MOSAIC does NOTHING to lower the cost of GA

Dana said:
That remains to be seen. Flight schools didn't offer recreational because it was a dumb idea nobody wanted it, there was no good reason not to go private. SP is different with its lack of a medical requirement. The reason few flight schools offered SP before now was the lack of LSA aircraft... but now that nearly everything is LSA, it's a different situation.
Click to expand...
The flight schools around me were doing pretty good with LSA up until Basic Med arrived.
 
Dana said:
That remains to be seen. Flight schools didn't offer recreational because it was a dumb idea nobody wanted it, there was no good reason not to go private. SP is different with its lack of a medical requirement. The reason few flight schools offered SP before now was the lack of LSA aircraft... but now that nearly everything is LSA, it's a different situation.
Click to expand...

The percentage of people who can’t easily obtain a Class 3 medical certificate is statistically insignificant to operation of a flight school. And, those with experience in flight training don’t want most people who can’t get a medical. The FAA medical process is more of blessing than a curse.
 
Last edited:
I honestly think the smart cfi’s (private ones not puppy mill zero to hero focused ones) will benefit greatly from this if they are smart about it and completely open and honest when they have their first discussions with potential “students”. Look at it as a stepping stone, they can give training in most all legacy training airplanes they probably already have, the issue with a medical becomes an “if you want to latter progress to be able to do these things there will be medical requirements, but if you just want to do xyz we can do that”. Hopefully a competent cfi will be able to judge the students fitness to fly during the training period. (Otherwise, in my opinion they shouldn’t be qualified to be a CFI).
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
my bad if incorrect ...but believe at least the c162 was transitioned to primary basis to meet EASA requirements... but think it was too little too late to save it. Same with at least some of the icon models which also allowed wider international uses.
Click to expand...
Dana said:
Interesting... (does quick google search) you were correct and I was unaware of that; both were originally SLSA and Primary was added later. I guess it was indeed "too little and two late"; I don't remember ever hearing about it.
Click to expand...
Cessna only talked about the C162 being certified in the Primary category - They killed it without doing that certification.

Icon got the A5 certified in the primary category less than two years ago.

GeorgeC said:
I've never felt entitled to own a new house, so I'm not sure why someone ought to feel entitled to a new plane, in the same way that one is not entitled to own a home and raise a family in a posh neighborhood on minimum wage.
Click to expand...
It's not about being "entitled", it's about there being enough people with enough income above what it costs to live to afford spending on frivolous toys like airplanes.

Burt Rutan said it at Oshkosh several years ago - When he was freshly graduated from college, an engineer just starting their first job could afford to buy a small airplane. Now? Most engineers will never be able to afford a new airplane unless they get some nice stock options or patent a few things.

Bell206 said:
Except Cessna recently designed and produced a clean-sheet aircraft based on a 50 aircraft order for one customer with the 50th airframe rolling off the line this year I believe. Beech on the other hand designed a clean sheet aircraft with a clean sheet GE turbine in the hopes it can compete in a niche market with one other OEM who has produced just over 2000 airframes in a 30-year span.

Yet Cessna and Beech produce on average 284 piston singles yearly, has the market screaming at them for a new clean-sheet aircraft, but elects not to provide new designs for the recreational market. Why do you think that is?
Click to expand...
Because a new SETP is going to get them 10x the revenue of a new SEP.
 
Clip4 said:
The percentage of people who can’t easily obtain a Class 3 medical certificate is statistically insignificant to operation of a flight school.
Click to expand...
This has only been true because many traditional flight schools kept the same old model of "fly ratty old airplanes as cheaply as possible". There are some newer local schools now who are doing all new Cirrus training with great success... And I believe they'd have had great success with flying some of the nicer light sport models as well. New airplane with glass cockpit that burns 3-4 gph and can be rented for $75/hr is going to do well... But too many flight schools are too set in their ways to try doing something like that.

Clip4 said:
And, those with experience in flight training don’t want most people who can’t get a medical.
Click to expand...
Hah! No, they would be happy to take anyone's money. Plus, I don't think there's a difference between people who can and can't get a medical when it comes to fitness to pilot a small recreational aircraft. I know plenty of horrible pilots with medicals, and plenty of excellent pilots without.
 
I personally am absolutely thrilled by MOSIAC opening up access to some of the legacy aircraft like a 172. I am a PPL with the ability to get a medical or do Basic Med as I wish, but we are about to have a baby and will have young children for quite a few years. If we wanted to fly anywhere any time during the next few years, I would have had to fly unless we spent a few thousand getting @2-Bit Speed comfortable and proficient in a plane he could never fly solo. With the new rules, we can get him his Sport Pilot license in the type of plane we will most likely be flying (172 or similar), and while I will always have to be acting PIC when carrying our kids, I could reasonably ask @2-Bit Speed to relieve me at the controls if the kids needed me and feel confident that it would be perfectly safe.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
New airplane with glass cockpit that burns 3-4 gph and can be rented for $75/hr is going to do well... But too many flight schools are too set in their ways to try doing something like that.
Click to expand...
Any airplane that small and light is going to be a poor training platform, don’t you think? Isn’t that going to be a real handful in gusting or crosswind landings? Seems like a tough ask to be both super-inexpensive AND stable enough for zero-time beginners AND tough enough for a few dozen daily slam-and-go landings in the pattern…???
 
StraightnLevel said:
Any airplane that small and light is going to be a poor training platform, don’t you think? Isn’t that going to be a real handful in gusting or crosswind landings? Seems like a tough ask to be both super-inexpensive AND stable enough for zero-time beginners AND tough enough for a few dozen daily slam-and-go landings in the pattern…???
Click to expand...
Not at all, but it does require more competent instructors - the kinds of instructors that used to solo people in BC-12 Taylorcrafts and J-3 Cubs.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
It's not about being "entitled", it's about there being enough people with enough income above what it costs to live to afford spending on frivolous toys like airplanes.

Burt Rutan said it at Oshkosh several years ago - When he was freshly graduated from college, an engineer just starting their first job could afford to buy a small airplane. Now? Most engineers will never be able to afford a new airplane unless they get some nice stock options or patent a few things.
Click to expand...
"A new professional X starting their first job can no longer afford to buy Y" is true for many values of X and Y.

That is a bigger topic that is not specific to aviation; in that sense, no, MOSAIC won't help. That is the reason I brought up housing prices; IIRC, healthcare and college tuition also grow faster than inflation.

OTOH, there are also things we can afford now that, not very long ago, could not be bought for any price; cars and computers and tvs seem to stay constant (or even decrease) in nominal dollars despite increasing in capability. Remember pickups towing gooseneck car trailers in the 90s? Me neither.

If the baseline rate of aviation spectrum disorder is around 0.1%, I doubt you could give away free airplanes in excess of that; airplanes are simply not useful/not interesting/too scary/too whatever to most people.
 
Clip4 said:
The percentage of people who can’t easily obtain a Class 3 medical certificate is statistically insignificant to operation of a flight school. And, those with experience in flight training don’t want most people who can’t get a medical. The FAA medical process is more of blessing than a curse.
Click to expand...
To paraphrase a certain person
SHOW.ME.THE.STATISTICALLY.INSIGNIFICANT .DATA.

And please identify the Flight Schools and Experienced Flight Training Persons.
 
The flight school I attended specialized in SP training. Most of the students did not have medicals. No problems hiring CFIs, and no insurance issues.

Clipper’s argument is purely speculative and gives no consideration to market forces. If a prospective pilot walks in the school door and asks for SP training, does anybody seriously think the school will refuse his money? And if the school declines to do SP, the prospect will merely take his money to a different school.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Any airplane that small and light is going to be a poor training platform, don’t you think? Isn’t that going to be a real handful in gusting or crosswind landings?
Click to expand...

All true. I trained in an LSA and later on, when I transitioned into a Cherokee, it felt like the thing had autoland. PPs, even very experienced ones, frequently have trouble the first time they try to land an LSA.

As far as LSAs being a poor training platform, an argument can be made that LSAs demand better stick & rudder skills and are therefore a better training platform.
 
Half Fast said:
The flight school I attended specialized in SP training. Most of the students did not have medicals. No problems hiring CFIs, and no insurance issues.

Clipper’s argument is purely speculative and gives no consideration to market forces. If a prospective pilot walks in the school door and asks for SP training, does anybody seriously think the school will refuse his money? And if the school declines to do SP, the prospect will merely take his money to a different school.
Click to expand...
Especially if they can now use their current fleet of existing non LSA aircraft.
 
Half Fast said:
Clipper’s argument is purely speculative and gives no consideration to market forces. If a prospective pilot walks in the school door and asks for SP training, does anybody seriously think the school will refuse his money? And if the school declines to do SP, the prospect will merely take his money to a different school.
Click to expand...
I suspect that the puppy mills will still not offer SP training, since it doesn’t have any advantages for the zero to hero airline-targeted puppy. But I have difficulty imagining a large percentage beyond that refusing SP money.
 
pfarber said:
Are you gonna show me the math or waffle about?

the new mosiac rules won't make new LSAs affordable (so stop posting old lsa prices... new rules only please)

the new SP rules don't save money, you get half the training for half the cost.

SHOW. ME. THE. MATH.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I missed something in the debate leading up to MOSAIC, but I thought the whole point was to make it medically easier to fly airplanes like the 172 and therefore to remove a whole layer of administrative cost and pain from flying which therefore makes flying more accessible. This idea that it's supposed to make LSA more affordable is one I have not encountered before. As for privileges, as I understand it, if you have a PPL you can fly at night, use 4 seats, and enter B, C and D airspace under MOSAIC because you already have those "endorsements" as part of your PPL. But now you no longer need to renew a valid medical or even a BasicMed as long as you have a valid drivers license.
 
Mileage said:
Perhaps I missed something in the debate leading up to MOSAIC, but I thought the whole point was to make it medically easier to fly airplanes like the 172 and therefore to remove a whole layer of administrative cost and pain from flying which therefore makes flying more accessible. This idea that it's supposed to make LSA more affordable is one I have not encountered before. As for privileges, as I understand it, if you have a PPL you can fly at night, use 4 seats, and enter B, C and D airspace under MOSAIC because you already have those "endorsements" as part of your PPL. But now you no longer need to renew a valid medical or even a BasicMed as long as you have a valid drivers license.
Click to expand...
All true but some focus on the "Reduce cost of flying and make aircraft more affordable" pronouncements totally refusing to recognize the points you (and countless others) make in this thread about the other benefits like being able to access more aircraft, reduce medical expenses, etc. or dismiss them as trivial matters affecting a miniscule portion of current and future pilots and thus not worthy of their keen insight and obvious superior knowledge of all matters aeronautical.
 
Mileage said:
Perhaps I missed something in the debate leading up to MOSAIC, but I thought the whole point was to make it medically easier to fly airplanes like the 172 and therefore to remove a whole layer of administrative cost and pain from flying which therefore makes flying more accessible.
Click to expand...
pedantic quip: No, that was not the point of MOSAIC. Yes, as you correctly point out, MOSAIC ended up dragging easter eggs with it onto the final basket (the biggest one they weren't even aiming for was the allowance to expand inspection authority to non-builder owners in EAB). But the main point was to relax certification standards to new manufacture, and allow revenue ops in some niche LSA ops (photo et al). The rest were footnotes of happenstance. Blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then type of thing. We'll take it of course. :thumbsup:
 
Mileage said:
Perhaps I missed something in the debate leading up to MOSAIC, but I thought the whole point was to make it medically easier to fly airplanes like the 172 and therefore to remove a whole layer of administrative cost and pain from flying which therefore makes flying more accessible. This idea that it's supposed to make LSA more affordable is one I have not encountered before. As for privileges, as I understand it, if you have a PPL you can fly at night, use 4 seats, and enter B, C and D airspace under MOSAIC because you already have those "endorsements" as part of your PPL. But now you no longer need to renew a valid medical or even a BasicMed as long as you have a valid drivers license.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about using four seats? I hadn't heard about that change happening and haven't read the entirety of the new regulations yet.
 
Mileage said:
Perhaps I missed something in the debate leading up to MOSAIC, but I thought the whole point was to make it medically easier to fly airplanes like the 172 and therefore to remove a whole layer of administrative cost and pain from flying which therefore makes flying more accessible. This idea that it's supposed to make LSA more affordable is one I have not encountered before. As for privileges, as I understand it, if you have a PPL you can fly at night, use 4 seats, and enter B, C and D airspace under MOSAIC because you already have those "endorsements" as part of your PPL. But now you no longer need to renew a valid medical or even a BasicMed as long as you have a valid drivers license.
Click to expand...
Nope.
There can be four seats but only two people in the plane. Doesn’t matter if you are a Sport Pilot or Private Pilot if you are flying under Sport Pilot rules.
Sport Pilots must have a Basic Med or 3rd Class medical for Night flying. That also applies to private pilots flying under sport pilot rules.
Sport Pilots have always been able to enter Class B, C, and D airspace with an endorsement. Private Pilots do not need an endorsement.

AOPA has a list of differences with MOSAIC.
 
JScarry said:
Nope.
There can be four seats but only two people in the plane. Doesn’t matter if you are a Sport Pilot or Private Pilot if you are flying under Sport Pilot rules.
Sport Pilots must have a Basic Med or 3rd Class medical for Night flying. That also applies to private pilots flying under sport pilot rules.
Sport Pilots have always been able to enter Class B, C, and D airspace with an endorsement. Private Pilots do not need an endorsement.

AOPA has a list of differences with MOSAIC.
Click to expand...
Thank you. The AOPA site is very clear
 
I’m feeling glad I bought my bonanza when I did before the final rule


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
crash7 said:
[mention]pfarber [/mention], has MOSIAC negatively impacted you in some way? Has it removed rights or privileges you had? Is it costing you money?

I’m just really curious what the burr up your butt is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I was waiting for the promise that EAA said that flying would be cheaper and new airplanes under MOSIAC 2.0 would save money.

Has it? We're 4 pages in and no one has shown this.

It corrects about 1% of SI final denails to fly under SP. Yay?

Less snark, more facts, please. ANYONE????
 
pfarber said:
No. Prove to me it lowers the cost. Take out the cost of night/controlled fields/upset recovery/ ifr/other un-taught skills and show me where you're lowering the cost.
Click to expand...

At some point, you have to accept that others are incapable of understanding things for you.

The lowered cost might come from eliminating the teaching of those skills. It might come from the reduced regulatory burden on manufacturers. It might come from the elimination of the necessity of obtaining a medical.

However, those are all secondary.

The point of MOSAIC was to open the US market to European manufacturers. Pilots became excited because it might lower costs. It might encourage more people to become pilots.

Furthermore, MOSAIC isn't here yet. Manufacturers don't get to take advantage of MOSAIC until JULY of next year. We still have over six months of waiting.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
The point of MOSAIC was to open the US market to European manufacturers. Pilots became excited because it might lower costs. It might encourage more people to become pilots.

Furthermore, MOSAIC isn't here yet. Manufacturers don't get to take advantage of MOSAIC until JULY of next year. We still have over six months of waiting.
Click to expand...
Right - manufacturers like this one:


Relatively inexpensive, fast, and efficient, and currently not legal as anything other than experimental/exhibition. Having these options WILL lower the price of new very light planes by allowing in these Eastern European builders. Will it attract more pilots? Who knows - but it WILL lower the price of a new factory-built light sport plane.
 
X3 Skier said:
Money Example

Private Pilot since 1969. Current rating ASES, ASEL. (And probably anyone else who is using Sport Pilot Privileges with a higher level Certificate.)

Flying a 172/Cherokee before MOSAIC. $10000+ for a SI with a chance of being denied and restricted to ultralights and gliders. (Even though two Cardiologists, Heart Surgeon, Dr Bruce and my family Doctor all agree I am very fit to fly.)

Flying a 172/Cherokee after MOSAIC. $0

BTW, due to being colorblind according to the FAA (but not my USAF Flight Physical), restricted from night flying anyway.
Click to expand...
I already agreed that SOME (math says 1%) medical issues would benefit. But that doesn't lower the cost of GA, save a lucky few that couldn't get a Class III.

The main point is that dumping $10k+ to rent a $200/hr 172 is not going to reduce the student drop out rate (CFIs will still be garbage) and paying $10k+ for a SP to rent a 172 that you can't fill the seats on is better than renting an LSA? IT saves money how???
 
StraightnLevel said:
Right - manufacturers like this one:


Relatively inexpensive, fast, and efficient, and currently not legal as anything other than experimental/exhibition. Having these options WILL lower the price of new very light planes by allowing in these Eastern European builders. Will it attract more pilots? Who knows - but it WILL lower the price of a new factory-built light sport plane.
Click to expand...
Lowering the cost to what? $200-300k? The average pilot ain't got that kinda of cash.


Lets do the math: $2000/mo ($200k at 8% for 15 years) plus hangar (lol if you can get one) plus variable and fixed costs. Also you need to get additional endorsements for complex AC.

$200k for an ultralight? WIth 500lb useful load? wow, much advanced, little money.

How is that saving anyone (average US Joe is making $60k a year) or kick starting anything?

So in some peoples world spending $10k to go into $200k debt is less than paying for a PPL and even get a medical SI to fly rent a 172?
 
AvNavCom said:
That said, now that SPs have access to the current training fleet of 172s and Cherokees but can get a ticket in half the hours, there are definite savings for GA training
Click to expand...
They are paying half the cost for half the privileges. PPL students don't need a medical, only for solo. So the cost up to the SP ACS standards is the same. Is a CFI gonna charge LESS for a SP hour vs a PPL hour? If both train is a DA20 or 172 where is the savings?

While the SP does have reduced requirements they also have to pay for training that a PPL would get. Night/controlled airspace etc.

What I'm saying is that if you look at average, real work numbers, the cost savings don't add up. At the end of the day you have a crippled PPL and are still gonna pay the same rates to rent.

Yes, you can find a cheap LSA 1.0 AC, but a PPL can also fly them. SO where it the savings?

New MOSIAC 2.0 AC are already out there... they cost $200k. If a PPL can't afford a $35k 152, why would a MOSIAC 2.0 and SP ticket suddenly make a $200k LSA 2.0 affordable?
 
Dana said:
That remains to be seen. Flight schools didn't offer recreational because it was a dumb idea nobody wanted it, there was no good reason not to go private. SP is different with its lack of a medical requirement. The reason few flight schools offered SP before now was the lack of LSA aircraft... but now that nearly everything is LSA, it's a different situation.
Click to expand...
But training AC will still need inspections/MX and who knows what insurance if gonna cost when some European gizmo shows up with no US support. Rotax engines are still not cheap.

No one is going to want to train in a Eurcoup and only places like Riddle etc are buying new off the shelf trainers.

Show of flight school owners hands: Buy a 172 for $50k or an LSA 2.0 for $200k?
 
Bell206 said:
Name one Part 22 certified LSA flying in the US today?
Click to expand...
There are none because it hasn't become law yet.

I will point out the RV-12is is a SLSA and costs over $200k. What rule in part 22 is gonna lower that cost?
 
pfarber said:
Lowering the cost to what? $200-300k? The average pilot ain't got that kinda of cash.
Click to expand...
1) What’s the average salary of an airline pilot?
2) Lower is, in fact, lower. Lower prices will increase demand. This is simple, basic economics.

Now you’re just moving the goalposts so I’m going to assume that you aren’t really interested in intelligent discussion, but just want to be contrarian. Enjoy.
 
pfarber said:
.

Show of flight school owners hands: Buy a 172 for $50k or an LSA 2.0 for $200k?
Click to expand...
State it correctly, please:

Buy a 25-year-old 172 with a 1,500 hour engine and steam gauges for $50K or a brand-new LSA with retract, constant-speed prop, current-tech glass cockpit and a warranty for $200K?
 
SkyChaser said:
I personally am absolutely thrilled by MOSIAC opening up access to some of the legacy aircraft like a 172. I am a PPL with the ability to get a medical or do Basic Med as I wish, but we are about to have a baby and will have young children for quite a few years. If we wanted to fly anywhere any time during the next few years, I would have had to fly unless we spent a few thousand getting @2-Bit Speed comfortable and proficient in a plane he could never fly solo. With the new rules, we can get him his Sport Pilot license in the type of plane we will most likely be flying (172 or similar), and while I will always have to be acting PIC when carrying our kids, I could reasonably ask @2-Bit Speed to relieve me at the controls if the kids needed me and feel confident that it would be perfectly safe.
Click to expand...
if you're in the plane with a PPL it doesn't matter. So why spend the money on a SP?
 
StraightnLevel said:
1) What’s the average salary of an airline pilot?
2) Lower is, in fact, lower. Lower prices will increase demand. This is simple, basic economics.

Now you’re just moving the goalposts so I’m going to assume that you aren’t really interested in intelligent discussion, but just want to be contrarian. Enjoy.
Click to expand...
1. doesn't matter. airline pilots already have a ticket and medical. They will not be buying a $200-300k ultralight.
2. If they drop the cost of a Vision jet from $1.5 to $1mm does that mean everyone will be able to afford it? Cheaper is cheaper.

3. You guys really don't understand the meaning of 'moving the goalpost'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top