MOSAIC draft released

[Tom Baker]

30 minutes ago, Towner said:

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!

Tevbax asked how do you train for four passengers. I simply stated how you would train, and why the training is needed. The statement was not meant as a for or against any of the proposed changes. 

[Warmi]

To me having a plane that can accommodate BRS , 2 people ,enough fuel for 2-3 hours and plenty of space for camping and other baggage and still end up comfortably under gross is the main thing …  I mean my Sting is perfect for local fun flying but I avoid any sort of long distance trips mainly due to weight limitations.

[Towner]

19 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

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.

Generally, I feel comfortable flying around without a chute, but I agree with you…flying at night, or in the mountains makes that chute much more important.

[Towner]

8 minutes ago, Tom Baker said:

Tevbax asked how do you train for four passengers. I simply stated how you would train, and why the training is needed. The statement was not meant as a for or against any of the proposed changes. 

Sorry, I thought you were just talking about flying loaded in general, not training for it. I just think these changes are important and I like to hear all the opinions I can get!

I guess some type of training could be done, but I’m not sure it would be necessary. 
 

[shiny.ice]

I'm just hoping FD comes up with a path to increase the 1320 limit on existing planes. That may be wishful thinking on my part.

[FlyingMonkey]

2 hours ago, shiny.ice said:

I'm just hoping FD comes up with a path to increase the 1320 limit on existing planes. That may be wishful thinking on my part.

I think that’s wishful.  There’s nothing in it for them except increased liability.  They can more easily raise limits on the F2 & C4 (if ever built), and encourage upgrades and more sales.

ELSA might have a path by doing owner flight testing at higher weights.  But there’s very little in the document describing any changes to ELSA, so who knows.

[Anticept]

The weight limit on flight designs would likely be tied to safe parachute deployment weight. I believe the parachutes we have can do something in the vicinity of 1600 pounds.

 

EDIT: it will be codified that all LSAs prior to this rule going into effect will be stuck as they are unless the manufacturer submits paperwork identifying the make, model, and serial number identifying expanded capabilities. See the proposed 21.181(3)(iv)

 

EDIT 2: it will be codified that experimental aircraft will be prohibited by regulation from flying over densely populated areas except where the administrator says it's allowed by operating limitation.

[FlyingMonkey]

3 hours ago, Anticept said:

 

EDIT 2: it will be codified that experimental aircraft will be prohibited by regulation from flying over densely populated areas except where the administrator says it's allowed by operating limitation.

Wait, what?  Fully prohibited, not the current language about sufficient altitude to effect a safe landing?  If so that’s a HUGE change the RV drivers would fight tooth and nail!

EDIT: Oh, I missed the part about allowed by operating limitations.  Isn’t this how all experimentals are allowed over densely populated areas now?  I have such language in my limitations.

[Towner]

On 7/19/2023 at 8:40 PM, tevbax said:

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.

In my weekly email from the EAA, it gave a quick overview, including night flight. It stated a medical certificate or basic med would be required for night flight. I haven’t looked into 61.23(c)(3) yet, but I thought I’d pass along the info from EAA. If they are right, it will be a bummer!

[FlyingMonkey]

7 hours ago, Towner said:

In my weekly email from the EAA, it gave a quick overview, including night flight. It stated a medical certificate or basic med would be required for night flight. I haven’t looked into 61.23(c)(3) yet, but I thought I’d pass along the info from EAA. If they are right, it will be a bummer!

I don’t understand how this is even a change.  Pilots have always been able to fly at night with a medical.  So now they are allowing SPs to do the same?  The whole point of SP is the DL medical to simplify things, if I have to get a medical to exercise some of the privileges, why wouldn’t I get a PP instead?

[Warmi]

1 hour ago, FlyingMonkey said:

I don’t understand how this is even a change.  Pilots have always been able to fly at night with a medical.  So now they are allowing SPs to do the same?  The whole point of SP is the DL medical to simplify things, if I have to get a medical to exercise some of the privileges, why wouldn’t I get a PP instead?

I think there is a lot of confusion around this particular point.. for instance this AOPA video outlining proposed changes claims that SP pilots will be able to fly at night after additional endorsement ( which was my understanding of the rule )

 

[Jim Meade]

I can't wait till AI gets a hold of this.  It already confuses Light Sport Aircraft with Sport Pilot certificate.  AI can start learning right in this thread.  I'll make the popcorn.

[Towner]

I tried reading 61.23(c)(3) this morning. I think I’ll wait until an attorney reviews it. Even though I think I understand it, and the other sections it refers to, I’m just afraid I’m reading it wrong.

I do agree with you guys that requiring a medical for night flight goes against what sport pilot is all about.

I’m guessing we are all ok with the additional training and endorsements for night flight, just not the medical portion if required?

I don’t like the current 10k ceiling limit and I’m surprised it didn’t change with the higher performance planes being allowed. Still, even with some of the really high terrain out here, it’s something that can be managed. 
 

[Tom Baker]

3 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

I don’t understand how this is even a change.  Pilots have always been able to fly at night with a medical.  So now they are allowing SPs to do the same?  The whole point of SP is the DL medical to simplify things, if I have to get a medical to exercise some of the privileges, why wouldn’t I get a PP instead?

The whole point about sport pilot was to bring the people flying illegal two seat and heavy ultralights under the FAA umbrella. 

[FlyingMonkey]

36 minutes ago, Towner said:

I tried reading 61.23(c)(3) this morning. I think I’ll wait until an attorney reviews it. Even though I think I understand it, and the other sections it refers to, I’m just afraid I’m reading it wrong.

I do agree with you guys that requiring a medical for night flight goes against what sport pilot is all about.

I’m guessing we are all ok with the additional training and endorsements for night flight, just not the medical portion if required?

I don’t like the current 10k ceiling limit and I’m surprised it didn’t change with the higher performance planes being allowed. Still, even with some of the really high terrain out here, it’s something that can be managed. 
 

I think the 10,000ft limit is pretty reasonable in that generally people with a DL are okay up to that altitude (after all, airliners are pressurized to 8000), but above that might be iffy if they have underlying issues.

The night thing makes less sense...people don't turn into pumpkins when the sun goes down, and if they have a DL without a day-only restriction they should be safe to operate at night.

[Warmi]

1 minute ago, FlyingMonkey said:

I think the 10,000ft limit is pretty reasonable in that generally people with a DL are okay up to that altitude (after all, airliners are pressurized to 8000), but above that might be iffy if they have underlying issues.

The night thing makes less sense...people don't turn into pumpkins when the sun goes down, and if they have a DL without a day-only restriction they should be safe to operate at night.

I agree but , personally,  these days I don’t particularly like driving at night let alone flying so I don’t think I would be utilizing this new option very often - maybe on the 4th of July get up there to see all that spectacular craziness from above ( btw ..in a state where fireworks are banned the whole place just explodes with them on that day)

[Towner]

Flying out west, the 10k limit can cause issues. On a clear day, almost everything I see east of me is above 10k. I can go east if I go 100 south, then I can head east. I can live with that. The 2000 agl exception isn’t enough to make me comfortable crossing the higher altitude stuff on most days, especially summer or wind. Most places you can cross the tall stuff in 15 minutes before it starts immediately dropping. The 14k limit for 30 minutes regulation for ppl (oxygen based) gives me the cushion I need. Of course there are guys that buzz the peaks at 200 feet, but I’m a little more conservative and they usually have better performing aircraft.

The other problem is flight following. I believe this is a great safety feature for vfr cross country. Flying to Vegas from here, I’ll loose radio reception and sometimes radar contact, even at 8500 feet. Not only do I appreciate flight following for traffic avoidance, but for emergency assistance. East of the sierras is a bunch of desolate desert areas. If I went down, it would be nice if someone knew where. At 10500 (the altitude I normally used in my Mooney when flying east past the Sierras), I’d never loose radio or radar. 

I’ve only flown east of the Rockies a few times in a small airplane, but it is a completely different environment. What some states call mountains, we would call hills! Beautiful places to fly through though!

Again, this is not a huge issue for me as I can work around it. When sport pilots start traveling in 180 knot high performance airplanes, it would be a nice benefit though.

I’ll take night flight over an altitude increase any day!

I’ll still argue for the right to fill the 4 seats though. Let a family travel together! I’ll have the parents of my 11 year old sign a waiver if necessary

[Tom Baker]

1 hour ago, FlyingMonkey said:

The night thing makes less sense...people don't turn into pumpkins when the sun goes down, and if they have a DL without a day-only restriction they should be safe to operate at night.

What about colorblindness? Private pilots with colorblindness, even if they hold a medical are prohibited from flying at night. Some of those don't really know they have colorblindness until they apply for a medical. Some can do some special testing and get a waiver, though I had one student that was bad enough that he could not.

[FlyingMonkey]

8 minutes ago, Tom Baker said:

What about colorblindness? Private pilots with colorblindness, even if they hold a medical are prohibited from flying at night. Some of those don't really know they have colorblindness until they apply for a medical. Some can do some special testing and get a waiver, though I had one student that was bad enough that he could not.

I'd be okay with a vision and color blindness test.  It doesn't need to be a full-on medical.

[Towner]

2 minutes ago, Tom Baker said:

What about colorblindness? Private pilots with colorblindness, even if they hold a medical are prohibited from flying at night. Some of those don't really know they have colorblindness until they apply for a medical. Some can do some special testing and get a waiver, though I had one student that was bad enough that he could not.

Along with color blindness, the DMV can put a restriction on a driver’s license to prevent driving at night just for poor vision at night. Even though they will sometimes check a driver’s basic vision when someone renews their driver’s license, often they have no clue about a driver’s vision. I’m not sure how they check it for night vision specifically in their office. If there is a vision concern, they will require a full check by an optometrist and can add restrictions based on those results, including no driving at night.

Also, doctors are required to report any medical condition that causes a lapse of consciousness. Normally, this results in a minimum 6 month license suspension while the medical condition is evaluated.

This is why the FAA uses the driver’s license instead of no medical at all. DMV doesn’t catch it all, but at least it’s a level of protection.

[Towner]

16 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

I'd be okay with a vision and color blindness test.  It doesn't need to be a full-on medical.

I have no concerns about my vision, but I’m afraid to say that I’d be ok with a vision test. We should stick with the driver’s license limitations and self evaluation. If we start adding additional medical evaluations, it defeats the purpose of the driver’s license medical and the FAA may continue to ask for more. 

Warmi’s comments are a great example of the self evaluation. While it doesn’t appear his drivers license has limitations regarding driving at night, his own concerns about flying at night will limit or prevent him from flying at night. Again what the FAA was asking for with sport pilots.

[kinoons]

26 minutes ago, Towner said:

Along with color blindness, the DMV can put a restriction on a driver’s license to prevent driving at night just for poor vision at night. Even though they will sometimes check a driver’s basic vision when someone renews their driver’s license, often they have no clue about a driver’s vision. I’m not sure how they check it for night vision specifically in their office. If there is a vision concern, they will require a full check by an optometrist and can add restrictions based on those results, including no driving at night.

Also, doctors are required to report any medical condition that causes a lapse of consciousness. Normally, this results in a minimum 6 month license suspension while the medical condition is evaluated.

This is why the FAA uses the driver’s license instead of no medical at all. DMV doesn’t catch it all, but at least it’s a level of protection.

you are incorrect about the reporting requirements. There is no uniformed reporting requirement. 
 

for example there is no mandatory reporting for seizures in NM to the DMV. Other causes of loss of consciousness are not referenced at all. 
 

individuals are expected to self disclose on their license application/renewal. 
 

https://www.epilepsygroup.com/epilepsy-information-sub2-detail5-59-19-94-79/epilepsy-seizure-driving-transportation-law-legal-state.htm

[Towner]

26 minutes ago, kinoons said:

you are incorrect about the reporting requirements. There is no uniformed reporting requirement. 
 

for example there is no mandatory reporting for seizures in NM to the DMV. Other causes of loss of consciousness are not referenced at all. 
 

individuals are expected to self disclose on their license application/renewal. 
 

https://www.epilepsygroup.com/epilepsy-information-sub2-detail5-59-19-94-79/epilepsy-seizure-driving-transportation-law-legal-state.htm

It might be California only, but at least here it is a mandatory reporting requirement per health and safety code 103900(a).

Brother and mother had strokes and it was a mandatory reporting requirement for medical and 6 month suspension. Friend had seizures and lost her license for years because they couldn’t get them under control. Thankfully, a new med came out that completely stopped them. Six months without seizures and a doctors approval, she got her license back.
 

If it’s not all states, I’m sure there are others. I should have realized the communist country of California would be a little more controlling than others. So anyway, on some medical issues CA DMV is gonna find out and it will most likely affect your driving privileges, even if only temporarily. Not sure if this would automatically be forwarded to FAA.

[Towner]

Just read the list for mandatory physician reporting and I’m surprised there aren’t more. I’m guessing they all have self reporting requirements since they can all require some type of medical clearance or follow up. I guess if someone doesn’t self report it could be like a private pilot flying without a medical ( not as a sport pilot). We all know it happens, but wouldn’t be good if you get caught!

[Andy]

On 7/19/2023 at 10:37 PM, 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  

 

 

If you're exercising sport pilot privileges (regardless of your certificate level), it's 1 pax.