There’s a lot of magic at airshows — including their ability to host in-person meetings. That’s especially true after a year of virtual meetings.
The value of these in-person meetings was proved at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2021 when general aviation advocates got the chance to sit in the same room with FAA officials and discuss the proposed changes to the Light-Sport Aircraft rules.
Our friends in the Experimental Aircraft Association‘s advocacy department, led by Sean Elliot and aided by experienced staff, held a special meeting with FAA officials to discuss the changes, known as MOSAIC (Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification).
During the meeting, EAA officials reportedly pushed back on the proposed regulations, calling them “overly complex.”
In a remarkable development (which I am surely oversimplifying here), key FAA officials agreed and, in the space of a single meeting, pivoted — in a good way for general aviation.
An idea introduced in May 2020 set up Light-Sport Aircraft as a subset of something brand new called Light Personal Aircraft. LSA would get bigger and more capable, but it was the new Light Personal Aircraft that appeared ready to invite still-larger aircraft, perhaps with four seats, retractable gear, faster speeds, and other abilities.
Light Personal Aircraft (LPA) has apparently been scrubbed — just like that, in a single meeting — but one involving key decision makers, including the LSA industry’s good friend, Earl Lawrence. An engineer with a strong CV, Earl has risen quickly within the FAA and today is the manager of aircraft certification. He has long preferred simpler solutions and reportedly concurred that plans for LPA were overly complex.
So, LPA is history, barely a year after it was first invented by rule writers. (Surely, we will hear more about this in coming weeks, but the preceding statement looks accurate according to several sources.)
Another part of the MOSAIC proposals is a formula method referred to as Power Index. Quite a number of you have done the math and tried to determine if one or another airplane can fit.
Power Index is also “probably” history before most of us ever understood precisely how it woud work. It, too, was judged unnecessarily complex and many people more qualified in engineering than me would quickly agree. In addition, it seemed a complicated way to accomplish an objective that could be achieved by other means.
The proposed 200-horsepower cap is “probably” history as well. According to reports, several FAA officials recognized that the amount of horsepower is not a key determinant to the FAA sticking to its LSA mantra of “Safe, Simple, and Easy to Fly.”
My advocacy partner, Roy Beisswenger, who attended several FAA briefings, said, “The key phrases to come out of an FAA meeting was that LSA should be defined as ‘easy to fly’ or ‘docile to fly’ and then let the industry define exactly what that means.”
“Different weights and categories of aircraft would be allowed as endorsements,” he added.
Endorsements have already been used with good success for basic Sport Pilots to advance their privileges.
The ASTM F37 group that prepares standards for the FAA to use in accepting (or not) new LSA aircraft has been furiously working to prepare for all the upcoming changes, so aircraft can demonstrate meeting the standards soon after the rule is final, so the aircraft can be delivered to pilots. As those volunteers do their work and as we hear more, I will report more as quickly as possible.
So, MOSAIC enters a new state of development, but I view all these changes as positive. Keeping regulations simpler will enhance the ability of developers and pilots to follow them so they can perform their function efficiently.
If C150, C152, C172, PA 28 140 (and similar aircraft) are eventually flyable by Sport Pilots, and if a passenger could be placed in every free seat, and if logbook endorsement will drive all this . . . that would be great, logical, safe, and help preserve/grow general aviation! It seems to me that this should be obvious to the most casual observer.
The endless story of “maybe” and “could happen” and “we are looking at it”. For LSA? Everything changes and nothing changes.
“… history before most of us ever understood precisely how it…”
I believe you meant “never” in this sentence.
Hmmm, Lots of interesting comments, I like the idea that if you can get an endorsement for a plane you should be allowed to fly it. We need to stop letting doctors decide if you can fly what you want and let actual training and skill level decide it. Burt Rutan is a great example of that. He lost his medical and now has to build a specialized motorglider to get to fly. Frigin’ Burt Rutan, he is a frigin legend and the FAA grounded him because he got a pacemaker put in or something like that.
Perhaps we have over complication and control when in fact;
It’s really not that difficult to fly a plane…remain capable without oversight…maintain a plane.
Perhaps mass incompetence coupled with job protection through out every aspect of GA is the greater problem.
I can’t even get a non imaginary answer to what exactly constitutes a non allowed “complex” procedure regarding owner maintenance. Or the inspecting wheel bearings for an annual when the owner has just serviced them. Or what that inspection even constitutes depending on who you talk to. Or why an owner can change oil and filter or replace gyro air lines (think IFR) but not disconnect a liquid line.
Indeed, given a chance much would display there was no need….Such as Basic Med has substantiated. Personally I have DOT mandated 46 years of flight medicals and 45 years of CDL physicals and drug testing….all culminating to absolutely nothing but expense. But I know we are all safer because we are asked if we have ever-ever had a broken bone in our life….lol
Except I can replace pre-fabricated fuel lines. Hydraulic lines nooooo but fuel lines, cool.
We all know there are a number of “cheater” LSAs out there now. Let’s keep it really simple and just bump the gross weight up to 1750#
See how that works for a few years, 5 at the most and then, if successful, start including other changes. Max speed, constant speed props, more pax and so on
People should read this then tell me how we even got here. What a difference the idea of 2017.
https://www.flyingmag.com/should-you-buy-an-lsa/
Great news if it comes true. LSA simply needs another seat or two and another few hundred pounds gross weight. Bring Cessna 150, early 172 and Cherokee 140 genre into the LSA fold.
I agree with that statement. I have a pa 28 140. Easy to fly max gross 2150 if I remember correctly. I never fly with 4 pax. No one knows when a person will die. Many have things the big boss say you can’t fly with, however, we still tool around in our automobile. Pilot many different kinds of vehicles from farm equipment to motorcycle, or a bulldozer.
This sounds great. Current LSA aircraft are too small
And underpowered. Living at altitude (I fly out of KRNO) unless you have a couple 170 lb people and half fuel, you’ll never get an LSA off the ground on a summer day like today (DA>7000’). Make it accessible to more people and usable as a trainer for new pilots. Finally, FAA moving in a positive direction.
What sounds great? Other than saying that all the ideas were rejected, what are you getting from this that I am not?
Small maybe, underpowered- depends. I’ve flown my S-19 at full gross from KGUC on an 82 degree day- DA was nearly 11,000 feet. I also flew it from Leadville when DA was over 13,000 feet when I was 150 lbs under gross. A well designed LSA with a good engine will have no problem at high DA airports.
How about?
Allowing any valid state Driver’s License based medicals (in lieu of FAA 3rd Class) for any non-commercial ops up to 6 pax and 6000 lbs MTOGW, including for any non-commercial “multi-pilot” crew flights (e.g., as a safety pilot for IFR currency, etc.)
Allowing for Owner Maintenance, albeit with a certified mechanic signoff once every 3 years (NOT needing an IA), and also mechanic signoff for mods, for any non-commercially used FAR23 certified aircraft up to 6000 lbs MTOGW
Dropping any “Flight Review” requirement for any Commercial, CFI, or ATPC rated pilots having logged over 24 flight hours in the previous 24 calendar months.
Allowing for automatic CFI renewal (upon simply submitting an FAA application) for any CFI who has held a CFI certificate for more than 5 years without any enforcement actions, and also has logged more than 8 hours of instructor time in the previous 24 calendar months.
This is great, if you have no regard for the safety of passengers — nor of the people of your city, over which you hope for general aviators to fly with a ton or more of airframe, powerplant, people and gasoline, at up to 200 KIAS.
A certified mechanic signoff once every 3 years (NOT needing an IA) — seriously? Have you looked at the CURRENT condition some of the operating planes on your local GA ramp. Imagine what they’ll look like with THREE years of neglect? And no IA involved?
And since when is only “24 flight hours in the previous 24 calendar months” enough to ensure that ANY pilot is current and competent? Who seriously thinks a CFI is a proficient, competent instructor (or even current) with just 8 hours of instructing in TWO YEARS? I wouldn’t want him telling ME how to fly.
This is typical of the thinking of too many in GA: “The best regulation is no regulation. To heck with everyone’s safety. I’m a good pilot, trust me. I don’t need to be watched or checked or regulated or prevented from killing anyone. Trust me. Whether I deserve it or not.”
Lots of dead people have naively believed such aviators. That’s why GA is the deadliest common form of transportation (with the remotely comparable fatality rate of motorcycles in no-helmet-requirement states).
If this was only a threat to general aviators, I’d probably say, “who cares.” It’s not. It’s a threat to passengers — in their aircraft, and in others aloft (and on runways and taxiways), and to the general public beneath them — none of whom has any real protection from the reckless aviator, except for firmly enforced government regulation.
GAviators, we don’t own the sky. We borrow more than our share of it from our fellow citizens. Expect them to rightly demand we meet safety standards.
And stop asking that aviators be held to lower standards than cab drivers and tow-truck operators — seriously.
I agree that ManyDecadesGA may have overshot, but, RH, you also went over the top in your comparison of GA safety to motorcycle/ground transportation safety. They are not so easily compared. One is in the air (3D) and the other is on the ground (2D). Just look at the top reasons (FAA accident analysis report) for GA deaths; Loss of Control Inflight and Controlled Flight into Terrain. Also on the top of the list is fuel exhaustion, unintended flight into IMC, and low altitude operations. In addition, almost 25% of the accidents are from home built or experimental aircraft. It is not clear which items ManyDecadesGA has mentioned would change any of these factors for accidents. But certainly none of those top factors can be related to ground transportation. Flying is simply more dangerous than driving.
And GA doesn’t take more than a fair share of the sky. General aviation operations account for more than 70% of air operations. (FAA controlled and uncontrolled airport analysis from 2016).
And statements such as “lots of dead people”? Really? Suddenly we’re doing raw numbers? Are you suggesting that 400 deaths in a year is “lots”? Because if you’re starting to suddenly compare raw numbers, the 40,000 motorists deaths per year seems like where you should be concerned. And your sudden introduction of reckless aviators without merit, facts, or an equal comparison against reckless drivers is simply an emotional argument.
Your point can be made without needlessly mixing transportation modes (ground vs air), licensing (private/ppl vs commercial/taxi cab drivers) and an ambiguous reference to a reckless segment of population vs a non reckless segment.
So please, quit with the drama. It’s not becoming of an aviator.
So you feel that MORE “Government” help and control is the answer, eh? With thinking like that, who needs the FAA to over regulate GA in oblivion. We can do it from within. I don’t usually agree with ‘ManyDecadesGA’ but — in this instance — I do.
One thing I did learn in all the forums I attended at Airventure is that the FAA MUST act — by Congressional mandate — by 2023 … if THEY don’t blow that date off.
@Larrry… in case you were asking me about more govt oversight. My answer is no.
I’m just tired of the “it’s more dangerous than driving so we should be more regulated” argument. Aviation is simply more dangerous than driving, the safety numbers are remarkable for what we do, they will never be zero, and we are already regulated enough (or more than enough… I’m easy).
You are mistaken when you say:
“Aviation is simply more dangerous than driving.”
You would have been correct if you had said:
“GENERAL Aviation is simply more dangerous than driving.”
“COMMERCIAL Aviation is simply LESS dangerous than driving.”
The difference, plain and simply, as the historic record shows clearly, is the extent of regulation and enforcement, coupled with technological advancements and crash lawsuits. Commercial aviation is far more a subject of all of these developments, and thus COMMERCIAL aviation (via scheduled carriers) is the SAFEST form of transportation on the planet, statistically, per seat-mile of travel.
And far-less-“oppressed” GA is the exact opposite.
When I was a young CFI I gave a flight review on an old ag pilot. Never have I learned so much in 1.2 hrs of flying – and got paid for it !
Now I try to do the same thing. I look for a low time CFI for a flight review. I try to help them to be a better instructor – and they get paid in the process ! What a deal !
I’m also an A&P. When I was a young airplane owner (not an A&P) I wanted to do a temporary fix on my plane which I thought would be fine until the next annual. I went to an old A&P’s shop for the parts I needed and when he asked, I told him what I was planning to do. He had put the parts on a table and as soon as I finished my explanation he gathered them up, put them back in the cabinet and lectured me why he wouldn’t allow me to do that. You guess it, I learned more in that 1 hr lecture than any of the classes during my 2 yrs of A&P school. When I got my IA, the first thing I did was go back to that old grouch A&P and thank him. He was prouder than a Banty rooster.
I see people doing maintenance, I try to help them out. Pay it forward like it was paid forward to me a long time ago. This airplane stuff is really fun. Even more so when there aren’t so many whiners. Just go with the flow.
I agree with manydecadesGA.
WHOA! Where did you get this information from, Dan? Unless the meeting you refer to happened after Thursday’s (Jul 29) ‘Meet the Administrator’ forum, I did NOT hear the info you are providing here in numerous venues I attended at Airventure.
I attended a Monday forum with EAA’s MOSAIC advocacy staff and Wednesday’s EAA Membership meeting with Jack Pelton and Thursday’s Administrator meeting and Saturday’s Sen. Inhofe meeting. ALL of them were still referring to the upgraded definition of MOSAIC being still in work. I even spoke with Earl Lawrence and he didn’t say anything about this, either. So where did this info come from? Are YOU having private meetings somewhere? Your parochial interests running LAMA DON’T include legacy aircraft; be careful what you’re saying and doing, please. Not everyone here can afford or justify a $200K light sport airplane, sir.
In all of the meetings I attended, everyone was still talking about taking light sport beyond its present boundaries into the “Light Personal Aircraft” definition subset (above LSA) to allow heavier aircraft — to include legacy aircraft — to be flown by Light Sport pilots with endorsement …. as you said. So ‘LPA going away’ is new and also a mystery to me.
MY parochial interest in all of this is on the maintenance side. All IA’s are aging — just like the pilot population — and are getting increasingly hard to find if they’re willing to work on these aircraft at all. Everyone is focused on increasing the ridiculously limiting 1,320lb / 600kg LSA aircraft standard — to include legacy aircraft — yet are forgetting the need for easing maintenance standards for the low end Class I airplane. I view the situation as a three legged stool … the pilot, the airplane and maintenance. Unless ALL three are addressed and improved simultaneously, it ain’t gonna work.
IMHO, an experienced A&P (me) ought to be able to do a CONDITION INSPECTION of any Class I airplane … just like signing off an E-AB. You fly a Flight Review why … to have a second set of eyes review and critique your flying performance biannually. An annual condition inspection by an experienced A&P would provide the same thing … a second set of eyes to ensure that the machine is both airworthy and meets its standard annually. I can sign off a 100 hr. inspection on a standard category airplane — which is identical to an annual — but an IA is needed for the annual. I can sign off a condition inspection on a RV-14 ‘hot rod’ but not an annual on a Cub. It’s time to relax that requirement … especially if changes to light sport aircraft are coming. That’s MY focused interest.
Had the five year effort (sic) by the ARC recommending positive and welcome changes to FAR Part 23 been adopted, in toto, the new category of “Primary – non-commercial” would have been established. (BTW — That final report went to Earl Lawrence when he ran the Small Aircraft Directorate). Alas, it wasn’t. All we got was this stinkin’ thing called NORSEE. Surely a step in the right direction but still not enough. A P-NC certification category would have been a two-way “street” — an owner could relicense his legacy aircraft into the P-NC category and later move back to standard by an in-depth survey by an IA. It exists and is working in Canada … it’s time to adopt it in the U.S.!
I spoke with Earl Lawrence one-on-one after the Administrator meeting and he agreed on my maintenance ideas. I plan to doggedly pursue this issue in every way I can.
That the Administrator is saying that fixing the current problem-du jour — LODA — is going to take four years to fix is tantamount to a crime. He just isn’t realizing that he’s the “PIC” of the FAA and can fix this issue by waving his magic executive power “twanger” at it. This is off subject but … really isn’t. The FAA … ‘making simple stuff hard since 1958’ seems to be their motto. So, on this issue … same thing. It’s time to move and stop talking about it. Enough already!
One place we can agree is that the face-to-face meetings EAA holds with FAA are the single greatest positive venue we who fly small aircraft have for effecting positive change in the our community. I give EAA great credit for that.
Now, for the love of whatever God you believe in, would the FAA PLEASE approve of and support the owner maintenance category of certified (perhaps “formerly” certified) aircraft? It’s working brilliantly in Canada. If you absolutely must have an American solution, please figure out the owner maintenance solution and coordinate it with us north of the border so we can once again enjoy cross border flights.
Why can’t we just KISS and make the entire Cessna 150 legacy fleet LSA? At least it’s a start.
There’s a substantial evidence to support that idea.
Let’s start with the LSA notion that two seats, and the weight of a Cessna-150-sized airframe, limits the amount of killing a bad pilot (or plane, or circumstance) can do.
As to the 150, specifically, according to multiple NTSB studies, the low-powered, 2-seat, strut-winged Cessnas — 120/140, and 150 (and, one extrapolates, the 152) — are generally the safest certified GA singles aloft, as over a half-century of data have demonstrated.
But it’s not at all the same record for other 2-seat (or 4-seat) certified singles, and too-often people want to conflate the presumed safety of 150s with an implication that similiar safety exists for other two-seat trainers, including Piper Colts, Flight Liners, Tomahawks, and even (gasp) Cubs (triple the fatality rate of 150s, despite much slower and simpler) — or just about any other two-seaters. This includes planes ranging from old stick-and-rag taildraggers to glass-cockpit composite LSAs — which others too-often conflate with the Cessnas safety, in utter disregard for any scientific evidence (much of which very directly contradicts such popular fantasy).
“Single Engine, Fixed Wing General Aviation Accidents 1972-1976”
NTSB/AAS-79-01
…viewable online at:
http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aviation-special-studies/AAS79-01.pdf
…which notes that the C-150’s fatal crashes per 100,000 hours are just 2.33, compared to the Ercoupe (falsely billed as the “World Safest Plane”), at 5.48; and compared to even the 2-4-seat Cherokees (PA-28 series) at 4.00.
Hence the report concludes, simply:
“The mean fatal accident rate per 100,000 hours of the Cessna-built aircraft included in this study (1.65) was signficantly lower than the mean fatal accident rates of the other five manufacturers still producing [significant numbers of single-engine general aviation] aircraft: Beech (2.54), Bellanca [including Aeronca/Champion derivatives] (4.84), Grumman (4.13), Mooney (2.50), and Piper (2.48).
Note that the few companies not mentioned were not then producing in quantities large enough for reliable statistical significance in the fatality data. Note also that the most statitically numerous legacy planes (except the Taylorcraft) — Aeronca, Stinson, Globe GC-1(Swift), Luscombe, Navion, ERCO/Forney (Ercoupe) — all fared worse, often much worse, than most of the strut-winged Cessnas.
Of course, if you adjust for cruise speed (to get miles per fatal crash), and then multiply by number of souls on board (for number of deaths), the seat-miles-per-fatal-victim numbers vary somewhat — but strut-winged Cessnas still owned the bottom end of the risk stack
Today, a generation after that major NTSB study, the planes and data have evolved — some towards MORE safety, as with the Diamond DA-20 C1, which Av. Consumer reported in 2006 as remarkably having less than 0.2 fatals per 100,000 hours…
https://www.aviationconsumer.com/safety/training/trainer-flyoff-diamond-still-tops/
…or LESS safety, as with certain “safety feature” planes which shall remain unnamed, except in numerous crash reports (many of them fatal).
Clearly, it’s time for another NTSB study, updating the stats to reflect a statistically relevant and factual comparison of today’s planes. It’s troubling that the NTSB has taken a dismissive view of that responsibility for quite some time — settling too often for recklessly recommending regs and cuts to GA without solid statistical research, often in trigger-happy overreaction to narrowly localized problems.
But, then, manufacturers (except Cessna, perhaps) were not enthusiastic about the last NTSB study, as it surely increased their exposure to devastating crash lawsuits. And they (and their surrogates) put a lot more money into electing government officials than aviation consumers do.
Not that we GA consumers are as interested in hard facts as in wishful fantasy, and optimistic indulgences.
So does this mean Van’s RV9a would fit in the LSA category? It’s easy to fly and under 200hp or are homebuilt not included?
Not impressed with the apparent safety record of LSA’s & Light Sport Pilots. Even less impressed with the FAA’s attitude about how to adjust the regs.
FIRST and FOREMOST should be SCIENTIFIC safety studies — from entities INDEPENDENT of the INDUSTRY !!!
The closest to this comes from old NTSB studies, of leading GA aircraft, of pilots, and of environmental factors.
Letting the industry determine its own safety standards is how we get disasters like the 737 MAX — and some very specific legendary crashmasters in GA (no, I won’t name the names — but you surely can). It’s pathetic that the main force for defining limits on how deadly GA aircraft are, is not the FAA, but crash-lawyers.
The FAA should have been more serious about this, but has long had too sweet an affair with the GA manufacturers — brought up a notch in the 80’s era of lasseiz-faire governance (spelled: let business substitute itself for government oversight).
Hence we get such absurdities as turbine aircraft with powerplants, systems, and panels — and overall ergonomics — radically different from their progenitors, yet type-certified as the same aircraft, which they blatantly are not.
NTSB should be, at the least, consulted BEFORE consulting the GA community about what is, and is not, safe.
Who in the GA aircraft-manufacturing, sales, promotion, media (read “manufacturers’ advertising venues”), community, truly, can be trusted to call a turkey a turkey ?
Even the GA orgs now get most of their income from the manufacturers (via “sponsorships”, “grants”, advertising and other payoffs; just read their annual reports), so that when they speak to government with the claim of “representing thousands of aircraft owners / pilots”, they conceal who they really work for: the hardware manufacturers. They’re just manufacturers’ reps, salesmen & lobbyists.
Apart from, perhaps, Aviation Consumer mag., who is independent of them? NTSB, and maybe some universities. That’s who should have FIRST (and LAST) say on what is, and is, and is not, safe.
~former GA aircraft manufacturing / marketing pro
Do I smell Liberal in you? Scientific studies? Put your helmet on and go for a walk now.
I’m think RH overshot his original point a bit going down a rabbit hole over all the contradictions of FA regulations.
LSA aircraft do have some interesting issues. His points that a lot of misrepresentation is occurring which is important.
Should NTSB be the final word on what is safe? Of course if that assertion is made AFTER manufacturers make the planes the consumer says they want. NTSB has no place telling manufacturers to produce a weight/power/mission limited plane like the LSA. Other than keeping older flyers in the air and furthering the Rotax engine in GA, what has LSA even accomplished? I’m no expert but it really appears the answer is NOTHING. The planes are costly and mission limited.
NTSB??? Having a class 2-moped administrator in charge just makes me feel all kinds of safe. A joke of an agency with only 2 barely qualified members on their board.
You or I might not wholly agree with him, but the man makes a reasonable and rational point.
And to this you reply with name-calling? Really? Is that the best you’ve got?
Well said DougH
So from what I gather here (I read it a few times just to be sure), MOSAIC is basically toast and we just wasted yet another year stirring around in the muck (FAA) and getting nothing whatsoever accomplished to help us achieve what should be a fairly simple process (we know what we need and it’s not complicated) in updating the rules and regs for LSA to expand. MOSAIC was a horrible idea from the out, never should have even been considered, and I truly believe the FAA just threw that out there to placate us until they cared enough to actually do something (hence all that was just reported above). And that something is….? A jumbled mess of words that mean nothing and say nothing. Great. Guess that summed this mess up. Sigh……
So rather than the FAA define a new plane type, are you suggesting that the endorsement system may be expanded to allow a Sport Pilot more privileges and access to larger aircraft? If so, doesn’t this blur the line between PPL and SP? Maybe I’m obtuse but this all sure terribly vague. I’d love a hypothetical here as an example of how this news is good.
Keeping it simple is an LSA pilot’s dream. If weight were increased slightly leaving it to two passengers, maybe with a touch of power and speed this would perfect the LSA World. No need to go beyond this as I prefer to keep Light Sport Piloting in its own realm juxtaposed to GA.
Exactly. Gross weight(1750?) that allows full tanks and 500 lbs of people(2) and gear at the minimum. Endorsement for night and IFR should be next. But let’s be real. Who and what do all these regulations protect? If you can get endorsements for higher privileges its just the same as going PPL. Other than keeping older flyers in the air what purpose does LSA truly serve? I’d wager that the use of LSA to sidestep 3rd class medicals has shown that the FAA medical requirements don’t affect Pilot safety to the degree they thought. At the end of the day, the only requirement and limitation should be some very limited medical requirements (no seizure prone pilots makes sense to me) and training requirements for things like night flight, instrument rating, pilot safety, etc. things which pretty much already exist. Flight is already monetarily regulated since the cost is always a prohibitive factor. If people can afford the plane and have gotten the training just let them fly.
I’d wager that many (most?) Sport Pilots have no interest in add-on endorsements, especially instrument flying. I am very happy being a daytime only, VFR kind of guy. I WOULD, however, appreciate an increase in the max weight limit. 1320 pounds was a random number pulled out of a hat, mimicking the EU. There’s nothing magic about 1320 pounds.
By the way, I am a Private Pilot exercising my privileges as a Sport Pilot. I can easily pass a 3rd class medical but, since I fly an LSA authorized legacy certificated aircraft and have no desire to fly at night anyway, why bother with the Medical? I self assess before every flight, as all pilots should do regardless of what medical they hold.
Just raise the weight limits. Maybe allow four seaters. If you want more than that, get a PPL.
Just raising weight to 1750 would change the game immensely. But the arbitrary speed limit has to go as well. Keep the stall speed limitation and drop the max speed. It’s all a conflict of different interests. I’m sure Tecnam, Piper, and others don’t love the idea of $200,000 LSA type planes that go 200 knots or cruise on 6 gph. Lycoming and Continental probably are not real pleased that most of those planes do so with a Rotax. It really makes you wonder who’s interest are being served by all of this.
This will always be the real point. Follow the money and the lobbyists.
It’s just another scam to rid the skies of older pilots .Most of us aren’t interested in night flying or instrument flying ,but for the last 20 years the FAA has done an excellent job of shrinking the pilot base and will probably finish themself off and out of a job when there are no pilots .Imagine if Orville and Wilbur had to read the Airmens information manual, there never would have been an airplane.