MOSAIC draft released

[Warmi]

https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-14425.pdf
 

54 knots stall speed 
gross around 3000 lbs
250 knots max speed
retract
constant speed prop
any power plant ( turbine,electric etc )

[FredG]

Thanks for the link.  Big changes...

[MTNDRIVR]

I'm having issues understanding the night flight section. Still need a medical for night flight even with the sport certificate? 

[kinoons]

And if I’m reading correctly, light sport pilots will be permitted to carry 3 passengers. 

[tevbax]

23 minutes ago, kinoons said:

And if I’m reading correctly, light sport pilots will be permitted to carry 3 passengers. 

4 seats, 1 pax is how I read it. 
300 pages left to go 

[kinoons]

I went back and read that section again  there was a lot of circular speak in there, but I believe you’re correct  4 seats but only 1 pax unless you’re a private pilot exercising sport pilot privileges  

 

 

[tevbax]

44 minutes ago, MTNDRIVR said:

I'm having issues understanding the night flight section. Still need a medical for night flight even with the sport certificate? 

Negative. 

 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.

[Towner]

2 hours ago, kinoons said:

I went back and read that section again  there was a lot of circular speak in there, but I believe you’re correct  4 seats but only 1 pax unless you’re a private pilot exercising sport pilot privileges  

 

 

A private pilot exercising sport pilot privileges is usually a private pilot using a driver’s license for medical. If this is the case, I think you are still limited to one passenger. 

They are adding a lot of upgrades for the sport pilot, I just don’t understand why a sport pilot can’t put 4 people in a four seat plane!

Saying sport pilot is one level below recreational pilot is ridiculous. First, there is such a small number of recreational pilots that it really shouldn’t be considered. Next, it certainly seems with the proposed changes that sport pilots will have more privileges than a recreational pilot by far and sport pilots should be placed ahead of recreational pilots.

Let sport pilots carry their families on a trip and allow them to fill the 4 seats. It’s still a step below ppl who can fly bigger planes with more seats and still fill them, but it makes the spl and 4 seat airplanes much more usable. I know most sport pilots, just like private pilots, will only fly with one or two seats full most of the time, but I don’t understand why a spl can’t fill all 4 when needed!

[FlyingMonkey]

I got the one thing I really wanted: night flight on a DL medical.  The rest is gravy to me.  I don't need a different or larger airplane, but putting an in-flight adjustable ptop on my CT could be cool.

What about the 54kt S1 stall limit?  That sounds pretty low.  Does that capture a 172, Cherokee 180, etc?

[GrassStripFlyBoy]

I've only skimmed through it, curious on the repairman training and testing changes.  I know a few people recently considering this, might want to invest the 2 days under the current method, or at least understand what's changing.  Interesting that 10,000 people are trained in inspection of LSA aircraft, for the 5000 aircraft registered.

[GrassStripFlyBoy]

1 hour ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Does that capture a 172, Cherokee 180, etc?

Found on internet for what it's worth, looks like 172 makes the cut, which makes sense to include.

180 is not there, and 140 appears to be 55, so nope.  For the clean stall speeds anyways.

[Warmi]

3 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

I got the one thing I really wanted: night flight on a DL medical.  The rest is gravy to me.  I don't need a different or larger airplane, but putting an in-flight adjustable ptop on my CT could be cool.

What about the 54kt S1 stall limit?  That sounds pretty low.  Does that capture a 172, Cherokee 180, etc?

Captures most of Vans experimental planes as well as planes like DA40 etc … but does seem a bit arbitrary - if they were to go with something like 60 it would capture most GA planes.

Anyway this is just a proposal , the final rule may differ …

[tevbax]

Im upset  disappointed about the pax count. 250kt, retract, and night flight are GREAT, but just wanted to be able to fly my wife and child together. Sigh. 

For the record, will never sell my CT. Will we have an alternate bird in the hangar?... most likely. 

[FlyingMonkey]

1 hour ago, Warmi said:

Captures most of Vans experimental planes as well as planes like DA40 etc … but does seem a bit arbitrary - if they were to go with same thing like 60 it would capture most GA planes.

Anyway this is just a proposal , the final rule may differ …

Yeah, I was thinking that.  Just like the original LSA/SP rules, I'm sure EAA will lobby for some changes.  60kt Vs1 was the first thing I thought of.  They will probably lobby for three passengers, but I don't know how successful that might be.  Seems weird that FAA states strongly several times that flying a four seat airplane is no harder than flying a two seat airplane, yet they somehow think as soon as you fill those seats it becomes more dangerous.  🤔 I only have myself and my wife to worry about, but for SPs with kids this is mighty frustrating.

Overall I think it's a pretty good start, and much more progressive a proposal than what we've come to expect from FAA.  Onward!

[tevbax]

1 hour ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Yeah, I was thinking that.  Just like the original LSA/SP rules, I'm sure EAA will lobby for some changes.  60kt Vs1 was the first thing I thought of.  They will probably lobby for three passengers, but I don't know how successful that might be.  Seems weird that FAA states strongly several times that flying a four seat airplane is no harder than flying a two seat airplane, yet they somehow think as soon as you fill those seats it becomes more dangerous.  🤔 I only have myself and my wife to worry about, but for SPs with kids this is mighty frustrating.

Overall I think it's a pretty good start, and much more progressive a proposal than what we've come to expect from FAA.  Onward!

To piggy back on your comment, it states multiple times within that doc that light sport/ sport pilot safety being GREAT, this is why they feel the rule expansion is warranted. But, as I talked through this with my wife this morning.... how do you TRAIN for additional paxs? You can night flight train, retract, constant speed prop etc.... but you can't train for more people. 

Trust me, I want the paxs more than a constant speed prop or retract. 

[kinoons]

If I understand the process correctly, now there is a period of open comment on the proposal, and possible changes. Hopefully enough folks voice their opinion about a 2 person limit being silly and we can get that changed. 

[Anticept]

The NPRM has to go live first before you can comment.

It will appear on https://www.regulations.gov

It is scheduled to go live on July 24th.

[tevbax]

@ Dan Johnson stated that they released BEFORE Airventure so that the conversations could start. This is a good idea. 

Anyone headed to Airventure this year? I live about 30 mins away and will be in the tie down shack in the North 40 for most of the week. 

[Tom Baker]

1 hour ago, tevbax said:

how do you TRAIN for additional paxs?

Think back to when you first soloed an airplane. How much better was the performance once you instructor stepped out. Airplanes tend to fly a little different when they are heavy. The swing in the difference is greater with a four place airplane from solo to loaded. So training with the airplane at the heavier weight would be helpful. I remember training and signing off a fellow for a private pilot checkride years ago in a Piper Lance. Before he finished we did a flight with it loaded up with all six seats full. The change was dramatic.

 

[Warmi]

1 hour ago, tevbax said:

To piggy back on your comment, it states multiple times within that doc that light sport/ sport pilot safety being GREAT, this is why they feel the rule expansion is warranted. But, as I talked through this with my wife this morning.... how do you TRAIN for additional paxs? You can night flight train, retract, constant speed prop etc.... but you can't train for more people. 

Trust me, I want the paxs more than a constant speed prop or retract. 

I think this is more of situation where they make a distinction between overall risk to human life rather than any particular skill. In other words, say if you wanted to drive an empty bus to deliver it somewhere vs driving a bus full of passengers on a commercial trip - there may be different certification requirements for both drivers even though they drive the same bus.

Thats how I read their reasoning …

[FlyingMonkey]

25 minutes ago, Warmi said:

I think this is more of situation where they make a distinction between overall risk to human life rather than any particular skill. In other words, say if you wanted to drive an empty bus to deliver it somewhere vs driving a bus full of passengers on a commercial trip - there may be different certification requirements for both drivers even though they drive the same bus.

Thats how I read their reasoning …

They state multiple times they want to increase the utility of Light Sport airplanes & Sport Pilots for personal and recreational use.  Not being able to take your family along really curtails that.  If they are really adamant about it but wanted to be more reasonable, they could make an exemption for additional passengers if the passengers beyond one are family members.  Like I said this doesn't really affect me, but I feel for others trying to enjoy their airplanes with their family.

If you can fly a four seater at max gross with the backseat full of camping gear, why not with people?  You can legally pack an RV with 25 people and drive it 80mph on the highway feet away from other vehicles, trees, and other obstacles, with nothing more than a driver's license required.  Is flying four souls below 10,000 feet any more risky than that?

[Towner]

38 minutes ago, Tom Baker said:

Think back to when you first soloed an airplane. How much better was the performance once you instructor stepped out. Airplanes tend to fly a little different when they are heavy. The swing in the difference is greater with a four place airplane from solo to loaded. So training with the airplane at the heavier weight would be helpful. I remember training and signing off a fellow for a private pilot checkride years ago in a Piper Lance. Before he finished we did a flight with it loaded up with all six seats full. The change was dramatic.

 

Tom, 

I absolutely understand what you are saying, but most light sport crashes are during landings per the NPRM. What’s easier to land, a loaded 172 or a CTSW? Add some gusty crosswinds into it and the margin gets bigger! 
 

Also, taking off in any airplane in a high density situation can resemble a heavy load, which many of us do.

I think most of us FD owners have come to love the sportier landings. There was a time that 10 year old LSAs could be found for sale with well less than 200 hours. I think early on that many people bought LSAs, but didn’t realize how sporty landings could be in light, touchy airplanes and quit flying them. Of course, this is complete speculation on my part, but worked out well for me when it came time to buy!

[Towner]

8 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

They state multiple times they want to increase the utility of Light Sport airplanes & Sport Pilots for personal and recreational use.  Not being able to take your family along really curtails that.  If they are really adamant about it but wanted to be more reasonable, they could make an exemption for additional passengers if the passengers beyond one are family members.  Like I said this doesn't really affect me, but I feel for others trying to enjoy their airplanes with their family.

If you can fly a four seater at max gross with the backseat full of camping gear, why not with people?  You can legally pack an RV with 25 people and drive it 80mph on the highway feet away from other vehicles, trees, and other obstacles, with nothing more than a driver's license required.  Is flying four souls below 10,000 feet any more risky than that?

Good point on loading the same plane with camping gear vs people. I think we also fly our CTs loaded too, so I don’t see flying a loaded plane as the issue, though we all know some people have done stupid stuff with over loaded planes, regardless of rating.

I just don’t see how 4 people in a 172 can be more dangerous than 2 people in a two hundred knot lancair! People on the ground are a factor too! Also, how about safety features such as whole airplane parachutes? I’ll have one put in a 4 seat certified airplane if it allows me to carry my wife and daughter.

I’m guessing again, but I think that most people flying under sport pilot rules are private pilots who choose not to renew a medical. They have flown four seat airplanes before, most likely with more than 1 passenger. The experience is there for many.

If I can only carry one passenger, I’ll probably stick with my CT. Love the plane. May consider and RV for speed, but probably won’t make the change.

[Towner]

Flying at night is a huge positive for me though. More important than the speed increase.

[FlyingMonkey]

3 minutes ago, Towner said:

Flying at night is a huge positive for me though. More important than the speed increase.

Same here.  I don't really want to fly a lot at night, but the ability after a long day of flying to land after dark would be wonderful.  And IMO the CT is perfect for night VFR in a light single because of the BRS.