Small personal aircraft are great, but subject to weather and visibility. Although some of that could probably be mitigated through automation technology. I doubt we'll see Jetsons style cars replacing the American auto anytime soon, but more competition in the world of light sport aircraft would be nice.
MOSAIC is Done!
>> Ninety days from now, about three-quarters of the general aviation fleet will be accessible to sport pilots and those exercising sport pilot privileges. One year from now, new and modern aircraft will begin entering the fleet with minimal certification costs.
Can’t support MOSAIC enough. I’ve owned a composite LSA called a Flight Design for about 5 years, been in arguments with a lot of old timers about the safety aspects but I consider revolutionary and far safer than a certified aircraft than the statistics will tell you.
For example it has a ballistic parachute that will bring the entire aircraft to the ground. Unlike the Lycomings and Continentals the engine wasn’t designed in the 1950s. It’s equipped with real time satellite weather, GPS autopilot, Avionics that would cost you $15-20k to put in a Cessna due to all the red tape.
I will get a lot of heat for this but I think the FAA has killed a lot of people. If pilots had low cost access to things like glass cockpits, satellite weather, inexpensive autopilot, and a healthy ecosystem of cheap, modern aircraft with modern engines (Basic things like fuel injection) a lot of pilots might still be alive right now.
> Unlike the Lycomings and Continentals the engine wasn’t designed in the 1950s.
Rotax 912? :D
I've spent a lot of time getting familiar with that engine over the last two years as part of a large UAS programme. Every time I have to do integration work with it (electrical or CAN) I end up having an even-deeper appreciation of how thoughtful the engineering behind it is.
Edit: also, since people below brought up 100LL... I also deeply appreciate that it runs fine on plain ol' premium mogas. Both because I'd rather not expose my self to tetraethyl lead all the time and because it's really convenient to be able to just load up a few jerry cans on my way out to the field while getting fuel for my truck.
> Avionics that would cost you $15-20k to put in a Cessna due to all the red tape.
A possibly good example of this: I believe that in Switzerland, small planes almost universally carry "FLARM" devices, essentially "TCAS for hobbyists", implemented through unregulated devices from a private company that people just got because they were cheap and useful. Bureaucratic regulation would have most likely killed a project like this.
"Let’s start with the obvious one. If the compliance costs of safety regulation get too high, it will shut down iteration and innovation in the industry. These innovations include safety enhancements."
An interesting point here is that you can sometimes get safety improvements in an experimental aircraft that you can't get in the same airframe under Part 23 because the manufacturers don't want to go through the certification process for upgraded parts and newer technology.
I have a couple of concerns about a large expansion of personal aircraft of the type the original author is advocating.
For one, even certified GA aircraft have a fatality rate far in excess of automobiles, let alone public transport or airliners. Yes, some of that is pilot error which can be mitigated to a substantial extent by computer controls, but it’s also a result of the lack of redundancy and hard failure modes of a light aircraft compared to a car. I’d also note that the flight controls don’t do the maintenance that is required to keep a light aircraft safe. Yes, the more libertarian amongst you won’t have a problem with this, but I’d also observe that the proposal is to make these regulations applicable to four-seater aircraft, so plenty of spouses and especially kids will be affected by this risk.
Secondly, expanding a class of vehicle that chews a lot of fossil fuel is going to worsen the already serious effects of climate change; and while short-range aircraft might well electrify you’re not going to fly at 250 knots for 1000 nautical miles on batteries any time soon.
Did someone wanting to sell flying cars bribe Trump, or is this from before the current administration? Didn't they cut loads of FAA inspectors and such?
>Without the need for type certification, manufacturers can iterate on their designs more rapidly without going through the costly supplemental type certification process. They can include cheaper uncertified avionics. They can do over-the-air software updates.
Being completely out of the loop and nothing more than a moderately interested member of the public (outside USA) -- isn't lack of type certification one of the causes of recent major aviation calamities.
Looks like they're saying loads of EABs crash but well just call them LSAs because those don't crash as much, problem solved! Oh, and software is totally reliable so well have that control the aircraft. And we'll make them go faster.
For those not tracking: this article is about the MOSAIC rules, which the FAA announced this week is now approved (Final Rule). In 90 days the new Sport Pilot rules will go into effect and allow Sport Pilots (a certification less stringent than Private Pilot) the ability to fly aircraft of much higher performance. Over the next year, new certification rules will go into effect allowing manufacturers to manufacture much more high performance aircraft under the Light Sport rules. There are some details, but the big picture is that the allowable performance for these “entry level” classes just got a lot higher.
Is it good? Well, a lot of people are cheering the change. The FAA doesn’t normally make things easier for the average Joe. This will make it easier for an inexperienced (but still fairly wealthy) pilot to get their hands on a real hot rod of a plane. There’s probably some additional risk, but the FAA has clearly recognized that one of the biggest dangers too flying a high performance aircraft is having to land fast. 200 kts vs 100 kts doesn’t make a big difference in risk in straight and level flight, but landing at 80 kts vs 55 kts does make a difference.
I don’t know where I stand exactly. It’s a big jump. Surely this is going to cause some old geezer to be screaming through a congested area and not be able to keep up with the ATC traffic calls because he’s never gone this fast before, and he’ll have a midair collision. Surely this is going to cause someone to buy a “light sport” aircraft with 280 hp and a huge prop and they’re going to crash taking off. But I think that overall I’m just being overly cautious, and most Sport Pilots are too poor to afford a plane that burns 15 gallons of avgas an hour, so most of the new planes under MOSAIC won’t be that powerful. I am curious to see what kind of new aircraft become available, and what the long term safety impacts will be.
Edit: for about five minutes my post said “not approved” when I meant to type that MOSAIC is “now approved”
The big question: How is pilot training and certification going to ensure that accident rates are further reduced?
Will also need huge changes to training and certification of aircraft mechanics.
Existing air traffic controller shortages, under-staffing, equipment deficiencies are going to have trouble coping with the increased workload posed more and faster planes.
I was on board up until this phrase. I don't want my plane behaving as flakey as my Tesla, and my gauges shifting their location around every update at the whim of some junior designer.
Not saying there couldn't be a manufacturer that does OTA properly, I just haven't seen that as the trend in any other space (cars, smartphones, etc). The OTA part always seems to benefit the manufacturer, not the user. ("Watch this ad to take off....")
Don't picture them as OTA firmware updates. Picture them as OTA navigation data updates (i.e. maps, charts, waypoints, airport info, etc...) - that's much easier to pull off.
The process right now is pulling out an SD card from your Garmin/Avidyne/BendixKing whatever every 28-days or so (that's how often the FAA updates the navigation database backing these avionics), popping it into your PC, using software/webistes that could be... much better designed (to put it lightly) and then going back again. It's not exactly the hardest thing in the world, but it's not exactly a walk in the park either (especially for less-technically inclined pilots, who just let it lapse, and click out of the big expiration warnings every time they start up their planes).
The reality is that personal aviation doesn’t make sense because the range of an cheap aircraft just isn’t very high so you’re not gonna fly from New York to California on an aircraft under $1 million dollars brand new and you’re certainly not gonna fly internationally. How can you spend so much money and so much time getting your pilots license for a plane that only will get you 500 or 600 miles effectively. Most people who can afford a six figure aircraft wanna fly much longer distances than they are able to fly.
I routinely flew that far in a plane I spent $100k on. You can land and refuel and a plane that 155+ kts can get quite far in two hops with 3 hour legs. The weather and other maintenance inconveniences is more the issue.
It'd be good if small time pilots could fly quieter aircraft. There is an A380 that regularly takes off near me and it's quieter than most small planes. The engines on smaller planes drone loudly and it goes on and on as the planes are slow. Just another externalized cost of aviation.
flying is dumb. in a small aircraft your fuel efficiency can be vaporized by a simple head wind. owning an operating any kind of aircraft is insanely expensive. for years i looked into finding some way of justifying the expense of a private aircraft. the only way it can be worth it is if you need to hop between distant cities as a part of your business. flying cars will never happen
All I want is an electric or hybrid autogyro equipped with cutting-edge technology and sensors.
Once airborne, autogyro planes can safely descend without relying on power or even a functioning engine. They possess remarkable hover-like capabilities without stalling, unlike fixed-wing aircraft, and can achieve impressive distances at commendable speeds, unlike helicopters.
In other words, it’s the best of both worlds and very beginner friendly IMO.
25 comments
[ 6.5 ms ] story [ 57.1 ms ] threadhttps://www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publications/eaa-news-and-a...
For example it has a ballistic parachute that will bring the entire aircraft to the ground. Unlike the Lycomings and Continentals the engine wasn’t designed in the 1950s. It’s equipped with real time satellite weather, GPS autopilot, Avionics that would cost you $15-20k to put in a Cessna due to all the red tape.
I will get a lot of heat for this but I think the FAA has killed a lot of people. If pilots had low cost access to things like glass cockpits, satellite weather, inexpensive autopilot, and a healthy ecosystem of cheap, modern aircraft with modern engines (Basic things like fuel injection) a lot of pilots might still be alive right now.
Rotax 912? :D
I've spent a lot of time getting familiar with that engine over the last two years as part of a large UAS programme. Every time I have to do integration work with it (electrical or CAN) I end up having an even-deeper appreciation of how thoughtful the engineering behind it is.
Edit: also, since people below brought up 100LL... I also deeply appreciate that it runs fine on plain ol' premium mogas. Both because I'd rather not expose my self to tetraethyl lead all the time and because it's really convenient to be able to just load up a few jerry cans on my way out to the field while getting fuel for my truck.
A possibly good example of this: I believe that in Switzerland, small planes almost universally carry "FLARM" devices, essentially "TCAS for hobbyists", implemented through unregulated devices from a private company that people just got because they were cheap and useful. Bureaucratic regulation would have most likely killed a project like this.
An interesting point here is that you can sometimes get safety improvements in an experimental aircraft that you can't get in the same airframe under Part 23 because the manufacturers don't want to go through the certification process for upgraded parts and newer technology.
I have a couple of concerns about a large expansion of personal aircraft of the type the original author is advocating.
For one, even certified GA aircraft have a fatality rate far in excess of automobiles, let alone public transport or airliners. Yes, some of that is pilot error which can be mitigated to a substantial extent by computer controls, but it’s also a result of the lack of redundancy and hard failure modes of a light aircraft compared to a car. I’d also note that the flight controls don’t do the maintenance that is required to keep a light aircraft safe. Yes, the more libertarian amongst you won’t have a problem with this, but I’d also observe that the proposal is to make these regulations applicable to four-seater aircraft, so plenty of spouses and especially kids will be affected by this risk.
Secondly, expanding a class of vehicle that chews a lot of fossil fuel is going to worsen the already serious effects of climate change; and while short-range aircraft might well electrify you’re not going to fly at 250 knots for 1000 nautical miles on batteries any time soon.
>Without the need for type certification, manufacturers can iterate on their designs more rapidly without going through the costly supplemental type certification process. They can include cheaper uncertified avionics. They can do over-the-air software updates.
Being completely out of the loop and nothing more than a moderately interested member of the public (outside USA) -- isn't lack of type certification one of the causes of recent major aviation calamities.
Looks like they're saying loads of EABs crash but well just call them LSAs because those don't crash as much, problem solved! Oh, and software is totally reliable so well have that control the aircraft. And we'll make them go faster.
A bunch of the coverage has a nice table showing the new spec. https://www.flyingmag.com/faa-finalizes-major-overhaul-of-li...
Is it good? Well, a lot of people are cheering the change. The FAA doesn’t normally make things easier for the average Joe. This will make it easier for an inexperienced (but still fairly wealthy) pilot to get their hands on a real hot rod of a plane. There’s probably some additional risk, but the FAA has clearly recognized that one of the biggest dangers too flying a high performance aircraft is having to land fast. 200 kts vs 100 kts doesn’t make a big difference in risk in straight and level flight, but landing at 80 kts vs 55 kts does make a difference.
I don’t know where I stand exactly. It’s a big jump. Surely this is going to cause some old geezer to be screaming through a congested area and not be able to keep up with the ATC traffic calls because he’s never gone this fast before, and he’ll have a midair collision. Surely this is going to cause someone to buy a “light sport” aircraft with 280 hp and a huge prop and they’re going to crash taking off. But I think that overall I’m just being overly cautious, and most Sport Pilots are too poor to afford a plane that burns 15 gallons of avgas an hour, so most of the new planes under MOSAIC won’t be that powerful. I am curious to see what kind of new aircraft become available, and what the long term safety impacts will be.
Edit: for about five minutes my post said “not approved” when I meant to type that MOSAIC is “now approved”
FAA split the concept of "sport pilot" from LSA
Now Sport Pilots can fly just about anything with VS1 of 59 knots or less (clean stall speed) (up from 45kts)
Meanwhile, new plane designs can go through a less rigorous certification as LSA if they have a VS1 of 61kts or less.
Will also need huge changes to training and certification of aircraft mechanics.
Existing air traffic controller shortages, under-staffing, equipment deficiencies are going to have trouble coping with the increased workload posed more and faster planes.
I was on board up until this phrase. I don't want my plane behaving as flakey as my Tesla, and my gauges shifting their location around every update at the whim of some junior designer.
Not saying there couldn't be a manufacturer that does OTA properly, I just haven't seen that as the trend in any other space (cars, smartphones, etc). The OTA part always seems to benefit the manufacturer, not the user. ("Watch this ad to take off....")
The process right now is pulling out an SD card from your Garmin/Avidyne/BendixKing whatever every 28-days or so (that's how often the FAA updates the navigation database backing these avionics), popping it into your PC, using software/webistes that could be... much better designed (to put it lightly) and then going back again. It's not exactly the hardest thing in the world, but it's not exactly a walk in the park either (especially for less-technically inclined pilots, who just let it lapse, and click out of the big expiration warnings every time they start up their planes).
Wonder if there's something similar in other domains.
Personal aviation is about to get interesting - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37988638 - Oct 2023 (137 comments)
> the category could include planes like the forthcoming Pipistrel Panthera.
The "forthcoming" (2023) Panthera has been worked on since 2011, had its first flight in 2013, and is still in development (2025).
Once airborne, autogyro planes can safely descend without relying on power or even a functioning engine. They possess remarkable hover-like capabilities without stalling, unlike fixed-wing aircraft, and can achieve impressive distances at commendable speeds, unlike helicopters.
In other words, it’s the best of both worlds and very beginner friendly IMO.