Mosaic: Certified planes who qualify. What actually changes?

MauleSkinner said:
You need to include all the regs, not isolated regs. If we add 61.23, we see:


Multiengine is not a Sport Pilot privilege, so if a Private Pilot doesn’t have a medical certificate, he can’t fly a multiengine airplane.
Click to expand...
Obviously true that you need to include all of the regs, and also true that the large number of rules and long amendment history sometimes makes it hard to see how they all fit together.

§ 61.23(a)(3)(i) would seem to answer the question—no using private pilot private privileges without a third class medical or BasicMed. It also clearly states that student pilots need a medical or BasicMed, which would be a problem for sport pilot trainees that wanted to solo, were it not for the carve-out in § 61.23(c)(1)(i) for student pilots seeking privileges in an LSA. (Note that the newly amended § 61.23 still contains a bunch of references to LSAs that are obsolete and probably should have been changed to “aircraft,” because sport pilots are now allowed to fly a bunch of aircraft that are not LSAs.)

Now you could say that § 61.23(c)(1)(ii) is likewise the exception to this rule that lets private pilots fly with “sport pilot privileges” with just a driver’s license as the medical qualification. But it doesn’t say so. By its own terms, it applies to pilots that hold a “sport pilot certificate,” which most private pilots never have had. The clear exceptions to § 61.23(a)(3)(i) are found in § 61.303. Given a broad prohibition (§ 61.23(a)(3)(i)) and narrower exceptions (§ 61.303), the narrower exceptions would typically prevail, under the maxim of "lex specialis derogat legi generali" (specific prevails over general).

Anyway, I think this is interesting for folks who like understanding how all of the regulations fit together. At most it is an oversight that shows the folks at the FAA who drafted these things didn’t perfectly capture what they intended in this amendment. If it’s brought to the FAA’s attention, they will probably fix it. I wouldn’t recommend trying to take advantage of this loophole, to the extent it even really exists.
 
Neil Rubin said:
Now you could say that § 61.23(c)(1)(ii) is likewise the exception to this rule that lets private pilots fly with “sport pilot privileges” with just a driver’s license as the medical qualification. But it doesn’t say so. By its own terms, it applies to pilots that hold a “sport pilot certificate,” which most private pilots never have had. The clear exceptions to § 61.23(a)(3)(i) are found in § 61.303. Given a broad prohibition (§ 61.23(a)(3)(i)) and narrower exceptions (§ 61.303), the narrower exceptions would typically prevail, under the maxim of "lex specialis derogat legi generali" (specific prevails over general).
Click to expand...
It says nothing about holding a sport Pilot certificate.

And, in fact, Subpart J applies to any level of pilot certificate held (except Student) per 61.301(c): “This subpart applies to applicants for, and holders of, sport pilot certificates. It also applies to holders of recreational pilot certificates and higher, as provided in § 61.303.”
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
It says nothing about holding a sport Pilot certificate.

And, in fact, Subpart J applies to any level of pilot certificate held (except Student) per 61.301(c): “This subpart applies to applicants for, and holders of, sport pilot certificates. It also applies to holders of recreational pilot certificates and higher, as provided in § 61.303.”
Click to expand...
100% agree, and that’s the reason that I think the FAA made an error in drafting the rule and thereby created a loophole that theoretically allows certain pilots to fly certain twins and powered lift with a driver’s license medical. The issue is that § 61.303 gives certain privileges to sport pilots, and it gives certain privileges to recreational pilots and above. These mostly match, because all of the privileges are limited by § 61.315 and § 61.316. But recreational pilot privileges are more limited than sport pilot privileges when it comes to cross country, and recreational and above pilot privileges are greater than sport pilot when it comes to doing certain things without an endorsement. By its literal terms, § 61.303 gives a private pilot privileges to fly on a driver’s license in any aircraft where they have category and class ratings, subject to the limits in §§ 61.315 and 61.316.

Anyway, we can certainly agree to disagree. I think the stakes of this debate are pretty low. At most it might give a pilot in an enforcement action a way to get off the hook until the FAA fixes the regulation. But even winning an enforcement action is going to be a painful experience. The FAA does not want people flying twins without at least BasicMed. Maybe someday they will allow sport pilots to fly distributed lift airplanes with multiple propellers, if they are sufficiently simple to fly. But in the meantime, don’t do something stupid like fly an Aircam after you’ve been diagnosed with epilepsy or cardiac disease serious enough that you can’t get an SI (i.e., if you can’t get BasicMed).
 
Neil Rubin said:
By its literal terms, § 61.303 gives a private pilot privileges to fly on a driver’s license in any aircraft where they have category and class ratings, subject to the limits in §§ 61.315 and 61.316.
Click to expand...
Where does 61.303 allow a private pilot to fly a multi engine airplane with just a driver’s license? What specific verbiage are you looking at?
 
What is this going to do to the value of LSA aircraft that were designed and built to the original rules and restrictions? Are there going to be dirt cheap used Icon A5's on the market?
 
Silvaire said:
What is this going to do to the value of LSA aircraft that were designed and built to the original rules and restrictions? Are there going to be dirt cheap used Icon A5's on the market?
Click to expand...
I suspect that Basic Med may have already pre-depressed that market somewhat.
 
Todd82 said:
Indeed. Almost all my time is in PA28, I got insurance quotes for a relatively cheap Arrow and it was $5500/yr more than a comparable hull value PA-28-180, AND they required 50 hours dual before I could solo the Arrow.
Click to expand...
Wow! My Bonanza wasn't that bad, and I only had a bit over 100 hours!

30 dual required and a slightly smaller premium, but in fairness I already had a complex endorsement and some time in an Arrow.
 
Any chance the Subsonex JSX-2T microjet an aircraft that could be flown by sport pilots under MOSAIC?
 
N918KT said:
Any chance the Subsonex JSX-2T microjet an aircraft that could be flown by sport pilots under MOSAIC?
Click to expand...
No. 61.315(c)(19) says a sport pilot cannot PIC aircraft that require a type rating. 61.31(a)(2) says turbojet aircraft require a type rating.
 
asicer said:
No. 61.315(c)(19) says a sport pilot cannot PIC aircraft that require a type rating. 61.31(a)(2) says turbojet aircraft require a type rating.
Click to expand...
No type rating for experimentals. Instead they get a "letter of authorization" or something like that. Sounds like a gray area.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Where does 61.303 allow a private pilot to fly a multi engine airplane with just a driver’s license? What specific verbiage are you looking at?
Click to expand...
I think this is a curiosity, more than anything, but the language in the amended table in 61.303 says:

“If you hold . . . (2) Only a U.S. driver's license . . . And you hold . . . (ii) At least a recreational pilot certificate with a category and class rating, . . . Then you may operate . . . Any aircraft in that category and class, . . . And . . . You do not have to hold any of the endorsements required by this subpart, but you must comply with the limitations in § 61.315.”

So, if you have a private pilot certificate with AMEL or powered lift category and class rating, then this language implies that you may operate such aircraft with a driver’s license medical, subject to the limitations in 61.315. I don’t see anything in 61.315 (61.316, which it references) that categorically prohibits AMEL or powered lift. But, as a practical matter, there are virtually zero AMEL aircraft that satisfy the stall speed requirement of 61.316(a)(1). As for powered lift, well is there such a thing as civilian powered lift today? And the seating and directional control requirements of 61.316(a)(2) and (5) probably exclude any civilian powered lift we are likely to see.
 
Looks like a Piper Arrow III is now light sport, but the Arrow IV isn’t. Also looks like 182RG is now an LSA. Nuts.
 
Last edited:
Neil Rubin said:
I think this is a curiosity, more than anything, but the language in the amended table in 61.303 says:

“If you hold . . . (2) Only a U.S. driver's license . . . And you hold . . . (ii) At least a recreational pilot certificate with a category and class rating, . . . Then you may operate . . . Any aircraft in that category and class, . . . And . . . You do not have to hold any of the endorsements required by this subpart, but you must comply with the limitations in § 61.315.”

So, if you have a private pilot certificate with AMEL or powered lift category and class rating, then this language implies that you may operate such aircraft with a driver’s license medical, subject to the limitations in 61.315. I don’t see anything in 61.315 (61.316, which it references) that categorically prohibits AMEL or powered lift. But, as a practical matter, there are virtually zero AMEL aircraft that satisfy the stall speed requirement of 61.316(a)(1). As for powered lift, well is there such a thing as civilian powered lift today? And the seating and directional control requirements of 61.316(a)(2) and (5) probably exclude any civilian powered lift we are likely to see.
Click to expand...
61.315 says “(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.”

There are no multi engine or powered lift light sport aircraft or that can be flown at the Sport Pilot level.

And since this Subpart applies to all Recreational and higher level certificates, a Private Pilot would be limited to Light Sport aircraft per 61.315.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
looks like 182RG is now an LSA.
Click to expand...
Wrong. All 182RG have previously been issued a standard airworthiness certificate and is therefore ineligible for a special airworthiness certificate in the light sport category per 22.100(a)(6).
 
MauleSkinner said:
61.315 says “(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.”

There are no multi engine or powered lift light sport aircraft or that can be flown at the Sport Pilot level.

And since this Subpart applies to all Recreational and higher level certificates, a Private Pilot would be limited to Light Sport aircraft per 61.315.
Click to expand...
True as of today, but effective October 22 under the new rules, § 61.315(a) is amended to remove the words “light-sport” before “aircraft.” And the definition of “light-sport aircraft” in § 1.1 is removed altogether. Partly to replace the concept of “light-sport aircraft” for the purposes of pilot privileges, we have the new § 61.316 with limits on seats, stall speed, rotor system for gyroplanes, flight controls for helicopters, etc. They probably should have prohibited multi-engine airplanes and powered lift there. But someone probably figured “that would be redundant because sport pilots can’t get those category and class privileges” and didn’t consider the subtleties of how § 61.303 addresses category and class privileges for recreational pilots and above.

I maintain that is a real loophole, of virtually zero practical effect, that is the result of a drafting error.

On the subject of drafting errors, there is an oddity in how the amended rules treat sport pilots for aircraft that require type ratings. Amended § 61.315(c)(21) says “(c) You may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft: . . . (21) That requires a pilot to hold a type rating in accordance with § 61.31(a).“ But amended § 61.31(m)(2)(vi) says “(2) The rating limitations of this section do not apply to— . . . (vi) The holder of a sport pilot certificate when operating an aircraft meeting the performance limits and design requirements of § 61.316.” So, that means that § 61.31(a) does not require a holder of a sport pilot certificate to have a type rating to fly, for example, a two-seat turbojet airplane with a clean stall speed of 59 knots or less. (Under § 61.31(m)(2)(iii), it also doesn’t apply to experimental jets, so long as you don’t have a passenger.) But under that interpretation § 61.315(c)(21) is sort of a nullity as to pilots with a sport pilot certificate, and oddly would only seem to operate to prohibit private pilots and above from flying absurdly slow non-experimental jets below 10,000 feet day VFR with a driver’s license medical.

Much like the oddity with twins and powered lift, I think it’s clear that the rule drafters didn’t think sport pilots should be allowed to fly any jets and thought they had drafted the rule to create that result. (I think the rule does allow sport pilots to fly low-performance experimental jets like the SubSonex, assuming the FAA is willing to issue such pilots the necessary LOA. And that doesn’t seem crazy, given the systems simplicity and low performance of the SubSonex compared to traditional turbojets.) Also much like the twin and powered lift issue, I don’t think this had any real practical effect. Who is going to build an unpressurized two- or four-seat jet but make it slow enough that it has the stall speed of a single-engine piston trainer? Just so that low-experience pilots and pilots who don’t qualify for BasicMed can fly around in it below 10,000 feet?
 
MauleSkinner said:
61.315 says “(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.”

There are no multi engine or powered lift light sport aircraft or that can be flown at the Sport Pilot level.

And since this Subpart applies to all Recreational and higher level certificates, a Private Pilot would be limited to Light Sport aircraft per 61.315.
Click to expand...

Would this mean the Lockwood Aircam wouldn’t qualify?
 
Neil Rubin said:
I maintain that is a real loophole, of virtually zero practical effect, that is the result of a drafting error.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:
Neil Rubin said:
I think the rule does allow sport pilots to fly low-performance experimental jets like the SubSonex, assuming the FAA is willing to issue such pilots the necessary LOA. And that doesn’t seem crazy, given the systems simplicity and low performance of the SubSonex compared to traditional turbojets.
Click to expand...
The Subsonex may be low performance by jet standards, but it's still a demanding plane that needs to be flown like a jet... you're not going to jump into one straight from a Cub. It will be interesting to see if the FAA actually does issue the required LOA to a sport pilot.
DMD3. said:
Would this mean the Lockwood Aircam wouldn’t qualify?
Click to expand...
I don't see any regulation prohibiting a PP-AMEL flying an Aircam without a medical under Sport Pilot rules. For that matter, the multi rating isn't even required for an experimental flown solo, meaning a SP could fly it solo... if the aircraft's operating limitations don't prohibit it (which they usually do, nowadays).
 
Clip4 said:
Looks like a Piper Arrow III is now light sport, but the Arrow IV isn’t. Also looks like 182RG is now an LSA. Nuts.
Click to expand...
asicer said:
Wrong. All 182RG have previously been issued a standard airworthiness certificate and is therefore ineligible for a special airworthiness certificate in the light sport category per 22.100(a)(6).
Click to expand...
While @Clip4's statement was technically incorrect, I get what he was saying. Rephrasing it in a more verbose but correct way would be, "Looks like a Piper Arrow III is now eligible to be flown by someone exercising the privileges of a Sport Pilot, but the Arrow IV isn’t. Also looks like 182RG can now be flown by someone exercising Sport Pilot privileges. Nuts."

This is the split between LSA and Sport Pilot. Nothing that is not currently an ELSA or SLSA is an LSA of any flavor. In other words, nothing is changing about the certification type of any aircraft. That's no different than before; a Champ, for example, was never an LSA but could be flown with SP privileges because it met all of the criteria of an LSA. Now that split gets even more confusing, though, because under the new rules "Light Sport Aircraft" can include airplanes cannot legally be flown by someone exercising SP privileges. That is the part I really think is nuts.
 
Neil Rubin said:
I maintain that is a real loophole, of virtually zero practical effect, that is the result of a drafting error.
Click to expand...
I’m guessing you see a lot more loopholes in regulations than I do, since they’re mostly written using the same terminology.
 
DaleB said:
Now that split gets even more confusing, though, because under the new rules "Light Sport Aircraft" can include airplanes cannot legally be flown by someone exercising SP privileges.
Click to expand...
Right. That makes it even more imperative these days to be careful of the terminology. Something like "A 182RG is LSA" could mean something entirely different from "The upcoming Lancair (61kt Vso) is LSA".
 
MauleSkinner said:
The reg doesn’t say anything about the ability to climb
Click to expand...
No... but with the closely spaced engines and huge tail, Vmc is close to stall speed, so maybe not that much of an "adverse effect".
 
Dana said:
You've said it three times, but I don't see anything in the revised rule (61.315 or .316) that says a SP is limited to single engine any more.
Click to expand...
There was never any specific language that said "SPL is limited to single engine" in the prior framework either. There has never been a path to obtain a multiengine privilege under SPL. If you look in §61.313(a), in the Airplane category, the only path that has ever existed is Single Engine land or sea class privileges. There is no path under the current, nor the proposed, framework to obtain Multiengine land or sea class privileges. Multiengine privileges have never been obtainable via endorsement nor checkout flight.

Page 307 of the MOSAIC Final Rule confirms this -

"FAA did not propose a sport pilot airplane multiengine privilege and maintains the status quo that a person seeking to operate a multiengine airplane will need to obtain a private pilot certificate or higher with an airplane multiengine rating."
 
Last edited:
Jon Wilder said:
If you look in §61.313(a), in the Airplane category, the only path that exists is Single Engine land or sea class privileges. There is no path under the current, nor the proposed, framework to obtain Multiengine land or sea class privileges.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the ability to build Part 22 multi-engine LSA and LSAs authorized for instrument flight are the best examples of the very basic principle that the pilot certification side of MOSAIC and the aircraft certification side of MOSAIC have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

When I've done programs on MOSAIC that was the main overriding point I tried to hammer home. Repeatedly.

I agree with you that there is nothing on the pilot certification side of MOSAIC which authorizes multiengine privileges.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Perhaps the ability to build Part 22 multi-engine LSA and LSAs authorized for instrument flight are the best examples of the very basic principle that the pilot certification side of MOSAIC and the aircraft certification side of MOSAIC have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

When I've done programs on MOSAIC that was the main overriding point I tried to hammer home. Repeatedly.

I agree with you that there is nothing on the pilot certification side of MOSAIC which authorizes multiengine privileges.
Click to expand...
Right. The Sport Pilot Certificate is no longer exclusive to an aircraft certification category, and no aircraft certification category is all inclusive of Sport Pilot privileges. Sport Pilot is its own thing, with privileges to fly single engine land or sea class aircraft meeting certain performance metrics regardless of aircraft certification category.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top