In about one year, FAA may announce their new regulation for Light-Sport Aircraft.
This rule, sometimes called MOSAIC, proposes wide changes for the light aircraft segment, including an entirely new term: Light Personal Aircraft (LPA).
Here in early summer 2021, new information was discovered that shines additional light on what is ahead.
I am privileged to have recent information in which I have very high confidence.
While we do not know everything yet — neither does FAA itself — we are getting a clearer picture. Nonetheless, you should remember this is a proposal still in deliberation. It is not a completed regulation. We will know definitely what FAA recommends only when the NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) is released. My best guess for that is EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2022 …about one year in the future. The final rule, after assessing all comments, is not expected until the end of 2023.
LPA and Sport Pilot Certificate
The first time anyone outside FAA heard about Light Personal Aircraft was one year ago, in May 2020. In this time of great society-wide distraction many became aware of new term later in the year.
Icon secured a weight increase for their A5 seaplane using a petition process.
LPA represent the full range of aircraft the FAA will likely propose as suitable for issuance of a Special Airworthiness Certificate using a manufacturer’s statement of compliance to FAA-accepted, industry consensus standards.
LSA would be those LPA that meet an expanded definition of LSA as described in previous articles, that is, in the new reg, LSA would become a subset of LPA. LSA may continue to be operated by Sport Pilots and maintained by LSRM. LPA that exceed the LSA definition would require higher certificates for pilots and repairman.
Another way to say this is: all LSA will be LPA, but not all LPA will be eligible for LSA.
Rulemaking is a machine with a lot of moving parts. Many people are involved but close to the heart of this proposal are two divisions or departments in FAA. One is dedicated to aircraft certification. A different one is dedicated to pilot certification and flight operations. A Sport Pilot does not receive the same training as a Private or better and may not have the same experience as a higher rated pilot. Therefore, it is reasonable to give greater privilege to the higher certificate levels.
When I write “Sport Pilot,” I mean those who hold an actual Sport Pilot certificate and those who have a higher certificate but wish to exercise the privileges of Sport Pilot. For many of the latter, this relieves them of the need to obtain an aviation medical or use Basic Med in order to fly Light-Sport Aircraft.
This point needs to be stressed: Even as LPA arrives, LSA will see “expansions.”
Setting the Record Straighter
Agency personnel are still very actively discussing this internally and many points are still being deliberated and refined. However, one person said, “The original ideas we shared with you [in previous discussions] remain as we informed you then. The plan is to expand LSA significantly.”
With the following, I will seek to address reader comments I received. These issues appeared to be of greatest importance.
I start with one that garnered the most response and I’m pleased to restate this.
Weight ••• Light-Sport Aircraft will be allowed more weight although this evolved somewhat differently than once expected. LPA entered the picture and will be the larger aircraft …but LSA will also benefit.
How much weight an LSA can increase will be determined with Power Index — essentially wing loading and horsepower considerations. Few readers might fully understand Power Index (details here) yet use of this formula allows weight flexibility well beyond currently-prescribed values.
Those of you who lamented the likelihood of no weight increase for LSA can breathe a sigh of relief.
Sport Pilot Privileges ••• Sport Pilots will be allowed to use their certificate to fly LPA that meet the parameters of the new definition of LSA, which will include (somewhat) heavier airplanes and all LSA meeting the present day definition of LSA. When a Light Personal Aircraft exceeds the final definition of LSA, you will need a Private Pilot certificate or higher.
How heavy an airplane can a Sport Pilot fly? That is still in discussion. Sport Pilots will not be able to fly an LPA that exceeds LSA parameters as described in the new regulation, but Sport Pilots will be able to fly a heavier airplane than a present-day 1,320-pound LSA landplane. Where precisely is the separating line? We’ll learn more about that later.
Maintenance ••• Since heavier airplanes than today’s LSA could be flown by a Sport Pilot, it seems reasonable that a Light Sport Repairman-Maintenance (LSRM) could work on an airplane that a Sport Pilot is permitted to fly. For those already using or contemplating earning that credential, an LSRM will be able to maintain LSA as described later. LSRMs will not be able to work on LPA that are beyond the eventual LSA description.
Legacy GA Airplanes ••• A good number of you yearn to operate a Cessna 150 or 172, a Cherokee, or some similar aircraft using a Sport Pilot certificate. If such airplane meets the description of a LSA under the new regulation, yes, it may be possible to fly one as a Sport Pilot. A Cessna 150 or a Cherokee 140 may qualify but a Cessna 210 or a Bonanza will not. The boundary line relates to Power Index, but some of you who wish to fly a legacy GA aircraft may be satisfied.
Single Lever Control ••• While this automated prop control is something that can be installed on LSA in 2024, it will not be limited to LSA. LPA may also use SLC and could have additional prop control options.
Fully-Built Gyroplanes ••• This request remains on track. After more than 15 years, Special LSA gyroplanes should become a reality.
Electric Propulsion ••• This remains in the proposal for LSA (as well as LPA). Hybrid systems will also be permitted.
Aerial Work ••• Not the same as “commercial operations,” aerial work remains under consideration although what pilot certificate may be needed is to be decided by the flight standards people. LSA (the aircraft) will be able to do such work, as eventually described, but a higher pilot certificate may be needed for certain activities or certain airplanes. This statement in the May 16th article still stands: “Aerial Work is actually defined as a pilot privilege and not an aircraft limitation.”
Light Personal Aircraft ••• These will take the lead position in the new regulation and LSA will become a part of LPA. Both will be allowed to get heavier than today’s LSA. However, I add that not all LSA need to get heavier. Weight shift and powered parachutes are two obvious examples that are well optimized under today’s weight limits.
ASTM Standards Work ••• LPA will be built to FAA-accepted, industry consensus standards like present-day LSA, but updated standards are needed to address all the changes that will be part of the final MOSAIC rule. Revision of all LSA standards is taking place now based on information the FAA has shared, but newly-approved aircraft like gyroplanes or technologies like electric propulsion may not have completed standards when the rule becomes final. So, these newly-approved aircraft are coming, but there will probably be some time lapse from when the rule becomes final and when compliant designs are available for purchase.
Working Together
LAMA, represented by myself and Roy Beisswenger, had numerous fruitful discussions with FAA. We went to many meetings and made several trips to FAA headquarters in Washington, DC. In most of these meetings we found FAA people interested to advance LSA in the aviation world and interested to hear what changes we wanted. LAMA was satisfied with those discussions and, indeed, FAA incorporated into the proposal every LAMA request. All LAMA’s “asks” are captioned in this article. In the end, we got more than we asked for.
I am pleased discussions continue so we can all learn more about what lies ahead.
My Father and my Uncle both flew when I was growing up. I really couldn’t wait to join them. But finances and life prevented my ability to “buy in” during my younger years, and when I could buy in, I didn’t bother due to Airman Medical Certification med regs ([due to] a stent at 45 years old).
The LSA gave hope with the Med requirement of only a driver’s license and self evaluation safety. Let’s be honest here; current medical procedures are not those of the ’60s. There is nothing I can’t physically do that most other 60-year-olds can do, and likely I’m far more active. I would also suspect most LSA licensees are directly related to the Med requirement, and they are not dropping out of the skies due to medical emergencies. That aside…
From an outsider looking in, I find the entire FAA LSA a bit counterintuitive. On the one hand FAA wants aircraft simplicity, low speed, stability, and safety, with an easy entry point for potential new pilots, yet they exclude C-150, C-180s, Piper Arrows, etc. Instead they based the requirement on extreme light weight aircraft, which are far more subject to wind gusts, or inherently unsafe. This also required OEM to create new light weight designs, which of course, by process, along with regulatory red tape, is very expensive, and will preclude many from ever entering the market. I have also seen Private Pilots object to any aircraft with more than two seats, claiming Sport Pilots should not be allowed to travel anywhere with a Sport Pilot license. Its like telling a motorcyclist they must return home daily and no road trips.
If the desire is to stifle aviation growth, it’s a great plan. If the desire is to expand use, I do believe the drivers license medical, allowing use of FAA certified planes with [less than] 200 horsepower and a gross weight of around 3,000 pounds would encourage a lot of people to take flight. I don’t see allowing daylight traveling limits as a concern, nor do I see allowing a spouse with suitcase on board as a dire safety issue. From the medical point of view, one would hope no one would ever take the controls of a car, motorcycle, boat, or aircraft, if they knew it was unsafe to do so. I would say most people do not have a death wish. I can say if the FAA increases weights, so we can travel say 500 miles a day, I for one would be in the air in the same year in a Arrow or Skyhawk. I can’t justify $150,000+ for a 15-mph-wind-gust-limited two seater, that doesnt have room for anything but a pilot, passenger and maybe a water bottle.
I respect all your opinions, but I would take some issue with your characterization of Light-Sport Aircraft is being terribly limited (either in wind or by their carrying capacity). Certainly, I hope you can fly the airplane you want with the regulations of the future, but this line in particular I believe is incorrect: “extreme light weight aircraft … are far more subject to wind gusts, or inherently unsafe.” FAA reports regarding LSA accidents do not support that statement and as you say, since most pilots do not have a death wish, I’m sure most who feel their light aircraft is not appropriate for stronger conditions do other things on those days. Flying LSA is overwhelmingly for fun. Challenging yourself in strong conditions or inclement weather is unwise.
Hello Dan, I appreciate my wording might have been a bit projective (pejorative?). I guess my point is, if you look at recommended weather conditions from the manufacturers of LSA, many have low wind tolerances (so not unsafe, as you said, as long as you don’t exceed that). That is completely logical, but there comes a point where, it’s too light. Meaning when a 14 mph max wind is your recommended limit for a specific LSA, that recommendation doesn’t leave a lot of available days in the year in some places. It also doesn’t leave a lot of room for error in weather forecasting. LSA craft such as gyroplanes that certainly would not apply to, but once again, weight and space are sacrificed. So yes, absolutely don’t fly if you are not comfortable and within your limits and limits recommended for your aircraft to fly safely. At the same time I would hope the FAA to look at this from a practical standpoint. If you create too many “rules,” regardless of the original intent, and your rules adversely limit the ability of people to enjoy the very object they regulate, then I would suggest they re-evaluate regulations to something more practical. Something that encourages its population to use it. Adding to suggested tolerances, when you look at the cost of LSA aircraft, most models are well over $200,000 [when well] equipped. Not exactly new prospective pilot friendly to the bank account. Meanwhile there sits thousands of lightly used Cessnas and other like lightweight craft for sale, that provide a more financially viable starting point, with higher proven tolerances along with a documented safe history, which one would believe is the entry or re-entry point of the LSA path, as a safe entry point for the public at large. Ultimately I don’t expect any change, but we can always advocate for it! Thank you very much for your information.
As an inactive Private Pilot for some time now who just wants to fly the simple Part 23 airplanes of my youth again before I’m too old, I realize that I’m probably not of much interest to LAMA. I simply can’t justify the prices of new or late model SLSA, nor do I have the time or interest to build my own ESLA to reduce the costs of entry. I’d be back into flying in a heartbeat if I could fly a C150, C172, Piper 140, Warrior, Archer or Beech Sundowner with a driver’s license (DL) medical, so I am following that proposal with great interest. There is nothing inherently different or more difficult about flying any of these legacy Part 23 aircraft versus an SLSA, so a DL medical should be fine for that application. So while all the other changes being proposed are great for younger pilots with more time ahead of them, the DL medical is the most important change for us folks nearing retirement who will have lots of free time on our hands and could get back into the cockpit. While I realize the FAA doesn’t often get an opportunity to make significant regulatory changes so they want to get it right, the longer this drags out, the less likely that folks like me will be able to get back into flying as an aircraft owner, and will end up spending money they would have spent on an airplane somewhere else.
As a 50-year-old Private Pilot that flies 80-100 hours a year in C172s and C182s (much of it cross country travel) with BasicMed, I see little difference safety wise between me and a driver’s license medical pilot.
Sounds like I am in the boat as you.I would like to fly again but no medical only driver pic. Hope they include the Grumman AA1C in the reclassification. Think they will?
Any feed back pls let know at PJSMINISTRY.billy@gmail.com
If your plane is under new weight limit, well happy flying, no different than Cessna 150, 172, Tri-Pacer, whatever it is.
Any discussion regarding training received from a CFI-S being credited towards a private pilot certificate (i.e. removing the requirement for the student to receive a sport certificate for their training to count).
I would suggest you contact Paul Hamilton with that inquiry. Use this link.
Dan, long time follower and admirer. You are the only reputable source on this major issue. I hope those of us who are Private Pilots exercising the Sport Pilot option, or those Sport Pilots who have logged a lot of hours, will be given the chance to fly larger and faster airplanes. I’m a Cardiologist and I cannot for the life of me know a case where a routine physical influenced a flight outcome; just too many variables. One thing that does correlate is experience, do you think the FAA will consider that?
Thanks for your very kind words, Gary. The division of FAA that will decide this is the group that deals with pilot licensing rather than aircraft certification. I believe that Sport Pilots will get the opportunity to fly larger and faster airplanes, but exactly how much larger or faster remains to be seen. I agree with you about the extremely low incidence of medically-related aviation accidents, but FAA appears closely attached to aviation medicals. To my knowledge, LSA, motorgliders, hot-air balloons, and Part 103 aircraft are the only ones exempted.
Gary what disqualifies a person with heart problems? I had to ask. I had triple bypas in 2001, had a stent put in doin great since then. I’m 74 and checked yearly last 5 yrs. Interested in Sport Pilot stuff. Got 700 hours in legacy planes.
If I were to buy an LSA compliant plane today, could it be upgraded to a LPA with the proper paperwork from the manufacture? I am looking at a Pipistrel that has to downgraded to meet current LSA rules so not fall into the very restrictive amateur classification. Unless I assemble it it my garage rather than having the factory do all the work of course. Equipment wise this would only be a propeller change. If a plane is born and LSA, must it always be an LSA?
You ask a question that is impossible to answer until FAA makes additional decisions. However, my speculation (and that’s all it is) is that going from an LSA to an LPA seems unlikely. However, going from a LSA with today’s weight limitations to an LSA with higher weight capability (determined by formula) seems quite possible.
If a manufacturer can declare compliance with ASTM standards that apply to LSA as they will be described — obviously not a completed project yet – then I suspect any manufacturer who can prove their aircraft can operate safely at a higher weight will be allowed to do so, so long as they stay within the boundaries established for LSA after 2023. LPA will be permitted higher weights plus other capabilities, but these will require a Private or better, probably with an aviation medical or BasicMed.
With the speed and weight increase is there any chance the Cirrus SR22 or SR20 may end up in the mix?
Until the new regulation is better defined, it is impossible to say for sure, but I think including SR20, much less SR22, is unlikely.
The SR 20 would satisfy me and I’m sure many others. My only concern with LSA is the weight, not the airplane but mine. I’m excited to see what happens.
Better defined? The reality is regulations just get messier and messier; and the FAA realizes this preferring their LODA letter of deviation authority methodology. Until the FAA actually starts reading and implementing the related case law of the US Constitution Commerce Clause; it will just keep getting messier. The FAA only has jurisdiction over safety according to the commerce clause and has never formally acknowledged these limits of their oversight.
And is long overdue. Safety, safety, safety; and nothing else. Please tell the FAA this.
I still don’t get how an LPA is different from an LSA. What are examples of an LPA that is not also an LSA?
LPA will generally be heavier and have features (probably) not permitted on LSA, such as retractable gear or four seats, although it is still too soon to know specifics.
Some readers anticipate being able to fly, for example, a Cessna 150, using a Sport Pilot certificate or the privileges of that certificate… specifically, no need for an aviation medical.
Okay, so we don’t know what a LPA is. Tnx. I couldn’t find the Power Index article. Can you provide a link?
Correct. We don’t know …YET.
The article with Power Index was linked but here it is — then scroll down to “Tech Talk.”
Sorry, I missed it. Thanks for the link.
I just finished the article. Informative.
Not your fault, but not very actionable for a current Private Pilot buyer looking to avoid [an aviation medical] and buy a LSA now. I’ve been hoping for more gross weight; lower initial cost, like a used GA plane… a C-150, for instance.
The article just put a crimp in my determination to go ahead and bite the bullet and order a new LSA with a delivery date of 12 months. The price differential between a new LSA and an acceptable used GA trainer is around $50k.
[That could calculate to] $166 per pound. That’s a lot to pay for maybe 300 pounds in gross weight.
I believe it would be wise to factor in relative resale prices in your calculating, but I take your point.
You are certainly not alone in hoping a legacy GA model could fit the new regulation such that you could use a Sport Pilot certificate or those privileges to fly one and in so doing spend less than a new LSA.
However, we have a growing fleet of used LSA at lower price points, which preserve all of the LSA benefits.
I hope retracts are allowed under LSA. Most of the great European planes I like that are amazingly efficient are doing 135-150 knots on a rotax 912 ULS at 4GPH…not possible without retracts
We still don’t know, but under the FAA mantra of keeping LSA “safe, simple, and easy to fly,“ I’d bet that retractable gear may be limited to LPA.
As to retractable being required for higher speeds, the Cirrus SR20 and SR22 seem to defy that statement (those models admittedly do use a more powerful engine but some of that merely carries more weight).
Never underestimate clever engineers.
Understood.
But any increase in the pool of used airplanes, by moving the entry point for LSA, will dilute the value of used LSA, already crippled by weight restrictions, in a larger pool of basic used airplanes.
Why not a mid-time engined C-150 that can be tied down outside rather than an Aerotrek A240 or Bushcat that has to be hangered to preserve the cloth? Add $10,000 in avionics to the Cessna; save the difference in cost between the two as well as $300/m difference in storage.
New regs will probably, as in my case, damage new sales of LSAs as well.
By my lights if buying new, the best solution for hedging the coming change in regs would be to buy an intentionally crippled LSA, like the six-cylinder Jabiru D240.
Dan:
Thank you for all the updates for the future LPA aircraft certification and rules. I asked the following questions directly to Icon and never received a reply. I thought maybe you may know the answers:
1. Icon A5 online specs indicate that it has a maximum takeoff weight of 1,510 pounds. That was after FAA granted Icon an increase of 80 pounds above the max for LSA. However, FAA Exemption 10829, updated to 10829A and 10829B on 6/22/2018 granted an increased maximum takeoff weight of 1,680 pounds. However, I cannot see that weight in any of Icon’s advertising or marketing material. Any idea if a higher level pilot certificate or certain equipment is required to get to that weight limit?
2. I believe maximum takeoff weight are prevented from operating in IMC. Does that mean that if I am current as an ATP that I cannot file an IFR flight plan while piloting the A5? Would that also mean that I could not operate in IMC?
3. Would any of your answers change if I purchased the A5 with the upgraded Garmin A3X Touch with two-axis Autopilot and the Garmin GMC 507 Control Panel?
Thank You!
Of course, I cannot speak for Icon, however, here are my comments.
1. A5 was initially designed for the 1,430 pound weight limit that applies to a LSA seaplane. When that wasn’t enough to include what they wanted, they successfully met an FAA suggestion to demonstrate a spin-resistant airframe to FAA’s satisfaction. In so doing they were granted extra weight, but A5 was already designed and flying so Icon apparently used what they needed and did not bulk up the design simply because a federal agency allowed them more weight. *** The pilot certificate is not an issue in this. A Sport Pilot certificate holder can still fly an A5 as it remains an LSA and is not an LPA.
2. Maximum takeoff weight has nothing to do with IFR flight or flight into IMC. Your pilot certificate level is also not a factor in this. Note that ASTM volunteers are back working on an IFR standard for LSA.
3. That Garmin equipment may help you but it does not change the current prohibition on IFR as an ASTM standard is not yet complete for IFR flight in LSA. Once the ballot is complete (I don’t know when this may happen), FAA will have to accept the standard. They have always done so, but this time could be different.
Thanks for the reply Dan. I just need a little more clarification. I understand that Icon uses the extra 80 pounds to get their A5 to 1,510 pounds, but what confuses me is that if they were granted the increase to 1,680 pounds under 10829B, why aren’t they using it in their marketing materials, especially considering its spin resistance, parachute, and AOA indicator. That would increase its useful load from 430 pounds to 600 pounds. I misspoke using the term MTOW. What I meant to say was Sport Pilots aren’t currently authorized IFR flight. However, you explained that LSA (aircraft) are not authorized IFR flight or IMC. Did I get that right?
FAA granted Icon additional weight but it was not necessarily what A5 engineers sought. I believe they used the weight they needed and chose not to overload the airframe, but that is my speculation and you should go directly to the company with your question.
Regarding flight into IFR or IMC, ASTM is working on an IFR standard and when that is complete I believe the door could open for a qualified pilots. Until then, and with a new regulation drawing close, I would not expect other movement.
Any news on four-seat LSA? I’m a Sport Pilot but would love the chance to fly four seaters.
What you are asking is a pilot licensing or operational question. How this will play out is not yet known but based on recent exchanges, flying with four persons on board may require a Private Pilot certificate or better.
Being able to fly a four seat airplane would be great!
All you have to do is the small amount of effort to upgrade from Sport Pilot…
Mr. Marinshaw, I urge you to go look at the used Cessna 172 market and the used Piper Cherokee market. You can find these used aircraft for $20,000 to $40,000; and if you know what you are looking at; especially the log books and how well used type certificated aircraft are maintained; you can get the best deal of your life; no kidding!! Check it out. I have had two used Cessna 172s and have actively watched the Piper Cherokee market also. All great aircraft; if you check their log books and make a good inspections so you do not buy a dog. You know there are dogs everywhere; but they can be avoided with scrutiny. One other consideration is ownership. Always use a title search company and get title insurance so a lien holder does not pop out of the weeds demanding money. And it is always good to hire an AI to inspect the aircraft; and an annual inspection though pricier, is probably first choice to insure an airworthy aircraft; not missing anything.
Having flown for over 50 years; staying away from airports is job one; too crowded and way too many rules. Which means the only aircraft for me is the Opener BlackFly evtol LSA currently; which I should be able to operate out of my garage and takeoff from my street. My street has no trees and no wires and sees maybe 2 autos an hour on it; a near perfect VTOL location. Having been to Opener’s face book page; the non pilots there are actually scary. I am thinking the BlackFly will require a pilot license even though it will be LSA or LPA; so pilots have been trained on how to obtain a clearance to enter class B airspace and tower airspace; unless their avionics package does it for them automatically; which I believe is possible now. But no one appears to be talking about this. I have tried corresponding with the FAA Flight Standards in LA and Oakland on the Opener BlackFly to get a status report since Opener will not issue current information to anyone. And since former Opener President Ben Diachun went to Hyundai air mobility; I tried to get Hyundai to say if they would purchase Opener or license the right to build the Blackfly. Nothing of use from Hyundai. Lots of irrelevant talk and little action now for at least 4 years; just ugly. Any chance of lighting a fire under the FAA? To get this done. Meaning talk to your Congressman. The BlackFly has over 31,000 flying hours on it; so is a proven LSA evtol; or the FAA and\or the Opener attorneys appear to be the problem currently. As a public entity, it is the FAA responsibility to keep the public informed and they have not on LSAs generally; if you read the FAA website looking for LSA information.
So, I received a response from the Oakland FSDO. They have not received anything on the Opener Blackfly and referred me to the San Jose, California FSDO. I did not know there is a San Jose FSDO. Also meaning to me; only the Associate Administrator of Flight Standards knows what is going on with the Opener BlackFly in addition to the San Jose FSDO. The San Jose FSDO was not listed on the list of FSDOs I found, meaning I must figure out who is the Associate Administrator of Flight Standards. If anyone knows, please forward that info to email: tdwelander@gmail.com. Thanks.
Thank you for the update. Any word on possible inclusion of vintage aircraft? It would be a big help for those of us having difficulty getting parts.
The current certification of any aircraft — legacy GA, kit-built, or vintage — should have little bearing on the question of using a Sport Pilot certificate to fly it (implying drivers license medical). The main criteria will be whether it fits the parameters as described for LSA in 2024. If a vintage meets those parameters, I think it is reasonable to expect it could be flown with the Sport Pilot certificate.
Allow me to clarify. It would be nice to have an option to put vintage aircraft in the ELSA category for maintenance purposes. I heard talk along those lines in the past regarding MOSAIC. Might this be a possibility?
If you maintaining a vintage aircraft is a primary goal, then a more direct path would be to acquire Experimental status, which may be possible. No path to ELSA exists as an SLSA must precede an ELSA.
Sure would be nice if the FAA would look at the Primary Non-Commercial category that they proposed themselves in the 2013 ARC report. Basically, it would allow most light aircraft to be reclassified in the PNC category, which would allow some level of upgrade/modification without formal approval, provide a means similar to Light Sport Repairman for maintenance, and not require an IA for the condition inspection.
Or better yet, a way to just permanetly transition older GA aircraft to some form of Experimental status similar to homebuilts.
I have heard that they are considering some changes to/relaxation of the 51% rule for E-AB; we’ll see what happens there.
I think our neighbors to the North have a workable solution. Would like to see that here.
Hi Dan,
I am LSRM, thank you Brian and Carol Carpenter. With the new LPA will there be just an add-on or is it going to be more like an A&P course?
What the FAA will do about maintenance of LPA is yet to be decided. However, since they appear headed toward using regular A&Ps, the question remains about what Rainbow Aviation will supply for training. Another area in great need of training will be for electric propulsion or hybrid power systems, which neither A&Ps nor LSRMs know today. I have spoken with Carol Carpenter about these changes. She and Brian are well aware and are contemplating plans.
Any guess as to when the new rules may be finalized?
As the article noted, I would not expect the NPRM until approximately Oshkosh 2022. The rule is unlikely to be finished before December 31, 2023.
I’m so relieved that the LSA category will be expanded at least somewhat
Even adding one or two hundred pounds to MTOW would make a big difference in their practicality
Where did you get this new information if you don’t mind me asking?
All the clarified information came from very recent one to-one discussions with people at ASTM and FAA. The material was reviewed by multiple entities. However, as mentioned many times, this regulation is only at the deliberation stage and is not complete.
An excellent clarification Dan. Thanks again for all your work. There is hope after all.
Blessings to all.
What about Sport Pilots performing preventative maintainence on there own aircraft?
With training, that is possible now and the same opportunity will continue.
Please excuse my ignorance but how can I be trained to do preventative naintainence on my aircraft without being countersigned by my IA.
Your question depends on what certification your airplane has. If it is a standard airworthiness certificate (a conventionally-certified GA aircraft, for example), then it must be maintained by an A&P with IA oversight. Owners may do some work under supervision.
However, if your question relates to a Light-Sport Aircraft, you can take training to do basic things in a weekend, or take a longer course to do significant maintenance.
Dan, not exactly correct. The owner/operator of a standard airworthiness aircraft can do 32 items of preventive maintenance without supervision. See Part 43 Appendix D.
Must hold any pilot certificate other than Student or Sport Pilot.
It would be wonderful to see LPA’s regulatory adoption given the possibilities enumerated above but with FAA’s glacial speed and apparent focus being CYA I’m not holding my breath. It seems that FAA rules change takes so long because they can’t/won’t be instituted until the change proposers can be protected from criticism and consequences by their retirement.
I got excited a few years ago when, disappointed with schedule/performance of some local A&P shops, I found that a nearby community college offered A&P training at low cost. Then I learned that in accordance with FAA requirements the course required two years of continuous twenty-four month, five days a week, seven hours a day attendance with my Air Force mechanic’s training and about 50 years engineering experience counting for exactly zero. I was advised that the FAA training requirements were undergoing review and might be relaxed in perhaps five years or so – after already having been in consideration for the preceding 10-15 years. So much for that idea.
Having been trained for PPL in C172s LSA’s limitations on weight, low and high speeds, high lift devices, and propeller pitch control seem arbitrary and have never made sense to me, and reminding me of the old engineer’s complaint about management, “Logic will not be tolerated.”. If LSA was intended to induce interest in aviation and lower the cost bar for ownership, the impact of the price/performance compromises seem to outweigh conventional used certificated aircraft acquisition/ownership costs. LSA’s low weight limit demands compromises of structure against useful load. The limitations on high lift devices and stall speed require a W/S of about 10 consequently providing little more than a potentially rougher ride and exciting cross wind landings at the expense of cruise efficiency. The limitations on high speed and propeller control disfavor/disallow efficiency. I’ve learned from my time in C182 that the propeller pitch/RPM control needs little more attention than the carburetor’s heat control. Aside from its climb and cruise benefits the controllable prop in fine pitch provides additional drag when needed for an approach that might be just a little too fast or a just little too high and it’s right nice to have for go-arounds. It seemed that the best possibilities for LSA, like Basic Med, were regulated away.
I’m left with hope for favorable LPA rules and that my expectations are wrong but what I’ve seen so far and being 76 years of age I expect to be pushing up daisies before they are adopted and effectuated.
Mr. Swindle, I recommend you correspond with your FSDO. Previous experience that is equivalent to an A&P and is documented for the FAA is useable as A&P experience I believe. The FSDO should be able to provide you with the correct form or forms for documenting equivalent experience. If not, the FAA administrator or associate administrator can create an equivalency form; though I am reasonably certain it already exists. Having gone through the written and oral A&P testing as a young person; it was not difficult as a young person. I mention this because the oral and written testing for an A&P License is the hard part; not the experience. Experience is taking orders from a boss. Testing means you are forced to think for your self. And the FAA is well aware of this. Why your related experience would be acceptable to the FAA. Some licensing jurisdictions allowing licensing on documented time only in a particular trade only; A&P in this case; if it is possible for A&P licensing. Considering the experience you have listed; I believe if you document this experience for the FAA; they will issue you an A&P license on that experience only; just estimating based on my past experience with the FAA. And it follows from other forms of licensing. Or this would be another possibility that the FAA administrator could allow or sign off on; providing you an A&P license. Ask your FSDO. Bottom line: no one wants to withhold an A&P license from you; especially the FAA if you have documented your equivalency. Except the probability is you will need to be tested in airframes and power plants. Though I believe a waiver of testing is possible with enough documented experience. Again, ask your FSDO.
Awesome news!
Big hand Dan!
Is there anything in sight that bumps up the rules for ultralight aircraft to higher weight limit or other parameter increases?
Presuming you mean Part 103 ultralights, the answer is NO. This has been debated for literally decades and every time it comes up the best advice is don’t ask for any change, because you will not be happy with the result. The 1982 rule that created 103 aircraft is so simple, it would not survive in today’s more highly-regulated environment.
More specifically, the whole construct of part 103 is contrary to statute. Part 103 gets around the pilot certification issue by describing ultralights as vehicles rather than aircraft. If part 103 were re-examined, there would be hard time making the argument that a 5 pound drone is an aircraft but a 254 pound ultralight isn’t.
There’s a reason why nothing in part 103 has been touched since 1982.
I don’t know about the rest of you but that threat makes my blood boil; this is still America…
How will the medical issue play in the new LSA (I assume drivers license still acceptable) and LPA where you imply additional pilot training or ratings will be required?
I have never heard anything to say drivers license medical for LSA will change (that’s some great news!). For LPA outside of the LSA definition, I think it’s very unlikely they will go with drivers license medical. This was a heavy lift for LSA 17 years ago.
What are the chances a private pilot…. Flying under LSA rules without a medical be allowed to fly a LPA without a medical? The reason being a Private Pilot has received more training than a LSA pilot.
The greater experienced of a pilot, indicated by a higher level certificate, has no relation to their physical health. As to your main question, it’s simply too early to know but based on historical precedent, I am not optimistic.
Hi Dan, how is it looking for LSA for a Cessna 172?
A Cessna 172 may possibly fit but that’s close to a doubling of weight.
It would be a game changer. I am considering starting training right now and looking at options. Most flight schools in my area have almost exclusively 172s. Some flight schools only have 172s. The ability to fly 172s would definitely make the Sport pilot license much more accessible and simpler, which I believe was the purpose from the very beginning…
Thanks for all your work discussing with the FAA. If you have a chance to make them consider changing the rules so a 172 would fit as an LSA, that would be really great. Or even totally awesome.
Thanks for all the work to make positive improvements for our community!
This does nothing to correct the lack of 87 knot two seat trainers that were banned in 2004. No affordable light sport instruction or intro rides are available within a 100 miles or perhaps the whole state of Washington. Arlington Fly-in had 160 based, all gone at last fly-in in 2019. The old smaller Rotax engines are gone.
This top heavy rule with no affordable improvement is a complete disappointment.
I understand your sentiment, Bill, and I agree that equipment and personnel to train in sub-87 knot aircraft are too rare. However, some choices in sub-87 trainers are available, for example, Quicksilver, M-Squared, Hawk.
The 87 kt rule is really not an issue and the purpose of it being there makes no sense. You can do your training in an LSA that has a Vh of greater than 87 and just get a logbook endorsement from the instructor. Refer to 61.327(b).
Yes, but affordable kits are not available.
I have an old Avid kit that I could finish and give instruction in. But it isn’t possible, even with my commercial rating.
Don’t change FAR 103 but instead make another division with LSA or LPA just above FAR103.
Will the Evektor Cobra be an LSA under the power index? If so, sign me up right nowwww
Based on an earlier look at Cobra, I would say no, but this thing is not done yet. Such matters hinge more on pilot licensure than aircraft descriptions.
Thanks for the clarification Dan…
Any word on the power index number, still throwing around a 1.2?
Yes, but not all is decided yet.
Is it possible we see things like retractable gear (with an additional endorsement perhaps) or even night privilege’s (with an additional endorsement?)
That will depend on Flight Standards, the pilot license people inside FAA. Endorsements are used in LSA already, so possibly…
Dan, really appreciate the update and clarification! And, that does sound quite a bit more positive!
Great work, Dan. You and Roy have done more than anyone could have asked of you advance this process and keep us informed. Don’t give up now!
Thanks, Ed. We’re in too deep to give up. 😎
Hopefully, a RV9-A might fall into a LSA “power index…”
It already does with a small enough motor, someone at south Lakeland built one very light with a 118hp motor and successfully got it signed off by a DAR as an E-LSA
Well, technically an RV-9 cannot be a ELSA because an SLSA version does not exist, which is a requirement (an SLSA must come first). However, it is a kit-built airplane that a Sport Pilot can fly. The same will be true in the new regulation.
So potentially I can build the RV9 or Bearhawk Companion.
Presuming this question means build those airplanes and then fly them with a Sport Pilot certificate, the answer is a conditional yes. Please remember this is a work in process.
The new explanation certainly gives Sport Pilots a sense of relief that we may see higher weight limits, etc. Hopefully they will also address more speed as well for Sport Pilot licensees
George, don’t you think your Zenith already has all the speed and weight you can handle? 😉
possibly Paul…at times an ultralight may be too much plane for me
Retractable gear? Speed increases? In the LSA category? Any word?
Speed and weight both hinge significantly on Power Index. Retractable is in the plan but perhaps only for LPA. This is more a matter of pilot certification and another division within FAA is working on this. Remember, this is a work-in-progress.
What about speed for Sport Pilots?
Speed will also hang on Power Index but further clarification on speeds must come later.
Well! I am pleased to hear that LSA will be expanded in some shape or form. I still have to come up with the money for a new plane. Lol! Thank you for the update!