At the season-ending DeLand Showcase 2021, I gave a keynote address on Saturday attended by airplane owners and sellers.
This is a slightly more condensed version of the talk I gave at the Midwest LSA Expo. Even if you’ve seen that video — part of this article, or seen on Dave Loveman’s YouTube channel — this one covers the material in a different way.
Since the video below is only 35 minutes, this one can get you up-to-date quicker than the other, hour-long videos I’ve done on this important topic.
Every time I post about this subject, interest has been very strong, so going over the material again is worthwhile. At the end you’ll hear questions from the audience that are the same as I hear over and again — training questions, inquiries about speed increases, and questions about whether a Sport Pilot can fly general aviation airplanes.
Let’s Review…
Below you will see an information-packed slide that was shown as part of a presentation from FAA. The slide is only one of several FAA presented but this one has so much detail that it is worth reviewing again. Discussing this slide before the group at DeLand, I pointed out a few things in the video, such as:
- Will LSA gain additional capabilities such as weight, speed, capacity, extra seats, retractable gear, in-flight adjustable props and more? Which of the new aircraft will Sport Pilots be allowed to fly? Answers are hinted but another division inside FAA called Flight Standards will decide.
- “Rotorcraft” will be included. This suggests gyroplanes — finally to be approved as fully-built aircraft — but the term rotorcraft can imply accommodations for helicopters, too.
- Aircraft that have received weight exemptions should no longer have to rely on exemptions. Those increased weights may now be incorporated into the regulation so the exemptions (intended as a short-term fix) can be ended.
- New powerplant options will arrive in concert with the capabilities mentioned above.
- A homebuilt sector with “greater range” is expected and with that a formalization of the professional build center concept that has been ongoing for some time.
- The Big One — All these changes are subject to a mantra: Keep Light-Sport Aircraft “light and docile.” What does that mean, exactly? In the video I touched on this several times. FAA wants industry and the flying community to define this. That means extra work for ASTM volunteers but permits us, the recreational flying community, to make decisions.
I’m pleased about much of what FAA proposes. These things have a way of changing in unexpected directions but since I’ve been listening to these rule writers for several years, I’ve gained confidence that most of the changes will be well received by pilots and manufacturers alike.
A Caution — Everything stated in the video or in these articles is subject to further interpretation and change. Until the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) is released — I’m betting this will happen at AirVenture 2022 — everything here is “informed speculation.” Follow the conversation, yes, but expect changes.
Now… let’s get right to the video…
In the talk I often referred to the “training problem” and “LODAs,” or Letters of Deviation Authority. For more on this subject, have a look at this article with video created by my advocacy partner, Roy Beisswenger, or this earlier report as the problem emerged.
It seem quite simple to me, why don’t they treat SPLand Basic Med like a recreational PPL? No medical needed, training needed for controlled air space, IFR, and night flying, and you fly most planes with passengers (not for hire) as long as you are trained. The ONLY time you should need a medical is if you want to become a CFI or commercial pilot! There see how simple that is?
Some one stated on another site that the only change being considered is an increase of 500 pounds. Has anyone heard that?
No one outside FAA knows any wording for sure but I believe that quote is in error. Several conversations with FAA personnel this week gives assurance we are still on track as previously reported.
I will have a further report on Mosaic plans.
Hi Dan,
I’m sure you have seen this, but I just saw it for the first time today. It’s an announcement of ASTM acceptance by the FAA. I know this is a good thing. Do you think this will help MOSAIC get ready any quicker?
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2022-0217-0001
==================================================================================
Summary
This document announces ASTM International (ASTM) consensus standards for use as a means of compliance to the applicable airworthiness standards for normal category airplanes. The FAA accepts ASTM Designation F3264-21 as a means of compliance for applicable airworthiness standards for normal category airplanes, with the changes identified in Table 1 of this document. For ease of use, Table 2 provides a side-by-side view, linking applicable regulations to the associated ASTM sections.
Dates
The FAA accepts the means of compliance effective March 11, 2022.
This is actually a very routine announcement. The process of industry consensus standards means an industry group (ASTM subcommittee F37 for Light-Sport Aircraft) creates a standard, ballots it to a successful conclusion, and submits it to the FAA for what’s called a Notice of Availability. This is the way every standard applying to LSA has been approved and such acceptance by FAA can happen several times a year if sufficient new ballots are completed.
However, ASTM has been the best informed group about MOSAIC because F37 committee members need to know what’s coming if they are to write standards that will be ready when the rule is released.
I did not see any mention of this, but I hope one day Sport Pilots can do additional training to be able to fly at night with an endorsement – that would be amazing!
Dan, I submitted a waiver request to the FAA back in July 2021. 2021-FAA-0647. The waiver request was on part 103.15; no flight in congested areas for an Opener BlackFly because the BlackFly has a wing span of 13″ 7″ or is a roadable aircraft even though it has no wheels; takes off/lands vertically. I pointed out the difference between NTSB/FAA accidents and NTHSA accident statistics; aircraft are up to 3 times safer than autos. And the fact that all metro areas, not only in the US; but worldwide have daily traffic jams going and coming. And that commerce can not be blocked by anyone, including government. No response to any of these considerations to operate a BlackFly as an auto above any road. I made the request as an experienced pilot with around 1000 flying hours; thinking this would create an easy way for the FAA; only experienced pilots. An associate administrator provided a detailed history of part 103 without addressing what I wrote. I ended up with email correspondence with DOT; who have quit the correspondence. I realize I can take the FAA to court; and may do so some time in the future if I can not get this waiver from them. I would prefer to find a pathway with the FAA other than a court action if at all possible. Any suggestions? Or referrals at the FAA? The FAA is unlawful in this instance and getting them to see the light has so far been beyond challenging. Opener has over 35,000 test flying hours on the BlackFly and a triple redundant software control system. Nothing safer in my experience; which leaves me mystified at the FAA intransigence. Parking a BlackFly in my garage and leaving/returning from my driveway should be the same as any auto, truck, RV, ATV, or motorcycle. The unlawfulness of this discrimination against the BlackFly staggers me. Discrimination against using 3 dimensions in 2 dimensional locations is highly unlawful. It looks like, in 50 years we will be calling all of the people who got in the way of this as backward or backward thinking. The noise level of the BlackFly is better or lower than most 2D vehicles. Instead of a waiver; if I showed up at Oshkosh Airventure and request the same as a LODA; do you think the FAA at Airventure would issue a LODA for this?
Looking at your final question, I cannot answer anything on behalf of FAA. However, many other people before you have tried to request alterations to Part 103. None have succeeded. Indeed, you may have notice me writing many times that we are better off not trying to change that rule because it is FAA’s simplest, least intrusive regulation. Any single change in it now would likely result in it becoming much more complicated and restrictive. You may not have been asking to change the basic regulation but your specific request conflicts with the portion of the regulation talking about congested areas, I suspect.
Dan, So I went through part 91 and found 91.905 List of rules subject to waivers which included 91.125 Operations in class G airspace and 91.127 Operations in class E airspace. And 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General and (b) over congested areas; altitude minimum 1000′ and 2000′ horizontal. And 91.137 Temporary flight restrictions. All of these are subject to potential waivers is the way I read 91.905. Following the LODA form instructions; I made a submission to the Minneapolis FSDO for a sign off on an Opener Blackfly LODA. This appears equivalent in every way to a waiver to me. Or no need for a waiver with a LODA sign off. Any idea how long the FSDO director or his/her designee will take to sign off on my Opener Blackfly LODA? My assumption is the FSDO director will turn it over to a DER (designated engineering reviewer?) for review and a sign off. Suggesting it could take a month to get a signed LODA returned by email, per LODA instructions. So, if I do not receive a response in a month from the FSDO office; I should start calling to get an answer? Thanks for your past and future responses. Does it matter which FSDO I make the request? If I get ignored at the Minneapolis FSDO, like the waiver; (I am assuming a work black log) going to the Chicago FSDO should be an option or to any other FSDO, San Jose, CA, FSDO, where Opener is located? As a professional electrical engineer; any DER should sign off on my BlackFly LODA request based on my engineering licenses. Meaning I know what I am doing more so than most. Your input requested. I live in class G airspace just outside a class E airspace airport. And as a licensed commercial pilot with instrument rating and an A&P; my training should make the BlackFly LODA sign off possible? Where I live, Chisholm, MN, is basically a resort and mining community with ATVs, motorcycles, and snowmobiles everywhere depending on the time of year. Why a BlackFly LODA should get a sign off. A day does not go by without some type of recreational vehicle whizzing by. Speed limit be dammed. Police do occasionally stop these people.
Dan, you are one of the best, if not the best advocate for Sport Pilots. I am an aging aviator, Commercial Pilot/A&P and have no desire to get a medical. I currently own a Kitfox and hope to switch over to a simple Cessna 150 in 2024 to conduct Sport Pilot training. What is the likelihood that the trusty old C150 will be included in the new definition and fall under the LSA rule?
As always, thanks a million for your hard work and advocacy!
As that article projects, I’d say a high likelihood for a C-150/152 and several others to be included as aircraft in which a Sport Pilot could train and fly. While they are much cheaper to buy, they will be more expensive to maintain and they may lack what new pilots seek in training, specifically how to operate digital instruments. Still in all, this regulation could help grow aviation and that’s seems worthy to me.
Thanks for your kind words about my advocacy for affordable aviation.
Dan, I have been flying both a Cessna-150 and Cessna-172. The 172 has upgraded avionics; no steam tube instruments. To me, the 172 is what flying an airliner must be; very boring. Steam tube instruments forever; thank you very much. The 150 is still fun. The 172; not, not not.
Most of the discussion revolves around expanding the definition of LSA separate from the Sport Pilot limitations. The slide makes that separation explicit. It isn’t at all clear from the slide or video that Sport Pilots will have access to aircraft with expanded gross weight and performance parameters.
I agree that the development of aircraft (LSA) is distinct from the pilot certification (Sport Pilot). The group working on the pilot certification (Flight Standards) have been less forthcoming than the group that deals with aircraft certification. We will know more when they release the NPRM, which I predict will be an Oshkosh 2022, only months away.
Thanks for the update Dan – it is encouraging, and regulatory change to expand Sport Pilot’s freedoms can’t come soon enough. Of course, the definition of what people consider “affordable” varies widely. For me, a used $35K Cessna 150 or a $45K Piper Cherokee 140 are affordable, but a new $150-200k 2-seat SLSA is not, and I have neither the time nor the interest to build my own ELSA. I thought that making entry-level planes more affordable through mass production to get more pilots flying was the original purpose of the LSA movement? What we ended up is a bunch of boutique manufactures each offering SLSA that appeal to someone who might otherwise buy a sportscar in the same price range.
Also, I can’t think of any light plane that I’ve flown that has more docile, benign and stable handing characteristics than any Cessna 172 model from the early 1970s, so I think this represents a conservative upper-bound category that the FAA may approve to be flown with a Sport Pilot license. I definitely plan to submit a public comment on the NPRM when it is published.
“No longer limited to what sport pilots may operate” sounds to me like they are hinting that sport pilots won’t be able to make use of the new rule. Do you think it means this as well?
Yes, it could mean that but I believe their point on the slide (this came via the Aircraft Certification group, not the pilot certificate and operations Flight Standards group) is that LSA will be larger, probably faster, have higher weights, and other qualities that MAY require additional training. However, it is my hope that FAA Flight Standards may allow a Sport Pilot to increase what he or she can fly with added training and possibly just a logbook endorsement of such. Fingers crossed. Get ready to respond.
My fingers are crossed but my pessimism tells me that nothing will change for me as a sport pilot. I’d be more than happy to get extra training but passing a medical is a no-go for me. And rest assured I’ll give them feedback when they publish the NPRM.
I do have a little optimism about the medical side because Flight Standards is seeing that BasicMed is not causing planes to fall from the sky so I think there’s a chance that they’ll relax the medical requirement for LSA 2.0 aircraft.
Dan, will you or someone from the MOSAIC team be at Sun n Fun in April 2022 to discus any new development in the last few months?
I cannot speak for the Mosaic team but I doubt they will publicly discuss anything while they are actively working on the regulation. I have no plans to give any talks but I will report news on this website as it becomes known.
Hello Dan
Any changes to the Motorglider area?
Light aircraft of all types will be affected, some more than others.
When can a Piper Tomahawk fly light sport?
Presuming you meant when can someone using Sport Pilot privileges fly a Tomahawk (it will never be a Light-Sport Aircraft), that’s one legacy GA aircraft that should make the new definition… so the answer is, possibly some time after the start of 2024.
Hello Dan
Do you see any changes to Motorglider ?
Presuming you mean LSA motorglider, they will enjoy some of the same new possibilities, but otherwise should not change too much.
Hi Dan. I am ATP rated [and have] never [been] denied an FAA medical. I have a current flight review and own a Piper Tomahawk. When do you think I will be able to fly this aircraft.
Assuming Tomahawk fits the new regulation, as it appears it could, you’ll have to wait until 2024.
Dan,
Your expertise allowed me to make the right decision when I looked at aircraft. I, along with Midwest Skysports, are thoroughly enjoying a TAF Sling 2 that helps me get my butt in the air and provides a very stable platform for students.
Thank You
Mark Logsdon (Sport Pilot)
I’m so pleased you felt I provided good information but more importantly that it resulted in a great purchase. The Airplane Factory is most definitely a company I keep a close eye on; those people are always up to something good, it seems. Fly safely and enjoy!
Thank you Dan for keeping this segment of GA up to date on this important rule making.
Thanks, Sue! As you know better than almost anyone, this is a process, not the conclusion.
Thank You Dan for keeping us less knowledgeable pilots up to snuff on whats going on. You make this stuff easier to understand.