Does the passing of mosaic change allowable avionics in certified planes

Lucky man

Lucky man

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 19, 2022
Messages
44
Display Name
Lucky man
My 1968 Cessna 182 qualifies for mosaic. Does the passing of mosaic change the allowable avionics that can be put in planes that comply with the mosaic rules. I ask as I'd like to update my panel :)
 
Lucky man said:
My 1968 Cessna 182 qualifies for mosaic. Does the passing of mosaic change the allowable avionics that can be put in planes that comply with the mosaic rules. I ask as I'd like to update my panel :)
Click to expand...
You'll be allowed to fly it as a Sport Pilot (or PP under SP limitations) but the airplane itself will still have a Standard Airworthiness Certificate so I didn't see a way for that to happen just yet (assuming you are referring to experimental panel parts).
 
Last edited:
No. That doesn’t prevent you from updating your panel though.
 
Don't confuse LSA aircraft certification with sport pilot privileges. MOSAIC expanded sport pilot privileges to fly certain certificated aircraft that meet specific stall speed and other requirements. However, those expanded pilot privileges do no confer LSA certification to previously certified (non-LSA) aircraft.
 
MOSAIC does absolutely nothing to how your aircraft is certificated or what the maintenance requirements are.
It just changes how much medical is required to act as PIC.
 
chemgeek said:
Don't confuse LSA aircraft certification with sport pilot privileges. MOSAIC expanded sport pilot privileges to fly certain certificated aircraft that meet specific stall speed and other requirements. However, those expanded pilot privileges do no confer LSA certification to previously certified (non-LSA) aircraft.
Click to expand...
Exactly. There are provisions in MOSAIC that change some LSA certification requirements, but as you point out those have nothing to do with pilot privileges. To the contrary, all the previous references to “light-sport aircraft” in Part 61 were removed.

Think back to those “irrelevant” questions on the private knowledge test about the difference in “category” and “class” as applied to aircraft vs pilots. If one understood the concept it’s applicable here.

I’m actually seeing comments elsewhere that you can’t even fly a 172 unless Cessna recertifies it as an LSA. .
 
Thanks for everyone's comments. I was hoping I'd be able to put in avionics approved for experimental aircraft to save some money. I was also hoping I could put in a 12" dynon skyview HDX display in lieu of the 10" display

'
 
FAA makes it difficult to change certified to other category such as experimental and seems unlikely with current LSA now, as well. However, there is a little used special AWC category called primary category , designed to reduce standard AWC small aircraft costs and expand owner maintenance abilities, and allow wider range of equipment that can be installed. There is an advisory circular about converting. Unlike experimental, you can rent plane out.

Also look at NORSEE as well….. you could probably figure out a way to install a non certified EFIS is you still have the certified instruments or EFIS like a Garmin g5. NORSEE has some level of FAA approval, and some portable EFIS likely already has it, so may be worth looking into.
 
Bell…. Short of obtaining some method of demonstrating a TSO compliance and obtaining STC on your own (which, as you said, wouldn’t be economical), how else could it be done legally? Is there another method ?

I have heard rumors- of course from no one I know- installing some non certified components that were identical to certified version, such as a G5 which exp version is half the cost….. as well as some EFIS units that also have both certified and non certified versions, both without issues …. Would there be a practical way of legalizing such an install? Some have tried field approvals without luck over the years.

I have considered proving that a non certified GPS unit in my experimental can meet required TSO for IFR. But manufacturers dont like sharing tech data and, thus, again would be non practical. Too bad, really, as there are so many experimental/non certified components that are just as reliable if not better than original 40+ year old equipment and would enhance safety.
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
how else could it be done legally? Is there another method ?
Click to expand...
As an alteration. There are 2 ways to replace/install parts on a TC'd aircraft: as a replacement part which maintains type design integrity where the part needs an approval like a TSO; or as an alteration which alters the the type design where the individual part needs no standalone approval. Now whether that alteration is a minor or major is entirely up to the installer.
 
Last edited:
here we go again.

first for radios, the only radios in a typical GA aircraft that requires a TSO is the transponder, the ELT and an IFR GPS. there is no such thing as an experimental radios no matter what garmin and the others want to tell you. its up to the installing AP to determine the airworthiness of the unit.

as for experimental GPS that would meet the TSO, they do not exist. example, the dynon GPS2020 does not contain the software that is needed to meet the required parameters for use in the IFR system.

as to efis equipment, the problem is they are replacing equipment required by 91.205 that was installed by the manufacture during certification. yes the experimental G5 Is identical to the certified model, but the FAA takes the position that replacing those items requires a STC which is really the only thing that you are getting with the certified unit. i dont agree with it, but have no desire to foot the legal bill to challange it in court.

adding a experimental G5 without removing the factory installed equipment can be done as alteration, quite possibly with nothing more than a log book entry.
 
unsafervguy said:
adding a experimental G5 without removing the factory installed equipment can be done as alteration, quite possibly with nothing more than a log book entry.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's the key. At that point it's just a non-required, non-essential piece of equipment, for reference/back-up only.

The one important point is to ensure/demonstrate that it doesn't impact safety of flight. For example, that new uncertified EFIS can't put out interference that might affect a compass or a NAV/COM.
 
But it still doesnt prevent an owner from getting their own approvals to install the uncertified versions in their TC'd aircraft. The main problem usually is the cost of that standalone approval vs the existing Garmin approval cost, etc. tends to be higher. However some have done it regardless the cost difference just as some people have installed engines on their own approval nickel vs pay for the STC version.
 
People install illegal parts all the time. Just a question of how savvy your mechanic is and whether or not they will require the parts to be removed to sign off an annual. Unlikely the feds will ever know, unless there is an accident, or a very thorough ramp check.
 
Bell206 said:
But it still doesnt prevent an owner from getting their own approvals to install the uncertified versions in their TC'd aircraft. The main problem usually is the cost of that standalone approval vs the existing Garmin approval cost, etc. tends to be higher. However some have done it regardless the cost difference just as some people have installed engines on their own approval nickel vs pay for the STC version.
Click to expand...
None of what you describe will make a non approved gps legal to fly ifr with. Just sayin.
 
Salty said:
None of what you describe will make a non approved gps legal to fly ifr with. Just sayin.
Click to expand...


Wouldn’t that be a moot point to a pilot flying under sport pilot privileges?

I thought sport pilot was vfr only.
 
Salty said:
None of what you describe will make a non approved gps legal to fly ifr with. Just sayin.
Click to expand...
It won't but non-IFR-certified GPS may not be what is being asked. More likely it's about installing something like the G3X which has a $7,500 difference depending on whether it the one for certified aircraft as opposed to the one for the experimental/LSA market.
 
aterry1067 said:
Wouldn’t that be a moot point to a pilot flying under sport pilot privileges?

I thought sport pilot was vfr only.
Click to expand...
It might not be about sport privileges. One of the things MOSAIC did was decouple the concepts of sport pilot and LSA. On the aircraft side, they created a new certification level between experimental and Part 23. There is nothing preventing the existence of an IFR-certified LSA. (Both Vans and Bristell are already talking about it).

"LSA" does not mean a sport pilot can legally fly it. "Part 23" doesn't mean a sport pilot cannot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top