Great article in that it lets us know that the LSA approach has not lowered costs by much ... and that the LSA airplanes are not really that popular. However, while the comments to the article are good ... only one really hits the nail on the head - Airbrain's is brilliantly right on.
The LSA's failure to both increase sales and reduce costs is caused by creating a product that the regulators wanted ... but few others do. Tiny, cramped, low performance, low payload, day VFR only ... who wants it? who needs it? ... just to duck the medical requirement (that has not been shown to increase safety)? Very few, clearly. And since low sales means high unit costs ... the two compound to negate any of the potential savings from the simplified regs. It's almost like the FAA set out to "prove" that high costs are not their fault by sabotaging airplane usefulness and thus potential sales.
Airbrain is right ... let the market decide what it wants (it will anyway and has decided it does not want the LSA) ... and then HELP the manufacturers (like the FAA of years ago) provide THOSE aircraft cost effectively. And, as Airbrain also says, the FAA should also help widen the pilot population too.
