Whenever I write about FAA’s Mosaic regulation, especially when I mentioned the date they predicted, a substantial percentage of all readers shrug this off, believing that FAA will never complete it on time.
What if I told you they were ahead of schedule? Is that an unbelievable claim? Perhaps, but the proof is right here, right now! Can’t wait? Check the link below.
Consider the following communication from the ASTM committee working on LSA standards. In case you don’t know what that is, ASTM is an industry standards group that operates privately, creating and getting agreement on standards used by FAA to accept Light-Sport Aircraft into the aviation fleet. (This is different than conventional FAA “certification.”)
BIG MOSAIC NEWS
Honestly, from almost the beginning, FAA has moved faster than most of us imagined. At EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2022 FAA announced they would remove the drone portion of Mosaic, which was delaying the overall regulation as that community works out their issues. FAA officials said removing all that language could take some months. In fact, it was done in a few weeks. That told me something. Once the internal or procedural impediments to progress are removed, the Mosaic team can move swiftly.
Then-Acting FAA Administrator Billy Nolen asked his head of safety, David Boulter, to address Mosaic at AirVenture 2022.
Yes, I wrote that — FAA moved swiftly.
The FAA official I videoed last year at AirVenture claimed that the regulation would be ready by August 2023. Days later, still at AirVenture, other FAA officials said about him, “Oh, he’s usually rather optimistic.” They were implying it might not happen by that date. Maybe they were trying to allow some wiggle room?
Later, when I reported the official’s “August 2023” statement and gave talks referencing it, I would estimate a third of all those listening or reading doubted FAA would meet their own deadline. The belief isn’t all wrong; FAA has missed deadlines before.
One thing no one thought: FAA would complete the thing ahead of schedule.
Now, hear this…
“[ASTM] received this communication this morning — Wednesday, July 19, 2023 — from Jim Newberger, who is the FAA lead for the MOSAIC rule development (officially his position is: Production & Airworthiness Section; AIR-632; Aircraft Certification Service).
This is exciting news and will definitely impact, positively, our discussions,” stated leaders of the ASTM committee for LSA, Rian Johnson and Adam Morrison.
Leaders encouraged F37 committee members (more than 200 persons around the world), “Once the NPRM is posted (see below!), if you have available time, please try to review as much as you can and capture your questions/comments for group discussion next week [at AirVenture 2023 meetings]. These are generally pretty lengthy documents. We’ll all be freshly digesting the NPRM, so everyone’s perspectives and interpretations will be important to help bring clarity as quickly as possible.”
From FAA’s official lead…
“I wanted to let you know that the Office of the Federal Register is scheduled to:
- Post the related “MOSAIC” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for “display” today at approximately 1115 ET.
- Publish this NPRM in the Federal Register on Monday (July 24, 2023).
“After the above milestones, you may use the following info to search/locate the NPRM on Regulations.gov:
- Document 2023-14425, Category PROPOSED RULES
- Docket Id is Docket No.: FAA-2023-1377; Notice No. 23-10
- Rulemaking Identification Number (RIN) is 2120-AL50
- The subject of this document is Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification
- The submitting Agency is (FAA) Federal Aviation Administration
Feel free to share this information with the F37 committee and take advantage of opportunities explained in Monday’s publication for providing comments.”
Message for Readers!
I know this material will not digest easily but it affects your future of flying. I hope many of you will read the NPRM, discuss it among your pilot friends, and think about how you will offer responses to this rule. You should have at least 90 days to comment.
Thanks to longtime F37 committee member Anna Mracek Dietrich, checking this out got much easier. Here you go…
Click or tap image to go directly to FAA’s Mosaic PDF.
Happy Reading! It runs 318 pages.
Click or tap the nearby NPRM graphic or this link: Mosaic NPRM
Hi Dan,
My main concerns for MOSAIC are:
1. A path to Basic Med for those that never had a medical.
2. An endorsement that allows Sport Pilot IFR.
I would also like there to be only two classes of license:
A. Non-commercial
B. Commercial
All priveledges of each would be via endorsements. This would allow a new person to begin at the basic level and work up to the full current PP level.
Is this detailed enough for the comments or should I add some rationale?
Andy, you should provide some added rationale. You are stating what you want, and that’s fine, but you need to make it convincing to those who would consider it. Personally, I think FAA should back off the medical unless they can prove safety is preserved by requiring pilots to have such. A Sport Pilot IFR rating seems very unlikely to me, but it’s certainly worthy of a request. I imagine Flight Standards would require all the same training as for a Private getting an IFR yet I don’t see a large difference between the two, assuming full IFR training was taken by a Sport Pilot.
As to your two classes classes of licenses, I don’t see that one going anywhere. I would focus on the former.
ALL READERS — THIS IS A LONG COMMENT BUT IT IS WELL CONSIDERED AND READERS MAY WISH TO SEE IT —Dan
I realize the following is a bit long, but I want to make sure what I submit makes sense and is clearly enough written. I also am submittingit here because in my opinion, you are one of the most knowledgable people out there on this topic. I welcome comments from others also. Thank you so much for your assistance with this.
===================================
Comments on the MOSAIC NPRM
Why a third class medical should not be required.
1. Medical conditions can develop and change rapidly, meaning a medical exam taken months in advance may not accurately reflect a pilot’s current health status.
– Medical conditions can develop or worsen rapidly, which can affect the pilot’s ability to fly safely.
– Pilots may not be aware of underlying medical conditions or health changes until symptoms arise, making it difficult to accurately report to medical examiners.
– Even if a pilot is aware of their medical condition, they may try to continue flying without reporting it to the medical examiner to avoid losing their status to fly.
2. The exam is conducted by a single medical examiner, whose opinion may not always be consistent or objective.
– Medical examiners may have different levels of training, experience, or subjective criteria, leading to inconsistency in evaluations.
– Medical examiners may have their own biases or interests, leading them to overlook certain medical conditions or symptoms.
– Medical examiners may be under pressure to pass pilots to maintain relationships with them or avoid negative consequences from regulatory bodies.
3. The medical exam only considers the physical health of the pilot and does not address mental health, which can also impact a pilot’s ability to safely operate an aircraft.
– Mental health can affect cognitive processes, decision-making, and behavior, all of which are critical for safe flying.
– Mental health conditions may not be apparent during a physical exam and may require specialized evaluation and treatment.
– Pilots may not report mental health issues due to the stigma or concerns about consequences on their certification.
4. The exam only assesses the pilot’s ability to perform routine tasks and does not consider their ability to handle emergency situations or unexpected events that require quick decision-making.
– Flying can involve unexpected and high-pressure situations, such as severe weather or equipment malfunctions, which require high-level decision-making and problem-solving.
– Performance under normal conditions may not reflect a pilot’s ability to handle these emergency situations.
– Additional training that focuses on emergency situations and decision-making under pressure can better prepare pilots for unexpected events.
– Flight simulation training can simulate emergency situations and help pilots practice decision-making in a controlled environment.
5. Pilots may intentionally withhold information about their health or medical conditions to pass the exam and maintain their certification, meaning potential risks may go unnoticed.
– Pilots may feel pressure to fly even with medical conditions, which can lead them to conceal information or lie on the medical exam.
– Consequences for disclosing certain medical conditions, such as depression or medication use, can result in revoking certification and end their privilege to fly.
– Pilots may also feel a sense of responsibility towards their career goals and financial stability, which may influence their decision to conceal information.
– Additional training on the importance of honesty and the consequences of withholding information can reinforce the importance of transparency in reporting medical conditions.
– Education on the signs and symptoms of physical and mental health conditions, as well as the potential impact on flying, can encourage pilots to report their conditions and seek appropriate treatment.
– Ongoing training and education on the latest medical advances and regulations can help pilots stay up to date and maintain their certification without fear of career consequences.
6. The exam does not consider the role of external factors, such as weather conditions, equipment failures, or air traffic control, in affecting a pilot’s ability to safely operate an aircraft.
– Weather conditions, such as thunderstorms or heavy winds, can significantly impact a pilot’s ability to fly safely and must be taken into account.
– Equipment failures or malfunctions can occur unexpectedly, requiring pilots to take immediate action to ensure safety.
– Air traffic control and communication with other pilots can also impact a pilot’s workload and decision-making
Here’s a proposed training curriculum for pilots, including a yearly training refresher for each item mentioned that could replace a third-class medical requirement.
Item 1: The Importance of Regular Medical Exams
– Initial Training: This training will focus on the importance of maintaining regular medical exams, including the reasons why health conditions may develop or change rapidly, why pilots may not be aware of underlying conditions, and why concealing information can lead to increased risk in flying. The training will also cover the potential consequences of not reporting medical conditions and how to identify signs or symptoms of medical issues that may affect flying ability.
– Yearly Refresher Training: As part of the yearly training, pilots will receive updates on changes to medical regulations, advancements in medical technology, and any updates on reporting requirements.
Item 2: Standards of Medical Examiners
– Initial Training: This training will cover the varied qualifications and standards of different medical examiners and how they may affect the evaluation process. Pilots will learn about the potential biases, interests, and subjectivity that can impact the exam, as well as the importance of finding a medical examiner who is thorough, objective, and knowledgeable.
– Yearly Refresher Training: Pilots will receive updates on any changes to standards or regulations related to medical examiners, as well as tips on how to maintain a positive relationship with the examiner.
Item 3: The Impact of Mental Health on Flying Ability
– Initial Training: This training will focus on the importance of mental health in flying and how conditions like stress, anxiety, depression, and other mental health disorders can affect cognitive ability, decision-making, and behavior. Pilots will learn how to identify signs or symptoms of mental health disorders and how to seek appropriate treatment, as well as how to balance self-care with the requirements of their job.
– Yearly Refresher Training: Pilots will receive updates on new research and technologies related to mental health and flying, as well as any changes to regulations.
Item 4: Effective Handling of Emergency Situations
– Initial Training: This training will focus on the importance of being prepared for emergency situations and the importance of quick decision-making in high-pressure situations. Pilots will learn about the potential risks, critical decision-making tools, and effective communication strategies, as well as best practices for avoiding and preventing emergencies from occurring.
– Yearly Refresher Training: Pilots will participate in simulated emergency situations, review recent case studies, and receive updates on any new procedures or technologies related to handling emergency situations.
Item 5: Encouraging Honesty in Reporting Medical Conditions
– Year 5 Training: This training will cover the importance of honesty in reporting medical conditions and how concealing information can lead to increased risks for pilots, crew, and passengers. Pilots will learn how to identify the signs and symptoms of different medical conditions, how to report them transparently to avoid potential consequences, and the importance of getting appropriate treatment. The training will also cover the importance of regulatory culture in supporting transparency and compassion towards pilots who report conditions without fear of consequences.
– Yearly Refresher Training: Pilots will participate in a review of common medical conditions and their implications for flying, as well as updates on any changes to regulations related to reporting medical conditions.
Overall, this training curriculum will help pilots maintain their expertise and our aircraft as safely as possible by providing comprehensive and up-to-date education on best practices and regulation changes annually.
With the above in mind, Sport Pilot IFR becomes a viable option for the following reasons.
1. Improved Safety: Allowing private pilots to have IFR privileges can improve flying safety by enhancing their ability to fly under various weather patterns, conditions, and environments. Improved situational awareness and decision-making abilities associated with IFR privileges may help to reduce the likelihood of accidents and incidents caused by inadequate visual flight rules (VFR) conditions.
2. Flexibility: Private pilots with IFR privileges can improve their abilities to plan and complete flights with greater flexibility by flying in areas and altitudes that may not be possible with VFR regulations. With IFR privileges, private pilots can choose advantageous routes, altitudes, and flight levels to achieve maximum efficiency, reach destinations faster, or avoid turbulence, weather, or other unfavorable conditions.
3. Personal Development: Gaining IFR privileges as a private pilot can help pilots build their experience and skills, increasing their confidence and readiness to fly in a range of conditions and scenarios. By expanding their abilities beyond VFR-only flights, private pilots with IFR privileges may gain valuable practice and experience that can prepare them for possible weather emergencies.
4. Improved Aviation Knowledge: Gaining IFR privileges as a private pilot requires substantial aviation knowledge, including aircraft systems, aerodynamics, and regulations on instrument procedures and navigation. Developing this knowledge and skills to an IFR level can help private pilots to further comprehend airspace rules and regulations, enhancing their ability to react and make informed decisions in different situations.
Because of the above rationale, the licensing system could be streamlined to only two classes of license.
1. Non-commercial
2. Commercial
Non-commercial pilots would not need a third class medical, but to add an extra layer of safety, Basic Med could be required for certain endorsements.
Here are 5 possible reasons to allow new non-commercial pilots to operate aircraft with only Basic Med:
1. Accessibility: Allowing new non-commercial pilots to operate aircraft with only Basic Med may increase accessibility to aviation for those who may not be able to obtain a full third-class medical certificate. This can include pilots who have certain medical conditions or disabilities that are not disqualifying but may require additional reviews that can delay the issuance of a third-class medical certificate.
2. Cost-Effectiveness: Basic Med is generally less expensive and requires fewer medical examinations than a third-class medical certificate but still ensures that pilots are fit to operate an aircraft safely. Allowing new non-commercial pilots to operate aircraft with Basic Med may reduce the costs associated with obtaining and maintaining a medical certificate, making aviation more affordable and accessible.
3. Pilot Population Increase: Allowing new non-commercial pilots to operate aircraft with Basic Med may increase the number of pilots in the aviation community. This can help to promote and grow the interest in aviation, providing more pilots for relief work and general pilots flying in the United States.
4. Time-Savings: Basic Med typically requires less time for assessment than third-class medical certificates, allowing new pilots to return to flying faster. This creates an attractive option for non-commercial pilots who desire completing their medical examination promptly, so they can fly without worrying about their medical fitness.
5. Pilot Wellness: Basic Med requires regular health assessments and disclosures, encouraging pilots to remain aware of their medical condition and continue to take steps to improve their health. By providing new non-commercial pilots with access to Basic Med, pilots can maintain an acceptable level of safety to operate an aircraft and better motivate pilots to take care of themselves and the pilots they share air space with.
Summary
In summary, the current third class medical for non-commercial pilots has limitations that may not accurately reflect a pilot’s current health status, and it does not address mental health or emergency situations. Pilots may also feel pressure to conceal information or lie on the medical exam to maintain their certification. A possible solution is to replace it with Basic Med or a driver’s license medical, along with a streamlined licensing structure that includes only two classes of license – non-commercial and commercial. The proposed training curriculum for pilots can help maintain their expertise and improve flying safety. Allowing non-commercial pilots to operate aircraft with only Basic Med can increase accessibility to aviation and reduce costs while still ensuring safety and encouraging pilot wellness.
While I do agree with much of what you have said, the FAA CANNOT eliminate the need for a medical. That need for a medical after July 14, 2006 is written into the law, and only Congress can make that change, with the President’s signature.
That said, there is a bill in the Senate right now to amend the very line that we’re talking about, and I have written my Senators to have them amend the bill, removing that line instead of amending it. Here’s a post that I’ve posted in several areas:
TIME SENSITIVE
If you would like to see Basic Med not require a prior FAA Medical Certificate that could at this point be more than 17 years old, write your Congress Critters.
FAA Confirmed in a forum at AirVenture that the requirement of a prior medical certificate is by statute, so only our legislators can change it. Coincidentally, there just happens to be a bill in the Senate right now which is already going to amend THAT EXACT LINE in the statute, so it is possible that we could sway them to make one more amendment to that bill and remove a single line from the law, allowing Basic Med to not require a prior FAA Medical Certificate.
Here’s the bill that has passed the House and is currently in the Senate:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3935/text#toc-HA69D33D0CFA840BD92ABDEDFE6B7DA5E
In section 203 “EXPANSION OF BASIC MED”, I propose amending (a)(1)(A), to instead of “striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following”, change it to “by striking paragraph (2).” Just delete that line in the existing legislation instead of updating it.
The recommendation is to make this letter your own. Use it as a guide, and change the wording to be your own, as they will likely recognize form letters, but here’s what I sent to my Senator.
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, Zip Code]
[Email Address]
[Phone Number]
[Date]
[Congressman/Congresswoman’s Name]
[Address]
[City, State, Zip Code]
Subject: Amendment of H.R. 3935, Section 203, Expansion of Basic Med
Dear [Congressman’s Name],
I hope this letter finds you well. My name is [Your Name], and I am a resident of [Your City, State]. I am writing to express my strong support for the amendment of H.R. 3935, specifically Section 203, regarding the expansion of Basic Med. I believe this proposed amendment is crucial for promoting aviation safety and encouraging more individuals to engage in recreational flying activities.
I would like to propose an alternative amendment to Section 203 of H.R. 3935. Instead of striking paragraph 2 and inserting the text, “(2) the individual holds a medical certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration or has held such a certificate at any time after July 14, 2006;”, I kindly urge you to consider deleting paragraph 2 altogether. By removing the requirement for a medical certificate, we can effectively eliminate a potentially outdated and ineffective evaluation of a pilot’s capability.
The current regulation mandates pilots to hold a medical certificate, which can be over 17 years old and may not accurately reflect an individual’s current health condition. This requirement seems unnecessary, considering that a driver’s license is often a more up-to-date assessment of an individual’s fitness to operate vehicles. Many people who are capable of driving safely may be discouraged from pursuing their passion for flying due to the additional burden of obtaining a medical certificate.
By allowing individuals who are capable of driving to use their valid driver’s license in lieu of an FAA medical, we can not only simplify the regulatory process but also make aviation more accessible to a broader range of enthusiasts. This approach would maintain a certain level of accountability, as those who are unfit to drive would not be eligible to fly without a medical certificate.
Furthermore, this amendment could potentially bolster the aviation industry by attracting more participants, which could lead to economic benefits and the growth of the local and national aviation community.
In conclusion, I strongly urge you to consider the alternative amendment proposed above, which eliminates the requirement for a medical certificate and allows individuals capable of driving to utilize their driver’s license instead. This change would facilitate safe flying practices and promote inclusivity within the aviation community. I kindly request your support and advocacy for this amendment during the legislative process.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your service to our community and the nation. I would appreciate any updates on the progress of this amendment and any actions taken to address this issue.
Please feel free to contact me if you require any further information or have any questions. I look forward to your positive response and continued efforts to represent the best interests of the people of [Your City, State].
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
I think that most of your suggestions would lead to MORE STRICT medical evaluations than rather than less. I like the KISS method, which is simply, “Prove that a 3rd class medical makes flying safer.”
I was not aware the medical requirement is actually law instead of a regulation. I might amend my comments, but I will also be calling and writing my local Senator to get the law fixed. That will free up the FAA to make further changes.
The outline I posted above should lead to fewer medical evaluations because it increases the training requirement with a yearly refresher. A drivers license medical for everyone and if they ‘must’ have a medical for non-commercial, then Basic-Med should suffice.
DISCLAIMER: I’m not an FAA expert and I never played one on TV.
I think they need to re-evaluate medications as well. I know SEVERAL people with sever ADD, ADHD and dyslexia that are now commercial pilots flying the general population around the country. Not to mention, when you read through the rules, NAVY pilots are allowed to use stimulants and medications like Provigil are a stimulant that was specifically developed for pilots. You cant have me believe that there is not a decent chunk of the commercial pilot population that do not use ADD/ADHD medications that are on the “do not issue” list. I’m not quite sure the people who developed the medication list know much about them. Take Zoloft for example. The FAA states that it is approved for single time usages. Zoloft takes 2 weeks of taking the medication daily to see any effects from it, why its listed as a single use medication for anxiety is beyond me.
At first, I was going to write a comment to the FAA regarding the NPRM. However, delving deeper into it, I now have SEVERAL comment to make. My question for you is, can I comment on several things in one email, or do I need an email for each separate comment. Thanks
You do not reply via email. You use FAA’s online system. Here is a link.
What I would do is write my comments in a word processor or somewhere where I could state my thoughts clearly. For best results, put your points in a logical order and watch for punctuation and typing errors. In other words, present well. Then, cut-and-paste your whole fully-edited document into the online resource.
You may incorporate all your comments into one and it will be viewed in total. You do not need to put each item separately, I believe.
Dan,
Could you elaborate on what changes might occur for aerial work? Thanks.
Presently, LSA may only do flight instruction, rental, and limited towing. Under Mosaic, they will be able to do much more than that, but not passenger or cargo hauling.
It is very likely some higher credential than Sport Pilot will be required for most such compensated flying. One sticking point is that for some types of LSA (powered parachutes or weight-shift, for example) no Commercial certificate is offered so it is unclear how FAA will not discriminate against those types.
Thanks for clarifying. It seems like LSA would be ideal for low cost conservation/forestry, agriculture, archaeology and other low and slow survey work.
This is great news thanks for keeping us posted Dan! it sounds like this rule could allow Sport Pilots and Private Pilots with no medical to fly certain low-performance Part 23 aircraft (e.g., C-150/152, C172), is that a correct interpretation?
Yes.
Presuming the driver’s license medical provisions in the MOSAIC NPRM goes through to the updated regulations (I read the entire doc), I’m not clear if a Private Pilot with a driver’s license medical would be operating as a Sport Pilot, or have the additional privileges of a Private Pilot?
That pilot would operate under Sport Pilot rules, but under Mosaic, endorsements will permit wider privileges… except for night flying unless the proposal is changed by comments FAA accepts.
High performance aircraft is definitely in the proposal. As it is written, a sport with the proper endorsement will be able to fly ANY aircraft with a stall speed of 54 knots or less and an airspeed of up to 250 knots with retractable gear and constant speed prop. I personally think that this is causing some anger amongst private pilots who already don’t like the light sport rule and consider sport pilots totally unqualified. I told a CFI that they and the insurance company will be the gatekeepers of this new rule. Both will determine the who, why, when and how of who gets to fly what and how much time will be required to get endorsement and insurance
Dan, you’ve done a tremendous job over numerous years utilizing your expertise to provide beneficial input to the process, helping to make the MOSAIC proposal exceed our expectations in most cases. Likewise, you’ve been awesome at keeping us informed throughout the process providing balanced commentary between what was known, unknown, likely, etc. Thank you so much!
The current 90-day comment period is naturally a critically important opportunity for each of us with a vested interest in light sport aircraft and sport pilot certification privileges (as well as other aspects of MOSAIC). Let me start by thanking you for the input you’ve already provided us regarding this lengthy, complexly worded proposal so quickly in the midst of AirVenture. We need help before commenting. Do you (or a group such as EAA, AOPA, etc.) plan to publish a summarized (or bulleted) translation from legalese to plain English? Our comments will be less effective, meaningless, or detrimental if we cover items based on misunderstandings. Finally, I think it is important for the FAA to hear what is supported and not just areas of objection.
I am hopeful that other groups will also help provide analysis and suggestions but the LAMA board will tackle this as a project. We met at Oshkosh and have communicated since. We are keenly aware the clock is already ticking. We will do all we can but the NPRM is not difficult to understand even if all the back and forth references to other FARs is tedious. Please jump in now. Read portions that interest you most and — PLEASE — comment.
What is a realistic timeline for these regulations to become law?
Many times FAA personnel have stated 16 months was required, so basically by the end of 2024.
Dan, assuming the NPRM was published as stated on July 24th, and followed by 90 days for public comment, when would you estimate a final rule be published and go into effect?
FAA has many times stated 16 months after NPRM.
It is obvious from the makers of the new four seat Montaer aircraft, that manufacturers are not waiting for the rule to become law. They will want to have aircraft ready by the time NPRM becomes law. President of EAA states that he doesn’t expect much to change from the proposed rule because of all the sausage making it took to get the FAA to publish these changes.
[Updated] Montaer did announce their four-seat MC-04 but several others are already flying and already selling four-seat designs. Many can be ready if they do the work to declare meeting ASTM standards.
I thought that they announced a four seat aircraft with 200 hp Lycoming just before Oshkosh? It was Texas aircraft that made the announcement.
Texas Aircraft did. So did Montaer. Both join several others who previously announced four seat design.
Okay, thanks Dan.
Dan,
In terms of an IFR standard for MOSAIC or LSA, how likely is it that in the future, a sport pilot or a private pilot using the drivers license standard will be able to earn an instrument rating without a class 3 or BasicMed? as I understand it, currently an instrument student must have a Class 3 or BasicMed to take an instrument check ride.
It remains necessary to separate aircraft from pilot certificates. A standard for IFR will relate to the aircraft equipment and testing. FAA still decides certificate requirements and operating limitations.
More study is needed and planned.
I was really hoping that there would be a carve out for CAR3 vintage aircraft that have been orphaned. I own a 1946 Stinson 108 and while Univiar is the TCDS holder, many if not all previous STC’s are no longer supported and no one is going to spend $100,000+ to create a new STC. The Stinson is not the only aircraft in this state.
Why does MOSIC not give Vintage a special Airworthiness Certificate similar to Experimental and let us install newer safer equipment without the hassles imposed on certified aircraft?
I cannot speak for FAA, of course, but they have always said that aircraft holding Standard certificates would not be made into LSA with Special.
Please… comment.
I’m curious if the stall speed limit “without the use of lift-enhancing devices” includes vortex generators. In other words, are they referring to active devices such as flaps and slats, or does that include passive devices too?
I have no official answer but I suspect VGs are fine. They are not moved or removed. Fixed slats might likewise qualify as they are always in operation.
That should be clearly right. In my humble opinion the question should be “does the pilot have to do anything to add lift?” Like lower a flap handle. Consider the Helio courier, in the cruise configuration the slats move automatically with no pilot action. Not so with trailing edge flaps that must be deployed. I would suggest that the definition should be more precise and allow for safety enhancing elements like slats that require no pilot action and function automatically.
That is exactly what I said in my comment on the NPRM. Automatic leading edge slats should be allowed to meet the stall requirement because they require zero PIC action and are automatically deployed by the fluid dynamics of flight.
Great comment. I would encourage everyone to comment that the FAA should add two words “pilot actuated” before no lift enhancing devices to compute Vs1. Those two words would eliminate a huge amount of confusion.
For Dan or others in the know – Will the FAA be taking questions or officially commenting on this at Airventure, or are they in a “blackout” period during the public comment time? Just wondering how soon we may be able to get official answers on intent and some of the gray areas noted in the comments.
I am not aware of any give-and-take sessions at Oshkosh and believe they will defer to the conventional commenting process for two reasons. First, the number of people with questions versus the number of FAA people with answers would be quite lopsided, and it would be hard for many to get their questions addressed, I suspect. Secondly, the conventional process allows them to collate and quantify responses plus use technology for the initial reading of comments, things they couldn’t hope to do at Oshkosh. However, there are some gray areas that could use some answers so I will poke around to see if they will accommodate that.
Either way, it will pay to start thinking about your responses. Start making notes about your comments. The more meaningful they are, and the more unique they are, the better. Definitely, form letters will not be helpful.
Helpful. Mr. Johnson, thanks for taking the time that you do to provide these thoughtful individual responses.
Thanks for the kind words. 👍🏼
Some legacy models that probably would’ve surprised us months ago that might qualify based on their relatively low stall speed are 182, Debonair, and DA40.
My apologies: I was looking at dirty stall speed numbers for DA40 and Debonair, neither of which appear to be under 54 knots with flaps up. The 182 as well as 172, however, both look to be safe bets.
I hadn’t had a chance to go verify that yet but it seemed unlikely. Thanks for correcting.
To be clear, FAA’s mandate of 54 knots to contain the size of the aircraft is based on clean stall speed, “without the use of lift-enhancing devices.”
So, I’ve been waiting on these stipulations to come out to decide between a 172, 182, and Archer LX. The 172 does appear to be a safe bet. But the 182…not so much, and the Archer may be okay but is right on the fence.
In the section of the text which lists the limitations on sport pilot privileges it states “…which must have a VS1 speed of not more than 54 knots CAS at the aircraft’s maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of gravity.”
The numbers I first looked at appeared to clear all three of these planes easily, until I noticed that I was looking at KIAS, not KCAS as mentioned above. And at slower airspeeds KCAS is higher than KIAS. The Cessna POHs have a conversion chart for this, but they also have numbers in the Performance section for stall that shows KCAS at max takeoff weight, no power, no flaps and no bank. Two graphs, one showing the numbers at most forward CG and one for most rearward CG. The 172 is shows 53 KCAS for both, which to me appears to clear the hurdle. The 182 shows 54 KCAS for rearward CG and 56 KCAS for forward CG. Going back to the language above “most critical center of gravity” will have to mean most rearward, otherwise, at least the way this looks to me, the 182 is out. This is for later models (172S, 182T), hopefully some earlier models for the 182 will have better numbers and no worse for the 172 earlier models…
For the Archer, I was also looking at a later model and from what I see Piper doesn’t illustrate the numbers in the same way as Cessna does. And without trying to fumble around and explain what I used for the process, I came up with 54 KCAS on the nose. No mention on this of forward/rearward CG, but it is max weight, no flaps, no power and zero bank. And ditto about the earlier Cherokees, etc.
Someone please tell me I’m wrong about this, especially the 182.
Maybe Dan can chime in, but this seems like it’s going to be a mess, depending on how this is ultimately policed, on what’s legal to fly and what isn’t for legacy aircraft. Just with these three models alone (albeit they will make up the most of the mass) going back to check each version and configuration with whatever numbers are available will be challenging it seems to me.
On your last paragraph, remember that you will have the burden of proof. FAA has stated the requirement quite clearly (though they may further adjust and tweak language; this is only a proposal). As the aircraft operator, you may have to show documentation that supports a claim of clean stall being 54 knots or less.
Older 182 may indeed work but all can see that this one limit defines aircraft size surprisingly well. This will be far easier to police that some complicated formula as was discussed earlier.
Randy,
Good catch regarding KIAS vs. KCAS. How is a pilot supposed to use KCAS? The new rule needs to reference KIAS and KCAS needs to be removed.
Did pilots or attorneys write this? Typical.
Archer III and Archer II are out. Archer III clean stall is 57 CAS. Archer II is 59 CAS.
Given that a lot of flight schools use the Cessna 172SP I would hope the FAA would tweak that number enough to allow it too? This is especially true where this model is used due to density altitude performance imitations of the 150 and 160 HP models, and one of the main intentions of this regulatory update is to improve safety.
I’m wondering if it would be better to get the Repairman Cert now or wait for the changes…. My interest is purely for personal repairs/inspection on my craft. That section was confusing, in spite of the FAA working to make things clearer.
Hi Dan,
I had a question about the Repairman Certificate as it applies to inspecting Experimental Aircraft that qualify as light-sport. I read the section on the repairman certificate but is seemed unclear as to whether one would be able to qualify as a repairman for inspection purposes on a second-hand purchased experimental that is not an ELSA, or would this new repairman certificate still only apply to the original builder of the experimental (unless the aircraft was an ELSA).
In a follow-up to these thoughts, what do you think happens now to the distinctions between SLSA, ELSA, and EABs that can qualify as light-sport?
Many thanks!
For an Experimental, no mechanical certificate is needed, but perhaps I’m missing something. Maybe others readers have examined this more thoroughly… anyone?
Hi Dan,
I was specifically referring to being able to perform the annual condition inspection and sign off.
Thanks
Pretty pleased with this NPRM. Not sure why the 54-knot clean stall speed limit eliminates many of the PA28 series by 2 knots. Wonder if a FAA approved mod (VGs/STOL kit) would be acceptable if it reduces the clean stall speed to 54 knot
Same thing with the C-182; 2950lbs to the C-182Q, then 3100lbs.
Also; What exactly is VS1 ? Vso is 53kts for the C-182P. In any case;
a waiver for C-182Q and subsequent would be appropriate.
Same with the PA28.
Frank
I would assume so. If my understanding of how the FAA is using Vs1 in MOSAIC and previously with the LSA regulations is correct, it is the cleanest stall speed is without flaps or deployable slats. A.K.A. cruise flight.
How would you consider or calculate Vs1 for a fly by wire aircraft with flight logic that prevents the pilot from pulling past L/Dmax? It simply cannot stall.
Night flight
(Proposed) § 61.329
“(d) Either hold a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter or,
provided the pilot holds a valid U.S. driver’s license, meet the requirements of
§ 61.23(c)(3) and conduct the operation consistently with § 61.113(i). If you are
satisfying this by meeting the requirements of § 61.23(c)(3), if there is a conflict between
the requirements of this section and § 61.113(i), this section controls”
Refers to this existing rule (stopped copying after the relevent paragraph, (B))
§ 61.23(c)(3)
“A person using a U.S. driver’s license to meet the requirements of paragraph (c) while operating under the conditions and limitations of § 61.113(i) must meet the following requirements—
(i) The person must—
(A) Comply with all medical requirements or restrictions associated with his or her U.S. driver’s license;
(B) At any point after July 14, 2006, have held a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter;”
That says you have to have held a medical certificate. This is the rule that creates Basic Med. So 61.329 has to meet the requirements of having a medical or 61.23(c)(3), which is Basic Med.
61.23(c)(3) refers to 61.113(i). 61.113 is the Private Pilot limitations – not applicable to sport pilots.
61.113(i)
“A private pilot may act as pilot in command or serve as a required flightcrew member of an aircraft without holding a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter provided the pilot holds a valid U.S. driver’s license, meets the requirements of § 61.23(c)(3), and complies with this section and all of the following conditions and limitations:”
So back to proposed 61.329… It says if there is a conflict between this section and 61.113(i), this section controls. 61.329 says you have to have a medical under part 67, or a driver’s license and meet 61.23(c)(3), and operate consistently with 61.113(i).
I don’t see a conflict between the sections. It says medical or driver license and Basic Med, and operate within the limitations of a private pilot, which also requires Basic Med or a Medical.
I don’t see a way that a Sport Pilot without a medical can fly at night.
What I think, since the discussion section talks of sport pilots flying at night, is that there is conflict between the discussion and the rule, and something was overlooked, and needs to be clarified.
The one thing I think we can all agree upon is that this proposed rule is not perfectly clear and leaves too much open to interpretation.
Presently FAR 61.315 states that a sport pilot is unable to fly “in furtherance of a business” . This unfortunately makes me unable to legally fly to work or to a job site. I believe that LSA pilots should be aware of this to change this rule. There is no more pressure placed under a LSA pilot who scheduled a vacation and flys there than a pilot who flies to work occasionally.
Also, recreational pilots are limited to 50nm radius of an airport. Sport pilots can fly anywhere in the country. With all the additions coming to the sport pilot world, recreational pilot licenses are practically obsolete. The FAA should honor what ever recreational licenses are already out but should no longer offer recreational licenses. This way maybe four seats and four people could be capable for a sport pilot.
I plan on submitting my comments to the new NPRM. I was hoping maybe we could spread some awareness of these issues.
You know, now I need MORE INFO about the RV-15! That HAS to fit in the rule!
I note a lot of confusion in the comments as to whether or not Sport Pilots will be able to fly at night without a medical. I reviewed the text on pages 121 – 123 thoroughly. Sport Pilots will only require appropriate training and endorsement.
They will not be required to hold a medical certificate.
I think you are mistaken. Please keep in mind that everything before that actual regulatory changes starting on page 253 is simply explanation and justification of the changes. It is possible that there is a conflict between the explanation and the actual text of the proposed regulation, but on page 122, the explanatory text reads:
Proposed § 61.329(d) would also set forth certain medical requirements: the PIC must either hold a medical certificate issued under part 67, subpart D, Third-Class Airman Medical Certificate, or meet the requirements of § 61.23(c)(3) as long as the person holds a valid U.S. driver’s license. Additionally, the operation would be required to be conducted consistent with § 61.113(i). If there is any conflict between § 61.113(i) and proposed § 61.315(d)(4), then proposed § 61.315(d)(4) would take precedence.
There is no proposed 61.315(d) in the published document, nor is there such a paragraph in the current FARs. I suspect this is a typo and should say 61.329(d). The text on page 122 appears to be consistent with the regulation as written on pages 297 and 298, so it seems clear that the intent is to restrict night flying to only those with either BasicMed or a standard medical certificate.
If you read it carefully and look at the regulations in Part 61 that they reference, a sport pilot who wishes to earn an endorsement for night flying will either need to get a Class 3 flight physical or be on Basic Med, which means they had a Class 3 at some point in the past 15 years or so.
It refers to Sport Pilots CFI.
(iii) Exercising the privileges of a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating while acting as pilot in command or serving as a required flight crewmember of a light-sport aircraft other than a glider or balloon;
At this point there is no longer ANY confusion. FAA stated at a forum yesterday that yes, the intent is that for night flight A MEDICAL OR BASIC MED IS REQUIRED. The reason given was that they did not have enough trust in state driver agencies to adequately check eyes.
I don’t see why a full-blown medical or Basic Med would need to be required if visual acuity is the FAA’s concern when it would be easy enough to provide in the alternative a requirement to have one’s vision checked at a certain frequency (e.g., annually) by a licensed eye health professional (i.e., state-licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist)?
I haven’t had a chance to do much more than just skim through the NPRM. One question I have, is the 10K foot altitude restriction lifted??
Not for Sport Pilot certificate users.
What about if Private Pilots are allowed to operate with a driver’s license, i.e. would they be limited to Sport Pilot privileges or Private Pilot privileges?
They would operate as a Sport Pilot, before endorsements under Mosaic. Such a pilot could not fly at night, unless this regulation changes.
Here is a concise MOSAIC LSA overview by the AOPA spokesman covering what he knows to date. It is very informative giving the short time he has had to digest the 318 pages. A very good overview:
The NPRM shows great promise. However, we all need to comment for VS1 slightly more than 54 kts.
While this would encompass most (if not all) C172s, it would exclude most (maybe all) PA-28s. Since C172 and PA-28 are essentially rival-brand equals, they both really ought to be “Sport Pilot eligible.” In turn, it would also allow for some really remarkable new-build 4-seat LSAs.
Be sure to participate in the NPRM’s comment period!!!
The Cherokee 140 definitely fits in that regime. I personally would not want any of those old aircraft. I want a true cross country aircraft and 250 knots would definitely make that happen. Lol
Not so, unfortunately.
VS1 for a Cherokee 140 is 64 mph, which is 55.6 kts. So the NPRM as-written would exclude the Cherokee 140 from Sport Pilot operation.
In my Cherokee 140 POH, section III states that the stall speed with flaps at 1950 lbs is 52 mph, and that is increased by 9 mph with flaps up. 1950 lbs is gross weight for the certified utility category, so I hope that many Cherokee 140s will qualify when flown within utility category limitations.
PA-28-181 (Archer) Vs1 is 54 kts so nearly all PA-28 should qualify except R (Arrow). On that note most retractable-gear aircraft (certified) have Vs1 above 54 knots so that might be new aircraft.
Why do we need 4 seats if we can still only have 2 people in the plane?
To carry camping gear, luggage, and the like.
I think the big reason would be to allow the same plane to be used for both sport pilot training (and post-training rental) and other things (more advanced certificates, rental by private pilots, etc.). Currently, if you want a sport pilot certificate, you more or less need to choose a flight school that purchased (or otherwise procured) aircraft specifically to be a sport pilot training school. If Cessna 172s are available for sport pilot training, then vastly more schools and instructors can offer sport pilot training.
I agree.
It perhaps allows you to buy a C172 or PA28 and fly it with a Sport Pilot Certificate.
Not a PA-28 (at least some of them). The POH I looked up last night showed a 64mph Vs1, which is 55.6kts, so too high a stall speed. Maybe there are some that have a lower stall speed, but that particular POH showed a Cherokee that couldn’t be flown by a SP.
To expand the pool of aircraft available to sport pilots. To increase the useful load for sport pilots. To add existing retractable & CS props (with training).
Just because a plane has 4 seats doesn’t mean it can carry 4 adults. Especially when you factor in fuel and luggage.
Golf clubs…
Most Piper Archers, Arrows and Warriors would be able to classify into the Mosaic LSA Category. Yes the older PA28-140s would be eliminated by 2 knots, but newer Pipers would definitely be within acceptable tolerance levels.
How does this affect a LSRM-A? Will we be able to work on the newer more complex aircraft?
The maintenance privileges look to have been expanded, but I have not been through that portion with enough thoroughness yet. Any others who may have read this section thoroughly, please comment here.
Page 154:
“The FAA notes that, should this proposal be adopted, repairman certificates issued before an effective date specified in the final rule would be valid without additional training or reissuance to account for the broader scope of light-sport category aircraft characteristics.”.
There should be a pathway for at least a second passenger. Number of hours with cfi sign off maybe for sport and recreational pilots. The weight and balance calculations are still requirements. If you carry excessive luggage or a third person you still must perform weight and balance. Allow aircraft with higher weights for safety designs is understandable. But the language for 4 seats sets up scenarios for violations in my opinion.
You are already underway with your comments to this NPRM.
I think two passengers is unlikely, mainly due to LSA’s easier medical requirement that finds resistance in FAA’s legal department.
Nonetheless, I agree with you that a pilot operating an aircraft with four seats may be tempted to carry more than one passenger. However, this is not an LSA condemnation because similar activities occur frequently in GA aircraft.
Does it do anything to address people who applied for medical and got denied and would like to “revert” to flying the Sport Pilot route rather than spend the time and money to get the medical overturned, or an SI issued?
That’s a great question that I did not see addressed, but we need to go through the whole document more times to find every little nook and cranny.
These proposed new rules could so completely upend the light sport aircraft market that current LSA’s could become nearly worthless. Gyroplanes, weight-shift trikes, and powered parachutes likely won’t be impacted because they are niche aircraft, but the market for “legacy” fixed-wing light sport aircraft could collapse.
Keep in mind that these mLSA will be more expensive, larger aircraft, with bigger engines, and more complex systems. I believe will still see plenty of activity in more modestly-priced, easy-to-fly models.
Dan, I’m being overwhelmed with emails. How do I STOP getting email notifications of a new post in this thread?
A rare request and I don’t have a simple solution. Be patient. This will die down in a day or two. Clearly, this topic motivated many pilots — and that’s a good thing. In the meantime, sorry for overwhelming you. Bulk delete?
To accomplish this requires re-programming the web site interface. It’s doable, but takes a bit of time and a competent web programmer.
Of course it could be done, but this does not occur often enough to make the effort worthwhile.
I personally don’t think it will have as much effect on the LSA market as people keep saying. Take myself for example. Some of the current LSAs meet my mission just fine with one exception: Weight. I’m not the lightest guy, and my wife isn’t the lightest gal. If I could get anohter 100-200 pounds out of an existing LSA that the manufacture “upgrades” with a new MTOW, I’d be just fine with it. If I can’t fill four seats, having the extra seats doesn’t matter to me.
I don’t see in there the ability to get a LOA to change a current plane. For example if we would like a constant speed prop that works on the plane. And is offering in different countries I see no way to get a LOA for the SLSA for that. Page 109 seems to say that is not possible. Am I reading that wrong?
Page 109 specifically calls out what I expected, which is that the manufacturer would issue a new declaration of compliance that would allow various things, such as increased weight if the airframe has been already tested for higher levels than 1,320 pounds (which several have). Going to a constant speed prop is a major change and FAA will certainly want the manufacturer involved with such.
I wonder if some of the heavier duty 1320 lb limit LSA’s are actually rated for more and increase gross weight overnight…
Quite a few actually have higher weight limits, but limited themselves on paper to the FAA envelope. Several manufacturers are already planning to re-declare and I see no reason why this won’t work well.
Is there any chance of a list of *possible* candidates for such increases? As I hope to be in the plane market and become a pilot sometime in the next year, this could be an important factor.
That would be a time-consuming (and subject-to-change) survey. It’d be a lot more effective for you to choose a few aircraft you like and inquire of those manufacturers. At least narrow the search.
Thanks for the great info Dan! This proposed rule is everything and more than I expected, in a good way. The ONE thing I am disappointed in is still only one passenger in a four seat aircraft…If you have given us four seats, let’s fill them up, or at least one more passenger (2 total). I will be commenting on this.
If you have a Private or higher certificate, filling all four seats will be fine if weight and balance allows. But by all means, COMMENT!
To clarify, does this mean someone with a Private will be able to carry four while flying with the driver’s license medical privilege?
No, to carry four people, you will still need at least a BasicMed, I believe. FAA’s legal department remains suspicious of the drivers license medical concept.
The new Mosiac proposal mentions a weight of about 3000 pounds taking into consideration the 54 knot VS1 limit. If you work that formula what is confusing is an airplane like the Cessna 182T. Gross Weight is 3100 pounds but has a VS1 of 51 knots; would it be eligible?
Other readers have also noted this possibility.
Are legacy airplanes specifically included in this document? That is, the C150/172 for sport pilot?
One of the biggest changes is actually in Part 1 — Definitions, which many people overlook, but which is critically important. LSA will not be defined as they are today so legacy airplanes like the ones you mentioned appear to qualify. They will not change their Standard category status to Special like LSA, but a sport pilot can fly them as described in the document. This thing is quite full of information so take your time and read it fully. I’ve been through all 318 pages once, but I’ll be going through it two or three more times at least.
When the time comes for comments, I hope everyone commenting here write to the FAA requesting AT LEAST 2 passengers rather than the proposed one passenger. I know that I will be commenting on that.
While I would like to add passengers as much as you would, they’ve explained their rationale as to why the limitation wasn’t increased. The next higher level of pilot, the Recreational pilot (though I don’t know how you could consider that higher than Sport, but it is in their eyes), can only carry one passenger, so the rationale is that a lower pilot would have more privilege than a higher pilot if they increased it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t add that comment, but I would be shocked if they went through with such an increase.
It seems to me that a sport pilot should be able to get the endorsements to basically equal a ppl. Then, if a sport pilot can get a medical, he/she should be allowed more than one passenger. What do you think?
I personally don’t think a third class medical should have anything to do with it. If a person can become a pilot tomorrow, having gotten a medical on July 14, 2006 and never getting another one, but meeting the requirements of Basic Med, why should a medical be required at all, whether it be for sport or private? Does a 17 year old medical really show evidence of ANYTHING?
That is their rational, however there is no empirical evidence to say that two passenger would be more dangerous than one. I think that it is still worthwhile for people to press for at least 2 passengers. Further, for the life of me, I cannot figure out their rational that Recreational Pilot is higher than Sport. The reason I chose Sport over Recreational was that Recreational had many more limits attached.
I agree with the sport vs recreational. I just don’t get why anyone would choose recreational. That’s probably why there are only 127 of them. I wonder what percentage of those were rec pilots before 2004?
It appears that the 54 knot VS1 is the controlling factor restricting the other performance / capacity capabilities for existing certificated planes. Looks like some 172s would be compliant but not Cherokees. Warriors possibly. It certainly makes for some incredible new production opportunities though.
I am really curious if this makes a difference at all for the existing fleet of certificated aircraft. If I understand correctly, a lot of old certificated aircraft will qualify as LSAs for the purpose of flying them under sport pilot privileges, but there are no changes in the maintenance requirements of these planes. I was hoping that the FAA would create a path for converting aging certificated aircraft to some sort of experimental status to simplify maintenance, but I don’t see anything like that in this proposal.
Aircraft that have already been issued an airworthiness certificate, Standard ones in the case of “legacy” airplanes, will not change their certification basis. They will not become LSA, which have Special certificates. That’s why the maintenance changes don’t affect them. They can, however, be flown with someone using a Sport Pilot privileges.
Yes, that’s my understanding. I was expecting that the FAA would also include provisions for simplifying maintenance on aging certificated planes, so I am somewhat disappointed. We have all seen “experimental exhibition” aircraft that were not used for their stated purpose because the FAA does not have a path for converting certificated planes to experimental. Considering that SLSAs can be converted to ELSA, I really do not understand why certificated aircraft that can be flown by sport pilots cannot be converted to an ELSA-like category.
Does this allow for lightweight twins like an aircam?
I am not seeing anything that says otherwise.
It appears yes, if the manufacturer does the necessary work to declare compliance.
Thanks Dan, really a fantastic development. And just about everything you could ask for, including removing arbitrary airspeed limits that had no basis in safety – 250 kcas is reasonable as it matches the 10,000 foot airspeed limit. It also may help to improve safety by allowing faster light aircraft that can sequence more effectively with airline and jet/turboprop traffic. Also huge safety gains will be made by allowing innovations in flight controls and powerplants. Bringing in things like automated “simple flight controls” with envelope protection, and simplified power-plants – electric, hybrid, turbine and whatever comes next will lead to completely electronically controlled engine and propeller setups ultimately making it easier to incorporate auto throttles with autopilot. All of this will make flying safer and better.
Where can one go to find a bullet list of the proposals? No time here to sift through over 300 pages. Sounds like good news for us though.
I’ll get to it eventually. I just finished every one of the 318 pages but we’re right before AirVenture Oshkosh and time is short. …patience.
1. Weight to 3000lbs
2. Speed to 200knots
3. Constant speed prop
4. Four place aircraft
5. Night flight
6. Stall speed to 54knts
7. Helicopters
8. Turbine engines
9. Retractable gear
One rather important thing you left out is aerial work. LAMA advocated strongly for this opportunity and we’re delighted it is included. You also left out electric and hybrid propulsion. I think we can find even more bullet points by scouring this thing carefully.
At the moment I’m unclear if it will be possible to modify my operating limitations on my ELSA powered parachute (manufactured by Buckeye Industries and no longer in business) to allow aerial work. I’d like to be able to do aerial photography with my PPC and sell the photos. I’m still trying to digest the NPRM document.
I suspect that would be a tough task with no manufacturer support.
They need to allow “in furtherance of business” so you can fly to these jobs.
Which stall speed, Vs0 or Vs1 is the 54 knot limit?
Vs0 is not found in the proposal.
Vs1
What is their legal definition for VS1?
If I read correctly Night Flight will require a medical after 2006 (current or not?) or Basic med. Its also confusing on Private operating under sport pilot rule. The last comment in the paragraph on page 36 mentions having 3 passengers. (page 36) which conflicts with page 287.
Page 36
For example, an individual with a private pilot certificate may operate an aircraft that has more than two seats and can carry more than one passenger. In this proposed rule, the performance
limits of § 61.316 would allow four-seat airplanes but maintain the restriction for sport
pilots to carry one passenger, keeping the intent of the 2004 final rule restriction for sport
pilots. For this proposal, the holder of a higher grade of pilot certificate at the private
pilot level or above could operate a four-seat light-sport category airplane and carry up to
three passengers.
I’m extremely pleased with what I see, but I can think of one thing that I would love to see added: Basic Med without a requirement of having a prior medical. I mean, seriously, what is the point of requiring a medical when it could be up to 17 years old? Give Sport Pilots a route to advance to Private without having to jump through that hoop.
I think your request is outside of this proposal, but by all means — COMMENT.
Oh, I will. I believe you may be right, as that medical requirement is specified in the house bill that created basic med, so it may be that Congress has to act for it to happen, but I do believe that a sensible case could be made for the elimination of that requirement. Problem is that government doesn’t always do what is sensible.
Congress told the FAA that it must allow BasicMed (BM)under certain criteria. Congress did not prohibit the FAA from allowing it under more relaxed criteria. However, there appears to be a constituency within the FAA – Dan seems to think it’s the legal department – that, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, thinks driver license medical and BM should not exist, not have their scope expanded. In the current proposal, not only did they not allow BM without a previous medical, they slipped in a clause that killed night VFR for Sport Pilots.
This light sport license proposal appears to make pursuit of a private pilot license an obsolete route for the vast majority of the people otherwise would have gone that route. Why bother even getting a medical exam that might not work out when simply holding a driver license can still get me into a Cessna 172, 182(?), or Piper Cherokee?
And all of us currently using BasicMed – well, would I even need to continue doing that if I decide to fly under light sport rules to take one of the mass produced Cessna or Piper up? This proposal seems to make traditional medical route pointless for a large portion of the private pilot population. After all, it is rare to fly with more than a single passenger for many of us.
Although I’m in danger of being a broken record on this, no such “light sport license” exists. There are light-sport aircraft, and there is a sport pilot certificate.
I just took a look at a Cherokee POH (which of course does not cover all Cherokees, so there may be exceptions), and found that the stall speed was 64 MPH (55.61 kts), so it would appear that this particular Cherokee would not qualify for a Sport Pilot.
It does seem odd that a Cherokee 140 would not meet the criteria. If flown at 1950 pounds in the utility category, the clean stall speed of about 61 mph would qualify.
BasicMed would allow
– multiple passengers
– aircraft with VS1 above 54 Lt (many PA28 variants, Bonanza, Cirrus, etc.)
– altitudes above 10,000’
– night VFR
– IFR
– no need to carry log book (a small thing)
The new Sport Pilot would not allow these.
They need to change the rules so that planes with no N-numbers can still be registered.
Thank you FAA !!!
What a great surprise. Thanks Dan for all you do. Lots to read. Can’t wait to see what legacy aircraft are now eligible to be flown by sport pilots holding a PPL. Disappointed still only one passenger. I needed two!
Thanks Dan !!!
Am I reading this correctly that night flying will require BasicMed’s medical provisions? That’s quite unfortunate.
I think you are not correct (but I’ll be studying this more after AirVenture). See 61.329 on page 298.
The problem still remains that “meet the requirements of § 61.23(c)(3)” is going to include § 61.23(c)(3)(i)(B) “At any point after July 14, 2006, have held a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter;”
I believe “if there is a conflict between the requirements of this section and § 61.113(i), this section controls.” Just means that you have to meet the requirements of § 61.329(a), (b), and (c).
It would be fantastic if § 61.329(d) could be amended to “…meet the requirements of § 61.23(c)(3), except for § 61.23(c)(3)(i)(B)…” or even better just delete § 61.23(c)(3)(i)(B). 🙂
I had also initially been reading it as indicating that basicmed would be needed for n if ht flight, but a second pass and looking at each of the referenced parts does seem to say that if you’re legal to drive at night then that’s the medical requirements met.
I look forward to hearing more in the Q&A’s that are sure to happen shortly. =D
Dan, 61.329 (d) on page 298 says:
You may act as pilot in command with a sport pilot certificate during night operations if you: (d) Either hold a medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter or, provided the pilot holds a valid U.S. driver’s license, meet the requirements of § 61.23(c)(3) and conduct the operation consistently with § 61.113(i). If you are satisfying this by meeting the requirements of § 61.23(c)(3), if there is a conflict between the requirements of this section and § 61.113(i), this section controls.
This certainly appears to limit night flight to only those with a medical or those who comply with BasicMed. The line which says 61.329 has precedence over 61.113(i) does not really have any affect since in its entirety 61.329 says you must have the necessary training and have have either a medical certificate or comply with BasicMed.
Great catch! I believe you found a worthy comment topic. After speaking with FAAers for years, I believe their intent is to allow night for endorsed Sport Pilot holders.
No! Night flying will require the same as private pilot. Flight training with a CFI and an endorsement from instructor. No medical requirements
I read that the same way. Fingers crossed we’re wrong.
As I replied to Rob, I believe that is mistaken. I don’t see evidence of that requirement, and in fact, see the opposite.
I read that if you meet the requirements of drivers license section then you meet the requirements. Third class medical or basic med or drivers license
4 seater airplane with 1 passenger only for sport pilots.
What about PPL with no medical who fly under the sport pilot rules? Same Limitation of 1 passeger only?
When you operate a Light-Sport Aircraft using the privileges of Sport Pilot (no medical required), you are effectively a Sport Pilot not a Private Pilot.
This is what is confusing to me…
Say this goes through and a Private Pilot can operate certain lower-end legacy Part 23 aircraft with a driver’s license medical. In that situation, would they retain the operational privileges of a Private Pilot, or will their operational privileges be reduced to those of a Sport Pilot with respect to day VFR? I don’t think the proposed changes are clear enough on this point.
You are not the only one struggling to understand what FAA really means — and I observe for you that virtually all questions surround pilot privileges more than aircraft definitions.
If a Private Pilot is operating without a medical that individual is effectively a Sport Pilot. However, under Mosaic, they will have an easier time with some of the transition endorsements, for example, to adjustable props or retractable gear. In one notable point, perhaps: a Private Pilot operating as a Sport Pilot (that is, using a driver license medical) cannot fly at night. FAA is stubbornly sticking to the requirement for a medical without demonstrating that it makes flying safer, and I would say that is a primary point on which to comment. If possession of a medical makes flying safer, prove it.
Great news for people who want to fly via the Sport Pilot route. However, I can’t see that any of the certification changes doing anything to reduce the cost of new airplanes when even experimental airplane kits equivalent to, say, a C-172, push well past $100k. Any increase in the population of sport pilots will simply increase demand for all the legacy Cessnas and Pipers aircraft that meet the new rules.
Unfortunately, you’re probably correct. Increasingly, flying is not for the faint of wallet. However, if you’re on the inside looking out, life is good!
For the longer range good of aviation (attracting young pilot interest, increased future pilot base), how can associated costs be made reasonable for the necessary middle-class numbers that are required.
I must say I am very pleasantly surprised! Thank you Dan for your hard work.
This is excellent news! Thanks, Dan!
Billy Nolen was a joke at EAA last year. Glad to see some progress here.
Wow! If this rule stays intact, then the FAA just dropped a bomb and blew up sport aviation! They got it right! Very exciting time to be a LSA pilot. Wow! We will be able to fly at night! Awesome!
Not unless you have at least BasicMed. Sport Pilots operating with a driver license only (i.e., never held a medical) would not be allowed to fly at night. Since there are virtually no pilots who are Sport Pilot only, who also qualify for BasicMed or higher, the proposal gives Night VFR to Sport Pilots with one hand and takes it away with the other.
You are mistaken the regulations as they are written says that you either have a 3rd class medical, basic med or driver’s license. You have to check out the last code the regulations mentions in page 121
I believe you are referring to the line that says: or meet the requirements of § 61.23(c)(3) as long as the person holds a valid U.S. driver’s license.
This section of the regulations defines the requirements of Basic Med to allow a private pilot to fly with a drivers license in lieu of a medical certificate. The subsequent regulation referenced 61.113(i) simply says that you can fly without a medical if you meet the requirements of Basic Med outlined in 61.23(c)(3).
Did I just read a limit of 250Knots for a Sport Plane? That would be amazing!
The way I read it, there is no speed limit expressed. Design criteria for aircraft as well as the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000 feet which Sport Pilots are generally limited to, however, would effectively limit sport pilots to 250 knots or less.
Ah, and I just realized that you said Sport Plane, not Sport Pilot. My mistake. Yes, I do believe you are correct, and that was the speed limit stated for such planes.
“As a result of the expansion in the performance and capabilities of aircraft that would be certificated as light-sport category aircraft under the proposal, the FAA would require light-sport category aircraft designs, structures, and systems to account for the effects of any environmental conditions expected to be encountered while in operation. Examples of environmental conditions that should be accommodated in the aircraft design include heat, cold, precipitation, sunlight, darkness, gusty winds, and turbulence. In this proposal, performance expansions would enable light-sport category aircraft to be equipped with engines and systems capable of flight under instrument flight rules (IFR) in IMC.”
!!!!
I don’t think they intend to let us to our ifr rating. Although flying at night is a very close second, because that is almost like flying in IMC
The way I read it is that Sport Pilot can include a lot of other add ons, by instructor sign off. You get signed off for additional privileges night, retract gear, controllable pitch prop, etc…. Isn’t IFR/IMC one of those? What I’m seeing is almost everything anyone could ask for. I’m not convinced that IMC is a good idea if you don’t have or can’t pass a medical.
Bryan O,
I’m curious to hear your logic and thoughts behind IMC being a bad idea if you don’t have or can’t pass a medical.
Consider that there are multiple reasons for not applying for a medical. In my case, it isn’t that I wouldn’t qualify medically, but because of something stupid I did 25+ years ago. I attempted suicide. I was a paramedic (not anymore), lots of stress. I was going through a divorce (not anymore), more stress. And I’m autistic, and at that time in life, I did not have that diagnosis, nor the greatly increased understanding of how my own mind works, but I do now. All this is no longer an issue, but I would have to check that “Yes” box, which would mean no medical.
As for special issuance, I spoke with one of FAA’s doctors at one point in time, and he said, “It would be *possible* to get a medical, but *very* unlikely, and it would be very expensive. I suggest you go the Sport Pilot route.”
So there is nothing now to make me a danger – no medical issues, no mental issues (this was a one-time event), but it would still prevent me from getting a medical.
Wow! A really awsome effort by a lot of people. Downloaded the PDF and just started to review it. A lot of significant information. Seriously considering rejoining ASTM and the F37 Committee. Keep up the good work!
I skimmed through it and the expansion of rules are certainly much wider that I would have imagined. One thing I was not able to locate; is if the new performance/weight rules would be applied to the existing SLSA fleet. As an owner of a relatively new plane, I am hoping that the weight restrictions would be lifted on my plane, and be based upon its performance characteristics ?
I would imagine that they would recertify your aircraft to the tested limits.
Some takeaways:
Increased Stall Speed to 54 knots.
Removal of 1320/1430 weight limit.
Retractable Gear and Adjustable Propeller (WOW was not expecting this)
4 seat airplanes allowed (still only 1 passenger)
This is great news!
Also night flying with an endorsement! No more cancelled flights because you might land 10 minutes after sunset.
With an endorsement and BasicMed or a Medical. The FAA added night VFR with one hand and took it away with the other. If you can get a medical, you don’t stop at Sport Pilot: you go on to Private.
The practical result: no night flying for Sport Pilots.
Yes, it seems after reading again that I was mistaken (along with several others). That’s very unfortunate.
No specific speed limit either and night flight.
The proposal repeatedly mentions 250 KCAS as an airspeed limit, but this is only a proposal.
Well! You have been displaying a lot of caution throughout this process and everything you hinted at has become a proposal, so even if the speed is more below 200 knots, that would still be a game changer. This rule, if implemented, would make the old planes somewhat obsolete, because no one will want to fly 120 knots when they can go much faster.
Thanks for you supportive words.
However, I disagree that everyone will want a fast LSA. Some aircraft have no purpose to go particularly fast… seaplanes, weigh-shift, powered parachutes, gliders, and more. Plus, some pilots simply won’t want that — and will not want to pay the higher price that greater performance implies. Current-day LSA will still have a very solid place in the new world.
Dan, Can you elaborate? I thought the entire document was in effect “only a proposal” because it’s a “proposed” rule making. Is the speed limit specifically drawn out in different terms? Are there any other points in the same category?
You are correct that throughout the document, FAA writes “proposed” all the time, because that’s exactly what it is. Every part is subject to change, and may indeed change if a lot of comments say similar things on a certain topic. This is a Notice of Proposed Rule Making not rule making. Get ready to comment!
Absolutely! You have done an amazing job pushing for this and keeping the community informed! Hats off to you Sir!
I don’t see a specific speed limit for Sport Pilots (only for LSA Aircraft). What I do see is that speed is effectively limited by the design characteristics of an aircraft due to the stall speed limitation (it said something like 4 x Vs1 is typical).
Aside from that, though, even without a speed limit, a Sport Pilot would be limited to 250 knots due to the speed limit for all below 10,000 feet MSL, as a Sport Pilot cannot go over that altitude, with exception of over tall mountains within 2,000 feet AGL.
New planes for those with a Private sounds great!!!
Night flight
Helicopters…
I don’t think they intend to let us to our IFR rating. Although flying at night is a very close second, because that is almost like flying in IMC.
IFR operations are specifically referenced in the document, however, ASTM has no IFR standard… yet.
Agreed Dan! This document seems to be deliberately carving out a place for IFR into IMC. Coupled with an interview Rian gave a few months ago about F37’s work on an IFR standard, I am expecting to see a separate IFR standard coming very soon to facilitate new MOSAIC LSA designs and recertifications.
What an exciting time!
Other than your use of the word “soon,” I fully agree with you.
Hah. Fair enough! It would be logical for the IFR standard to be finalized around MOSAIC as manufacturers would be able to incorporate those IFR standards into new mLSA designs. ‘Logical’ is the sticking point there, though.
I guess we can all hope.
This is awesome! After the 90 day comment period, then the FAA reviews and considers all the comments and drafts the final regulations. How long might it take for the FAA to promulgate the final rule (ballpark)?
FAA has previously announced a requirement of 16 months from the date of issuance of the NPRM until it is made final. This has been stated numerous times, but these things can change.
To fly at night, under this proposal, you would need BasicMed or a medical. If you have that, you can get your Private and Instrument Rating and carry multiple passengers. If you don’t have that, you fly Sport Pilot and you can’t fly at night.
That’s how I read it, too, but the discussion portion seems to imply that perhaps this was not the intent. Maybe there was something missed in the writing of the proposal.
I think you’re right. The discussion explains why allowing night flight would enhance safety. The requirement for a medical/BasicMed limits that benefit to pilots who would qualify for a Private anyway. The rule contradicts the stated objective. This needs to be commented on.