US. RC aircrafts did kill 2 in US through the whole history. Last one was RC helicopter. Pilot killed himself. Legal guns kill illegally many more. Thousands per year? But owners aren't forced to put a target mark and broadcast their location. Obviously why, that would make them a target. But drone owners must. Don't you think it's disproportional?