MOSAIC rule to be published on 7/24

Sport pilot’s been around for a while. Any current bias was earned. And I say that as a CFI willing to work with LSAs.

The bias is because we "upset the apple cart". It was perceived as making aviation somewhat less-exclusive, by allowing some of us into aviation without wasting thousands of dollars, and countless months, pursuing a medical SI.

By the FAA's own admission, darn near anyone can get an SI if they sink enough time, frustration, and money into it. So there's little-to-no safety benefit, and by proposing additional privileges for Sport Pilots, the FAA is implying as much within the MOSAIC NPRM.

Sport Pilots.JPG
 
Last edited:
I have skin in the game because I just got my sports certificate a couple of weeks ago. I could not pass a third class medical. I want to fly legacy aircraft that will get me over the mountains in Colorado and I want to fly at night. I would love to have two or three passengers. But I know that is unlikely to happen given the proposed rule changes.
I would be happy to fly a classic light sport aircraft with a Rotax 915 or 916 and a heavier maximum takeoff weight, but I would be even happie flying a Cessna 182 with all the power to make it over the mountain passes with ease.
 
I have skin in the game because I just got my sports certificate a couple of weeks ago. I could not pass a third class medical. I want to fly legacy aircraft that will get me over the mountains in Colorado and I want to fly at night. I would love to have two or three passengers. But I know that is unlikely to happen given the proposed rule changes.
I would be happy to fly a classic light sport aircraft with a Rotax 915 or 916 and a heavier maximum takeoff weight, but I would be even happie flying a Cessna 182 with all the power to make it over the mountain passes with ease.

Night time over the mountains in Colorado? I'd want to be IFR rated. Just sayin' ... :dunno:
 
There is answer for (almost) everything and it is called BRS :)

Yeah that's the ticket ... pulling the chute over the mountains at night ... :eek:

Yeah I see the smiley! :biggrin:
 
Will sport pilots still be limited to day vfr, always needing to have ground in sight?
 
Yeah that's the ticket ... pulling the chute over the mountains at night ... :eek:

Yeah I see the smiley! :biggrin:
Easy, gents. Flying over the mountains and flying over them at night are two different things. One engine over rocks in the dark is not my idea of good ADM.
 
The bias is because we "upset the apple cart". It was perceived as making aviation somewhat less-exclusive, by allowing some of us into aviation without wasting thousands of dollars, and countless months, pursuing a medical SI.

By the FAA's own admission, darn near anyone can get an SI if they sink enough time, frustration, and money into it. So there's little-to-no safety benefit, and by proposing additional privileges for Sport Pilots, the FAA is implying as much within the MOSAIC NPRM.
That’s not even close to an accurate representation of my thoughts that you replied to. Figures.
 
Easy, gents. Flying over the mountains and flying over them at night are two different things. One engine over rocks in the dark is not my idea of good ADM.

I was practicing my Evelyn Wood Speed Reading Dynamics when I read your quote: "I want to fly legacy aircraft that will get me over the mountains in Colorado and I want to fly at night." So I erroneously conflated the night flying with your desire to go over the big rocks. My bad, point taken ... :oops:
 
That’s not even close to an accurate representation of my thoughts that you replied to. Figures.

Then please, do tell. I sincerely would like to hear more perspectives.

I based my post on comments that I've heard in-person from within my own EAA chapter, of all places.
 
Will sport pilots still be limited to day vfr, always needing to have ground in sight?
You can operate at night:

"61.329 How do I obtain privileges to
operate an aircraft at night?
You may act as pilot in command
with a sport pilot certificate during
night operations if you:
(a) Receive three hours of flight
training at night from an authorized
instructor and receive a logbook
endorsement from an authorized
instructor certifying that you are
proficient in the operation of the aircraft
at night;
(b) Conduct at least one cross-country
flight during the flight training under
paragraph (a) of this section at night,
with a landing at an airport of at least
25 nautical miles from the departure
airport, except for powered parachutes;
(c) Accomplish at least ten takeoffs
and landings at night with an
authorized instructor; and
(d) Either hold a medical certificate
issued under part 67 of this chapter or,
provided the pilot holds a valid U.S.
driver’s license, meet the requirements
of § 61.23(c)(3) and conduct the
operation consistently with § 61.113(i).
If you are satisfying this by meeting the
requirements of § 61.23(c)(3), if there is
a conflict between the requirements of
this section and § 61.113(i), this section
controls."

61.23(c)(3) is the requirement to have taken the "medical education course" within the last 24 months, 61.113(i) are the limits for basic med.


The existing limits on altitude and visibility do not appear to have changed:

"61.213(c)
(11)At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is higher.

(12) When the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles.

(13) Without visual reference to the surface."
 
You can operate at night:

"61.329 How do I obtain privileges to
operate an aircraft at night?
You may act as pilot in command
with a sport pilot certificate during
night operations if you:
(a) Receive three hours of flight
training at night from an authorized
instructor and receive a logbook
endorsement from an authorized
instructor certifying that you are
proficient in the operation of the aircraft
at night;
(b) Conduct at least one cross-country
flight during the flight training under
paragraph (a) of this section at night,
with a landing at an airport of at least
25 nautical miles from the departure
airport, except for powered parachutes;
(c) Accomplish at least ten takeoffs
and landings at night with an
authorized instructor; and
(d) Either hold a medical certificate
issued under part 67 of this chapter or,
provided the pilot holds a valid U.S.
driver’s license, meet the requirements
of § 61.23(c)(3) and conduct the
operation consistently with § 61.113(i).
If you are satisfying this by meeting the
requirements of § 61.23(c)(3), if there is
a conflict between the requirements of
this section and § 61.113(i), this section
controls."

61.23(c)(3) is the requirement to have taken the "medical education course" within the last 24 months, 61.113(i) are the limits for basic med.


The existing limits on altitude and visibility do not appear to have changed:

"61.213(c)
(11)At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is higher.

(12) When the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles.

(13) Without visual reference to the surface."
61.2(c)(3)(i)(B) requires you have held a medical in since 2006.
 
61.23(c)(3) is the requirement to have taken the "medical education course" within the last 24 months,


Nope, it’s the whole Basic Med enchilada. Held a class 3 since 7/14/06, do the Basic Med exam and have a signed CMEC, and pass the course.
 
Last edited:
61.2(c)(3)(i)(B) requires you have held a medical in since 2006.
I sit corrected.
And, in which case, the requirement seems stupid given that if you have basic med there is no need to operate under the sport pilot rules / limitations. You can already fly at night LSA or not.
 
How many planes with a stall speed that low will hit 250kts?

A really stout one. A wing that stalls at 54kt would be capable of generating 21G at 250kt. Va would be around 120kt. Vno guestimate 160kt?
 
I sit corrected.
And, in which case, the requirement seems stupid given that if you have basic med there is no need to operate under the sport pilot rules / limitations. You can already fly at night LSA or not.


Well, I suppose a SP could get Basic Med without getting PP, though I think most would go ahead and get the Private ticket.
 
One of the current factors limiting growth of the Sport Pilot population is the limited availability of SP schools, which is in turn limited by availability of LSAs. By expanding the universe of SP-eligible aircraft to some of the legacy fleet, many more flight schools could offer SP training if they wanted.

In my personal situation (PP since 1979, but out of flying for career and family reasons until I retired a few years ago, thus wasn't aware of Basic Med in time to renew my 3rd class while I still could), Sport Pilot is a near-perfect option to get me flying again. But the nearest SP school is hours away, vs. a Cessna school just down the road. If I could fly those 172s, I could be back in the air in a relatively short time as a PP exercising SP privileges.

I'm sure MOSAIC in its final form will fail to satisfy everyone, but I can't see it as anything but an overall positive for the GA community.
 
FWIW. I started life in Sport Pilot training, but switched to PPL for those very reasons. No planes, and no instructors willing to teach to Sport requirements.

I was always going to end up a PPL anyway, so for me it all worked out.

M2C. I wish that Sport and Rec could be eliminated by just allowing Basic Med without a prior medical. I think all agree that if you can’t pass a Basic Med you shouldn’t fly. Besides simplfying things, it would require minimum training on how to get out and survive dying VFR into IMC.
 
it would require minimum training on how to get out and survive dying VFR into IMC.


Please explain. SP includes simulated instrument instruction, though there’s no minimum hour threshold like PP.
 
Please explain. SP includes simulated instrument instruction, though there’s no minimum hour threshold like PP.
Yes - It’s the min 3 hours required by PPL to which I refer.

BTW - sport pilots are completely capable of flying at night and flying above the clouds (given the proper training). Hate to see those restrictions still on Sport Pilots.
 
Yes - It’s the min 3 hours required by PPL to which I refer.

When I went from SP to PP I think I had to fly about another 45 minutes of instrument to meet the requirement. Not sure how much safety that 45 minutes really added... :)
 
When I went from SP to PP I think I had to fly about another 45 minutes of instrument to meet the requirement. Not sure how much safety that 45 minutes really added... :)
That’s because you were so far ahead of everyone else to begin with. But we’re in agreement I think that some instrument training for a VFR pilot is important.
 
But we’re in agreement I think that some instrument training for a VFR pilot is important.
It should also be based on using the inherent stability of the airplane rather than perishable skills. But that train left the station almost 70 years ago.
 
Saw this list of MOSAIC compliance from a cessna flyers website. 182 is surprising. Not sure about other manufacturers that are likely to have several models comply with MOSAIC. I fly a sportcruiser now and would definitely like to find a more powerful low-wing airplane that will fit the MOSAIC bill. I don't care so much about retractable gear or 250 kts, per se.

The stall speed is a little frustrating, as is the one passenger and the basic med requirement for night flight (pointless for 99% of sport pilots).

YES
Cessna 120
Cessna 140
Cessna 150 (all models including Aerobat)
Cessna 152 (all models including Aerobat)
Cessna 162
Cessna 170B (1952-1955)
Cessna 172 (all models EXCEPT IO-360 powered models T-41B, R172K, FR172)
Cessna 175 (A and B models)
Cessna 182 (182 through 182D)

NO
Cessna 172RG
Cessna 177 (all models)
Cessna 180
Cessna 182 (182E and later models)
Cessna T182
Cessna R182
Cessna TR182
Cessna 185
Cessna 205 and above
 
Sport pilot’s been around for a while. Any current bias was earned. And I say that as a CFI willing to work with LSAs.
Are you referring to those who cling to the Wild-West, no-rules Ultralight mindset, or is there something else at play?
 
No, not enough said there. What makes a CFI-SP unqualified to teach in the expanded envelope, and what makes a CFI not a CFI?
As both a CFI and CFIS, I completely agree. Well said
 
I'd bet that many of the current LSA manufacturers have been quietly sitting on plans for 4 seaters and/or higher gross weight models for a while now, and will be ready for production as soon as an effective date for MOSAIC's final rule is set.
Agreed, "for a while now" and "mass production"....
 
From a bureaucratic viewpoint, 2 vs 4 seats is a logical breakpoint between Sport and General. The ultimate arbiter of success will be public opinion, which over time drives political support and thus federal budget. If pilots start killing their families in LSA aircraft, negative opinions could snowball and FAA loses control of the story. Two seat vehicles already carry a connotation of sport vs transportation. Corvette vs minivan. TBH a lot of the other restrictions are superfluous if you limit seats to 2. Americans culturally embrace the right to kill yourself doing stupid stuff, as long as you don't take a bunch of other people with you.
 
The new MOSAIC will be very beneficial to pilots that have been out of the flying game for a while and want to get back in flying legacy aircraft. To qualify for Basic Med you must have held a medical after July 14, 2006. The new rules will allow someone who won’t qualify for Basic Med because they haven’t hasn’t had medical after that date to get back into flying aircraft that most FBO’s rent. Not everyone wants to spend $150,000 on a LSA weighing less than a Cessna 150. I’m sure the number of pilots that fit that profile aren’t that great, but they are out there.
 
It has been enlightening and somewhat encouraging reading the comments so far on the FAA website for MOSAIC. I am surprised there are not more comments so far. Hopefully a lot more will come in supporting the expansion of light sport.

Repeatedly the commenters recommended:

1. 3 passengers
2. Higher stall speed to account for Pipers (up 3-6 knots from 54)
3. Drop the basic med requirement for night flight (maybe require a vision test)
4. Allow Basic Med without a prior 3rd class or get rid of 3rd class

Thoughts on what else the FAA should consider?

Leaving your comments of support of the rules and the above changes for the FAA to read and consider would be greatly appreciated by sport pilots like me who feel like the 3rd class medical rules are unnecessarily restrictive and would like the opportunity to fly the planes we trained in (and a few more).


 
Yep... Apologies to flying club members with a PPL, but I am coming for your Cessnas. And there's nothing that can stop me
(except a multi-year waiting list and voting approval from 2/3 of the current membership)
Glad I picked up a 75' C-150 back in April. They are going to get more popular.
 
Lucky for me I picked up a 76 AND a 71 Texas tail Dragger
 
It has been enlightening and somewhat encouraging reading the comments so far on the FAA website for MOSAIC. I am surprised there are not more comments so far. Hopefully a lot more will come in supporting the expansion of light sport.

Repeatedly the commenters recommended:

1. 3 passengers
2. Higher stall speed to account for Pipers (up 3-6 knots from 54)
3. Drop the basic med requirement for night flight (maybe require a vision test)
4. Allow Basic Med without a prior 3rd class or get rid of 3rd class

Thoughts on what else the FAA should consider?

Leaving your comments of support of the rules and the above changes for the FAA to read and consider would be greatly appreciated by sport pilots like me who feel like the 3rd class medical rules are unnecessarily restrictive and would like the opportunity to fly the planes we trained in (and a few more).


I agree! Thanks for pointing this out. It is so important to comment during the 90 day comment period. I have also been surprised there aren't more comments. I was also surprised some of the commenters want to abolish the Sport Pilot ticket altogether. Others want to leave things as they are and not implement the new proposed regulations. So, all that to say: if you support the changes, go comment!
 
One of the current factors limiting growth of the Sport Pilot population is the limited availability of SP schools, which is in turn limited by availability of LSAs. By expanding the universe of SP-eligible aircraft to some of the legacy fleet, many more flight schools could offer SP training if they wanted.

In my personal situation (PP since 1979, but out of flying for career and family reasons until I retired a few years ago, thus wasn't aware of Basic Med in time to renew my 3rd class while I still could), Sport Pilot is a near-perfect option to get me flying again. But the nearest SP school is hours away, vs. a Cessna school just down the road. If I could fly those 172s, I could be back in the air in a relatively short time as a PP exercising SP privileges.

I'm sure MOSAIC in its final form will fail to satisfy everyone, but I can't see it as anything but an overall positive for the GA community.
I'm also hoping Sport Pilot will become more "mainstream" and not viewed as poorly by the GA community as it has been in the past. Really hoping more CFIs will be willing to teach Sport Pilots!
 
Back
Top