MOSAIC draft released

[FlyingMonkey]

I don't care which rating is "higher"...I only care about what privileges my rating conveys. 

I'm used to being looked down on by PPLs that fly 20 hours a year because I'm "only a Sport Pilot", even though I usually fly more than a hundred hours a year.

[Towner]

2 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

I don't care which rating is "higher"...I only care about what privileges my rating conveys. 

I'm used to being looked down on by PPLs that fly 20 hours a year because I'm "only a Sport Pilot", even though I usually fly more than a hundred hours a year.

I only mentioned it because the FAA is using the ladder to justify privileges!  If we were above the recreational pilot level, I believe we might have had a chance at additional passengers. I think mosaic offers some nice steps forward, but being below recreational pilot on their scale may have prevented additional privileges. After mosaic, I don’t expect other changes for years or decades for sport pilots, but our position on the ladder will need to change to continue consideration of additional opportunities.

[shiny.ice]

it's published and the "submit a formal comment" form is open.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/07/24/2023-14425/modernization-of-special-airworthiness-certification#open-comment

[Towner]

2 hours ago, Andy said:

You raised an interesting point about numbers so I went to the FAA website to see what I could find.  The latest numbers from a 2022 spreadsheet there shows 79 active recreational pilots (down from a maximum of 238 in 2013) and 6,957 sport pilots (up from a low of 4824 in 2013).  There's no category and class ratings associated with a sport pilot certificate (it's controlled by endorsement) so I can't specifically tell how many are fixed-wing, but I believe it's safe to say that there are a lot more fixed wing sport pilots than rec.  I agree with you about using the accident statistics to tell much; certainly, if I was presenting that data, I'd caveat it.  I feel like this change may automatically move things in the direction you're suggesting (i.e., an upward movement of sport pilots in the "safety continuum") unless we see an uptick in accidents once flying in the 4 seaters starts.  The actual flight training between sport airplane and PPL airplane is almost identical and this will make it more so, making me think that at some time in the future the two ratings might merge or at least be seen as equivalent for most GA single engine aircraft.

Thanks for posting the numbers. I think you helped explain my issue. Even though there are almost 7000 sport pilots, how many private pilots are flying as sport pilots because of medical? I’m not sure if the FAA currently attempts to document this number, but I’m guessing it would bring the sport pilot numbers up drastically.

From their wording, it just seems our being below the recreational pilot might of held us back from getting additional passengers.

I do think we’ll see a noticeable increase in the number of sport pilots due to accessibility of planes and the additional privileges.

[FlyingMonkey]

42 minutes ago, shiny.ice said:

it's published and the "submit a formal comment" form is open.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/07/24/2023-14425/modernization-of-special-airworthiness-certification#open-comment

Thanks, comments left!  I addressed night flight on a DL medical, the stall speed limit (that seems to be the one *everybody* is commenting on), and the ability to carry more than one passenger for Sport Pilots.  My comment made the case for why more pax should be allowed, and I said that at the very least the rule should be changed to state "no more than one non-family member passenger".

 

[Towner]

2 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Thanks, comments left!  I addressed night flight on a DL medical, the stall speed limit (that seems to be the one *everybody* is commenting on), and the ability to carry more than one passenger for Sport Pilots.  My comment made the case for why more pax should be allowed, and I said that at the very least the rule should be changed to state "no more than one non-family member passenger".

 

I figured getting the thoughts of others would help me write my response. Seems like we are on the same page. Not sure our opinions will mean much without the support of AOPA or EAA, but I gotta try!

[Warmi]

I read somewhere that there are a lot more people with higher certificates flying under sport pilot privileges …

[Towner]

1 hour ago, Warmi said:

I read somewhere that there are a lot more people with higher certificates flying under sport pilot privileges …

I'm one of those people...

[kinoons]

Added my comment. Hopefully enough voices can make some changes. (3 pax please!)

[FlyingMonkey]

When you guys voice your comments, please also request night flight on a DL medical for Sport Pilots.  Don't leave us poor SPs out hanging!

[ODowneyEng]

On 7/20/2023 at 12:47 PM, 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?

 

On 7/20/2023 at 1:12 PM, 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.

Ah the camel has already got his nose under the tent.

I don’t believe LSA instruments are certified for IFR.

IMO light general aircraft can spring a few surprises when loaded to gross.

Problem: how does one tell that very portly lady,  you can’t take her flying in the little 2 seater.

[tevbax]

On 7/24/2023 at 1:46 PM, FlyingMonkey said:

Thanks, comments left!  I addressed night flight on a DL medical, the stall speed limit (that seems to be the one *everybody* is commenting on), and the ability to carry more than one passenger for Sport Pilots.  My comment made the case for why more pax should be allowed, and I said that at the very least the rule should be changed to state "no more than one non-family member passenger".

 

Someone left a comment in there for a tiered approach to passengers which I thought was genius. Pass 100 hours, get a pax. Pass 200, get a pax with a max set to X. 

THIS would be the way to build up skills in an aircraft and be able to manage multiple passengers.

[Towner]

1 hour ago, tevbax said:

Someone left a comment in there for a tiered approach to passengers which I thought was genius. Pass 100 hours, get a pax. Pass 200, get a pax with a max set to X. 

THIS would be the way to build up skills in an aircraft and be able to manage multiple passengers.

Very reasonable and logical idea!

[Anticept]

I couldn't really make heads or tails of why sport pilots are still limited to only one passenger, but I have a feeling it's concern that sport pilots having not flown aircraft with much wider CG ranges might be the issue.

I'd say let em fly with more, but they need an endorsement with a CFI having gone over doing weight and balance of a 4 place aircraft, with themselves calculated in the pilot seat and determining how much weight (without going over gross or under 1 hour of fuel at cruise) is required to shift the CG range if it's even possible, and review the effects of out of CG conditions.

Outside of that, as was said I can't really see how someone is trained to handle more passengers... W&B is really the issue.

This is something that private pilots should also have to do as part of their normal training IMO. It's surprising how easy it can be to take some aircraft out of CG with lots of fuel, two people in the front. A 177 sometimes needs ballast in the cargo bay.

[Towner]

1 hour ago, Anticept said:

I couldn't really make heads or tails of why sport pilots are still limited to only one passenger, but I have a feeling it's concern that sport pilots having not flown aircraft with much wider CG ranges might be the issue.

I'd say let em fly with more, but they need an endorsement with a CFI having gone over doing weight and balance of a 4 place aircraft, with themselves calculated in the pilot seat and determining how much weight (without going over gross or under 1 hour of fuel at cruise) is required to shift the CG range if it's even possible, and review the effects of out of CG conditions.

Outside of that, as was said I can't really see how someone is trained to handle more passengers... W&B is really the issue.

This is something that private pilots should also have to do as part of their normal training IMO. It's surprising how easy it can be to take some aircraft out of CG with lots of fuel, two people in the front. A 177 sometimes needs ballast in the cargo bay.

With the proposed new regulations, they’ll be able to fly a four seat airplane at gross, filled with camping gear and luggage instead of people. If weight and cg are why they aren’t allowing more than 1 passenger, doesn’t make sense to me. 
 

I do support additional training and endorsement to get more passengers, or even a particular number or hours flown by the pilot before getting additional passengers (as mentioned above)…if that’s what it takes.  

[Anticept]

That's why I said adverse loading checks should really be a standard item to teach. It's easy to see how things are within CG normally... what might surprise people is how little it takes to put one out of CG when you get longer airplanes.

[Jim Meade]

How do I get a copy of the ASTM F2245 and other applicable ASTM documents so I can adequately research the FAA proposal? 

[Anticept]

Become a participating member at https://www.astm.org/get-involved/membership/membership-types.html

F37 is the committee on light sport. Book of Standards Volume 15.09 is for light sport aircraft and includes F2245

[tevbax]

3 hours ago, Anticept said:

This is something that private pilots should also have to do as part of their normal training IMO. It's surprising how easy it can be to take some aircraft out of CG with lots of fuel, two people in the front. A 177 sometimes needs ballast in the cargo bay.

Oddly enough, one of my partners has to add ballast to the pax seat with full fuel in our SW to stay in range. Me, I move forward to hit a button on the ems and have to re trim. 

 

[FlyingMonkey]

On 7/27/2023 at 11:26 AM, tevbax said:

Someone left a comment in there for a tiered approach to passengers which I thought was genius. Pass 100 hours, get a pax. Pass 200, get a pax with a max set to X. 

THIS would be the way to build up skills in an aircraft and be able to manage multiple passengers.

Per aircraft or total?  I'd hate to be carrying 3 passengers, switch airplanes, and then have to start over.

[kinoons]

If it isn’t an airframe issue, what the FAA is saying is the addition of two lives in an airframe costs a pilot 20 hours of training? (sport pilot to private) when in reality the only skills added are night flying, and three hours of instrument flight “orientation”.  Sure there is a little more cross country time and a longer solo flight requirement, but that’s not really much more training (perhaps keeping an eye on CG as fuel burns, which should be figured preflight)

like others have noted, I cannot come up with any reasonable explanation to exclude sport pilots from the addition of two passengers  

 

 

[Jim Meade]

On 7/27/2023 at 2:57 PM, Anticept said:

Become a participating member at https://www.astm.org/get-involved/membership/membership-types.html

F37 is the committee on light sport. Book of Standards Volume 15.09 is for light sport aircraft and includes F2245

So you're telling me I have to pay money to read the referenced documents to make an informed comment to the FAA?>

[Anticept]

Yep.

Isn't new either. If you try to look up the TSO for " Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure. " as required in 91.205 for IFR, you will find it's no longer in force. It's now an SAE standard, so you have to pay to get that information.

[Jim Meade]

The point, Corey, is it was not a "pay for view" when the original came out.  The ASTM is a pay for view to even comment intelligtently.

[Anticept]

You should raise your concerns with them. You might even be able to be given a copy free during this period.