Mosaic: Certified planes who qualify. What actually changes?

DOH! Somehow I got fixated on 59 kts as my clean stall speed--even after looking it up.
You both are correct.

According to the stall speed chart, at max gross-ish the Warrior II clean stalls at a little ove 55 CAS.

Thanks Bruce. The chart you posted is from the 1982 POH and is a more complete chart than my 1976 original with revisions.
 
Last edited:
TCABM said:
Serious question. Is it that the aircraft is eligible for Light Sport, that Sport Pilot privileges allow for operation of that make/model, or both?
Click to expand...
Light-Sport is a certification process for new aircraft that meet certain design and performance limits. Sport Pilots may fly aircraft, regardless of certification basis, that meet certain design and performance limits. Those two sets of limits are similar but not identical (e.g. 59 vs 61kts stall limit).
 
Dana said:
Light-Sport is a certification process for new aircraft that meet certain design and performance limits. Sport Pilots may fly aircraft, regardless of certification basis, that meet certain design and performance limits. Those two sets of limits are similar but not identical (e.g. 59 vs 61kts stall limit).
Click to expand...

Kind of what I thought, thanks. I guess why I can understand why the “light sport” cards were handed out, but in my mind it’s a bit disingenuous.
 
murphey said:
Cherokee's in annual this week, so I spent some time at the shop. The two A&P/IAs and I decided that for the cherokee, nothing changes, it's still Part CAR 23 compliance. A sport pilot is legally allowed to fly it (over my dead body!) after practical test to add Airplane. Still no experimental avionics, still subject to IA annual inspection (Part 43), still certified under Type Certificate.
Click to expand...
there is no such thing as experimental avionics. show me the regs that say other wise. its up to the installing A&P
 
wanttaja said:
When Sport Pilot came out, the FAA issued a list of production-type airplanes that qualified. I suspect they'll need to do the same thing for the MOSAIC airplanes....
Click to expand...
And given the less healthy aspects of pilot mentality we’ll then have people claiming that unless a type is on the list, its not eligible. However my FAA certified type is not present in the US to the extent necessary for anybody to notice, 10 planes imported and less than half that still flying, and I will ignore them.

Also, I’ll have to check but IIRC none of the airspeeds in my very abbreviated POH are expressed in CAS, regardless of it being certified in Germany in about 1969 and accepted by FAA under treaty. I don’t think FAA will make a distinction in real world enforcement between CAS and IAS unless there is a reason to do so and plenty of data.
 
The million dollar question here,

Are aircraft insurers going to play ball with these changes? Are they going to fully hull insure a Cessna 172 operated by a sport pilot or a pilot with higher privilege operating under sport pilot without holding a valid medical?
 
Pilot99B said:
The million dollar question here,

Are aircraft insurers going to play ball with these changes? Are they going to fully hull insure a Cessna 172 operated by a sport pilot or a pilot with higher privilege operating under sport pilot without holding a valid medical?
Click to expand...
What's the practical difference between insuring one of these and insuring a factory-built Vans RV-12?
Have sport pilots had difficulty getting insurance up to this point?
 
Pilot99B said:
The million dollar question here,

Are aircraft insurers going to play ball with these changes? Are they going to fully hull insure a Cessna 172 operated by a sport pilot or a pilot with higher privilege operating under sport pilot without holding a valid medical?
Click to expand...
They're fully insuring a 172 operated by a pilot without an instrument rating. They just charge you more for it. I'd imagine something similar for sport pilot, but then again I don't have access to their actuarial tables.
 
asicer said:
They're fully insuring a 172 operated by a pilot without an instrument rating. They just charge you more for it. I'd imagine something similar for sport pilot, but then again I don't have access to their actuarial tables.
Click to expand...

There’ something like 7,000 Sport Pilot certificate holders compared to the ~445K student & private certificate holders.

I imagine complex and HP aircraft are going to have more stringent insurance requirements than a fixed gear/pitch trainer. Age will likely play a factor, too.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Also, the IAS -> CAS chart starts at 80 mph in those POHs so I guess below 80 mph it's IAS = CAS.
Click to expand...

No, it just means they didn't publish the data (presumably because they don't expect anyone to be flying at those speeds).

At slow speeds, and therefore high angle of attack, the IAS will be less than the CAS. This is because the IAS is exactly what it says, "indicated", and at high AOA, the angle of the pilot tube prevents air from entering in a nice, smooth fashion. So not as much air gets in there, and the dynamic pressure is therefore lower. So the airspeed indicator reads that as a slower airspeed than reality.

I used to fly a 182 with an Aspen that I could get the airspeed to show zero - which I assume in a glass panel airplane really just means it's below the measuring range of the system. But clearly our CAS was still something above the stall speed. This was with flaps and a lot of power. And a lot of fun. After the airspeed went to zero, the rest of the Aspen would get confused and start throwing up big red X's on several (seemingly unrelated) things.
 
Pilot99B said:
The million dollar question here,

Are aircraft insurers going to play ball with these changes? Are they going to fully hull insure a Cessna 172 operated by a sport pilot or a pilot with higher privilege operating under sport pilot without holding a valid medical?
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine that they don’t modify things.

Forgetting insurance, just the thought of someone with a few hours training and a driver’s license flying a Comanche…well, we might see an increase in accidents. Maybe the cfis won’t sign anyone off to solo till they have significant training
 
Randomskylane said:
I can’t imagine that they don’t modify things.

Forgetting insurance, just the thought of someone with a few hours training and a driver’s license flying a Comanche…well, we might see an increase in accidents. Maybe the cfis won’t sign anyone off to solo till they have significant training
Click to expand...
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where someone with a 'few hours training' is solo'ing a Comanche.

How is this more likely now than it was a week ago?
 
Randomskylane said:
Comanche 180 is mosaic, no?
Click to expand...

When I went from SP to PP, IIRC it took about another 10 hours of training. I think I needed an extra hour under the hood, then night flights, an extra dual XC, and then some tune-up / checkride prep.

Do you really think those few hours beyond SP really made that much difference for daytime VFR flying?
 
unsafervguy said:
there is no such thing as experimental avionics. show me the regs that say other wise. its up to the installing A&P
Click to expand...
From Aircraft Spruce website:

Garmin GTR® 205X Panel Mount VHF COMM Radio For Experimental Aircraft​

Garmin GTR® 205 VHF COMM Radio For Certified Aircraft​

I beg your pardon that I used the wrong terminology. Not. You know exactly what I meant.
 
unsafervguy said:
there is no such thing as experimental avionics. show me the regs that say other wise. its up to the installing A&P
Click to expand...

But there is a certified vs non certified avionics. Then there are the NORSEE non certified things you can use in either plane classification.
 
Interesting that they split the pilot training requirements and airplane capability. So you may have new airplanes that stall at 61kcas, but can’t be flown by sport pilot privileges. Other than maybe easier certification route, not sure the business model there. If there’s a proliferation in 61kcas airplanes, do you think they bump up the speed limitations for sport pilots after additional safety data?
 
Tokirbymd said:
If there’s a proliferation in 61kcas airplanes, do you think they bump up the speed limitations for sport pilots after additional safety data?
Click to expand...
Sure, we can all look forward to that final rule being published in 2036!
 
Tokirbymd said:
Interesting that they split the pilot training requirements and airplane capability. So you may have new airplanes that stall at 61kcas, but can’t be flown by sport pilot privileges. Other than maybe easier certification route, not sure the business model there. If there’s a proliferation in 61kcas airplanes, do you think they bump up the speed limitations for sport pilots after additional safety data?
Click to expand...
Or they it... either way, separating the two means one can be adjusted without affecting the other.

Sport Pilots already need endorsements for aircraft with Vh greater or lesser than 87 kts. They could always add another required endorsement. I'm kinda surprised they didn't already.
 
Tokirbymd said:
Interesting that they split the pilot training requirements and airplane capability. So you may have new airplanes that stall at 61kcas, but can’t be flown by sport pilot privileges. Other than maybe easier certification route, not sure the business model there. If there’s a proliferation in 61kcas airplanes, do you think they bump up the speed limitations for sport pilots after additional safety data?
Click to expand...

Seems to me a sport pilot can fly those new airplanes because they are being certified as LSA aircraft. The 59kts is for aircraft not certified as LSA originally.

It’s also neat that if you built an LSA kit yourself and applied for a repairmen cert, that you can now do your own condition inspection without an IA.

I wonder if examiners will create much drama on checkrides when it comes to a Sport Pilot test in something like a C172?
 
Skymac said:
Seems to me a sport pilot can fly those new airplanes because they are being certified as LSA aircraft. The 59kts is for aircraft not certified as LSA originally.

It’s also neat that if you built an LSA kit yourself and applied for a repairmen cert, that you can now do your own condition inspection without an IA.

I wonder if examiners will create much drama on checkrides when it comes to a Sport Pilot test in something like a C172?
Click to expand...

Nope. SPs will no longer be able to fly all LSAs; just those with Vs1 < 59 knots CAS. If a new LSA has a higher Vs1 it can’t be flown using SP privileges.
 
Skymac said:
It’s also neat that if you built an LSA kit yourself and applied for a repairmen cert, that you can now do your own condition inspection without an IA.
Click to expand...
Years ago Schweitzer and other manufacturers sold kits. Gliders completed according to the supplied guidance were certified in the standard glider category, not as experimental. But a certified Airframe mechanic was required to sign off on the annual and 100-hour.
 
Skymac said:
It’s also neat that if you built an LSA kit yourself and applied for a repairmen cert, that you can now do your own condition inspection without an IA.
Click to expand...
If you own an LSA, whether you built it or not, you can get the light-sport repairman certificate to do the inspection by taking the 16 hour class. That certificate is good for any LSA you own or may own.

If you build an E-AB (but not an ELSA kit), you can get the repairman certificate without the need for the class. That certificate is different from the LSR-I certificate in that it's good only for that particular N-number.

Neither of the above are new. What's new is that the light-sport repairman certificate is now good for any E-AB you own, even if you didn't build it.
 
murphey said:
From Aircraft Spruce website:

Garmin GTR® 205X Panel Mount VHF COMM Radio For Experimental Aircraft​

Garmin GTR® 205 VHF COMM Radio For Certified Aircraft​

I beg your pardon that I used the wrong terminology. Not. You know exactly what I meant.
Click to expand...
What garmin says has no bearing on what I can put in a certificated aircraft operated under part 91. It’s up to the installing a&p as to it’s airworthiness. Show me the certification for all the kx-170’s installed.

What you meant is you don’t know the regulations.
 
Last edited:
Mikey52 said:
But there is a certified vs non certified avionics. Then there are the NORSEE non certified things you can use in either plane classification.
Click to expand...
No there isn’t, there are Tso’d unit and non tso’d units but the are no requirements to installtso’ed radios in a certificated aircraft.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Hey, does that mean I can fly a Boeing under Light Sport? :biggrin:
Click to expand...

You’re only allowed one passenger and no night flying. Otherwise I suppose you could ferry it for free (no flying for hire either).
 
MOSAIC Final Rule - CAS vs IAS said:
h. CAS versus Indicated Airspeed (IAS)

A few commenters requested the stall speed be specified in IAS rather than CAS. One commenter stated this rule should be rewritten to accommodate the commonly accepted practice of using IAS in the aircraft. CAS is the speed at which an airplane is moving through the air. IAS is displayed on the airspeed indicator and is read by the pilot. IAS differs from CAS in that IAS includes any installation (or position) and instrumentation errors. For example, the accuracy of IAS may be affected by minor misalignment of the airplane’s pitot tube; whereas CAS testing traditionally uses properly calibrated instruments and a test airspeed system independent of the aircraft’s installed equipment. The installation and instrumentation errors are greatest at slow speeds and higher angles of attack, i.e., approaching or at stall speed, and can result in CAS differing from IAS by several knots or more. For example, the stall speed of an airplane may be 50 knots IAS, but 56 knots CAS.

Position corrections vary among airplane models and can even vary among individual airplanes of the same model. As a result, defining stall speed in IAS would yield gross inconsistencies when determining whether an airplane meets an eligibility requirement for design stall speed. Because of these concerns, FAA disagrees with the comments suggesting the design stall speed criterion be specified in IAS rather than CAS. FAA requires CAS for determining whether an airplane meets the design stall speed because it represents the airspeed that would be measured by an airspeed system without position and instrumentation errors. This ensures all airplanes meet the same standard. Regardless, for newly manufactured light-sport category airplanes, the stall speed will be determined by the aircraft manufacturer and verified during ground and flight testing as required by § 22.195.5
Click to expand...

Looks like CAS it is.
 
Tusayan said:
Also, I’ll have to check but IIRC none of the airspeeds in my very abbreviated POH are expressed in CAS, regardless of it being certified in Germany in about 1969 and accepted by FAA under treaty.
Click to expand...
What are you flying, a BO209?
 
Pilot99B said:
The million dollar question here,

Are aircraft insurers going to play ball with these changes? Are they going to fully hull insure a Cessna 172 operated by a sport pilot or a pilot with higher privilege operating under sport pilot without holding a valid medical?
Click to expand...
They insure student pilots in 172's now, a sport pilot who took their check ride is more experienced than a low time student.
TCABM said:
There’ something like 7,000 Sport Pilot certificate holders compared to the ~445K student & private certificate holders.

I imagine complex and HP aircraft are going to have more stringent insurance requirements than a fixed gear/pitch trainer. Age will likely play a factor, too.
Click to expand...
Even with a "real" PPL a low time pilot probably isn't getting insurance in a complex/HP without a crap load of dual received in type, so you can't expect different for a sport pilot. Even for say an Arrow if all your training time is in fixed gear PA28 or a 172RG if your training time is in a fixed gear 172 the insurance companies require the time in retractable beforehand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top