MOSAIC Rule Today?

Salty said:
What good is an LSA cert aircraft that you need a private to fly? Isn’t that just an aircraft?
Click to expand...

Of course we will have to see what the manufacturers do, but LSA cuts out a lot of red tape from a certification standpoint. Hopefully we will see a lot more capable aircraft come to market. How many LSA's are there that are great except for their delicate landing gear? I think a lot of folks are missing out that MOSAIC is "Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification".
 
Salty said:
What good is an LSA cert aircraft that you need a private to fly? Isn’t that just an aircraft?
Click to expand...
Nothing to you as the airmen, but maybe more advantageous to the manufacturer. I assume Van's can now build and get approval as an SLSA instead of having to go though the expensive process of getting a built aircraft certificated. And, international manufacturers who already have LSA's that meet the rules of other countries can just start selling them here...

Again, it doesn't help you as a pilot, but may help the manufacturers, so that is a good thing. Although, I have my doubts that we'll see a new era of cheap LSA's coming to market even with the good news of MOSAIC...
Click to expand...
 
I guess that makes sense. I wonder if all these new foreign planes being certified as experimental exhibition lately can be certified this way instead? Maybe that was Pipistrels plan for the panthera all along?
 
Basic Med was the starting point. Essentially, if your doctor thought you were safe enough to drive then short of special issuance criteria, they had to issue.
 
LSRM-A expanding inspection authority to EAB condition inspections is def an inflection point for me. I'm not following the stipulation about the EAB in question has to conform to their new "stall speed for LSA" definition. Many of the EABs I'm interested in are lower aspect ratio speedsters and don't conform to the stall speed (Glasairs) whereas others do (RVs).

If anybody has located the reference regarding whether or not the EAB has to conform to the stall speed to be inspectable by an LSRM-A, I'd love to see it.
 
hindsight2020 said:
LSRM-A expanding inspection authority to EAB condition inspections is def an inflection point for me. I'm not following the stipulation about the EAB in question has to conform to their new "stall speed for LSA" definition. Many of the EABs I'm interested in are lower aspect ratio speedsters and don't conform to the stall speed (Glasairs) whereas others do (RVs).

If anybody has located the reference regarding whether or not the EAB has to conform to the stall speed to be inspectable by an LSRM-A, I'd love to see it.
Click to expand...
Page 430 of the rule: b. Expand Repairmen (Light-Sport) Privileges to Include EAB Aircraft Under § 21.191(g)

There is a pretty good explanation of the logic on page 40.
 
Does the new MOSAIC rules affect the knowledge test requirements? I was planning to take my knowledge test, but saw that there's a section to remove the requirement in the final rules on pg. 350.
 

Attachments

  • 1753230840046.png
    1753230840046.png
    93.1 KB · Views: 20
No one's talking about it, but it's nice that legacy planes like the 152 or 150 now qualify where before they were prohibited due to weight. That opens up training quite a bit. Finding a Light Sport piloting school is less of an issue. Even more so considering the scope of this opening up 172s to SPs.
 
They hoped to have made this announcement during AIr Venture last year.

There will be some partying tonight at Oshkosh.
 
hindsight2020 said:
LSRM-A expanding inspection authority to EAB condition inspections is def an inflection point for me. I'm not following the stipulation about the EAB in question has to conform to their new "stall speed for LSA" definition. Many of the EABs I'm interested in are lower aspect ratio speedsters and don't conform to the stall speed (Glasairs) whereas others do (RVs).

If anybody has located the reference regarding whether or not the EAB has to conform to the stall speed to be inspectable by an LSRM-A, I'd love to see it.
Click to expand...

I included the relevant text in post #149. Nothing related to inspection authorization being related to stall speed, just EAB. And the BIG thing is it appears that for owners an LSRI-A is all that is needed. In other words, the 16 hour class. That said, I haven't had a chance to read what the requirements for repairmen will be going forward...
 
EdFred said:
You have a POH? I only have a 10 page AFM. Will have to look at it when I get out to the airport.

Also it says 64mp dirty and then later in the POH says "about 5mph increase" when flaps are up. 4 is about 5. ;)
Click to expand...

Right, that’s what i got and it says the same thing, 64 mph dirty and add about 5 when clean. I guess 4.something could be about 5 and then converting comes out to 59.4999 kts so we can round down to 59 kts so all good i guess.
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
Right, that’s what i got and it says the same thing, 64 mph dirty and add about 5 when clean. I guess 4.something could be about 5 and then converting comes out to 59.4999 kts so we can round down to 59 kts so all good i guess.
Click to expand...

Not to be a downer, but it's CAS. You will want to verify that too.
 
jbarrass said:
Page 430 of the rule: b. Expand Repairmen (Light-Sport) Privileges to Include EAB Aircraft Under § 21.191(g)

There is a pretty good explanation of the logic on page 40.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Just read the reference and subsequent pages and it does not make any mention of stall speeds in order to qualify the EAB aircraft the LSR-M desires to inspect. Only that it is an EAB whose certificate was issued under (g) subsection.

Additionally, it seems to extend the same privileges to LSR-I folks. That was confusing to me, I always understood the LSR-I folks to be a E-LSA target demographic, and LSR-M folks be the S-LSA demographic. In the context of EAB at large then, is the FAA saying they would only allow LSR-I folks to do conditionals only on the former E-LSA? If so, that is not an expansion of their privileges at all, that is LSR-I status quo.

Just a tangent really, not a big deal.I'd be more than happy to go through the 15 day (LSRM) course if it means I no longer have to be held hostage by labor-upgaging IAs, as a non-builder. Trying to understand what distinction the FAA is making when it comes to this expansion between LSR-I and LSR-M. In the context of EAB, to me it only reads they only expanded LSR-M scope, and left LSR-I effectively in their original "former E-LSA" narrow scope.
 
idahoflier said:
I included the relevant text in post #149. Nothing related to inspection authorization being related to stall speed, just EAB. And the BIG thing is it appears that for owners an LSRI-A is all that is needed. In other words, the 16 hour class. That said, I haven't had a chance to read what the requirements for repairmen will be going forward...
Click to expand...
Yeah if they change the course to become de facto A/P requirements, that'd be pretty bad faith on their part.

The text of their "concur for EAB/non-concur for spam cans" gives credence to the idea they'd be willing to leave LSRM alone as is, but I guess we'll see.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Yeah if they change the course to become de facto A/P requirements, that'd be pretty bad faith on their part.

The text of their "concur for EAB/non-concur for spam cans" gives credence to the idea they'd be willing to leave LSRM alone as is, but I guess we'll see.
Click to expand...

Here it is!

65.107 Repairman certificate (light-sport): Eligibility and training courses
(a) Ratings. The following ratings may be issued on a repairman certificate (light-
sport) under this section:
(1) Inspection rating.
(2) Maintenance rating.
(b) Eligibility requirements: General. To be eligible for a repairman certificate
(light-sport), a person must:
(1) Be at least 18 years old;
(2) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand English;
702
(3) Complete a training course pursuant to paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, as
applicable to the rating sought;
(4) Pass a written test administered by the training course provider that covers the
contents of the course pursuant to paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, as applicable to the
rating sought; and
(5) Present documentary evidence of completion of the FAA-accepted training
course required by paragraph (b)(3) and passage of the written test required by paragraph
(b)(4) of this section, to the Administrator.
(c) Inspection rating training course. To obtain an inspection rating on a
repairman certificate (light-sport), a person must complete a 16-hour training course
accepted by the Administrator on inspecting the category, and class as applicable, of
experimental aircraft for which the person intends to exercise the privileges of the rating

So the repairman certificate (light-sport) remains a 16 hour course and that's all you need to perform condition inspections on your owned EAB aircraft. Huge!
 
idahoflier said:
So the repairman certificate (light-sport) remains a 16 hour course and that's all you need to perform condition inspections on your owned EAB aircraft. Huge!
Click to expand...
I believe MOSAIC removes the "owned" requirement.

EDIT: Maybe not.
"In summary, FAA finds that expanding the privileges of a repairman certificate(light-sport) to allow the holder to conduct the condition inspection on an EAB aircraft aligns with the safety continuum for the aircraft’s certification basis, reduces the burden on aircraft owners on finding qualified personnel to inspect their aircraft, and results in a safety benefit. Therefore, this final rule expands the privileges of the light-sport repairman inspection rating in § 65.109(a)(2) to allow a holder of that certificate and rating to conduct an annual condition inspection on an aircraft owned by that repairman, which has an experimental airworthiness certificate for the purpose of operating EAB aircraft, and on which the repairman has completed the prescribed training on the corresponding category and applicable class of aircraft. Furthermore, FAA adopts the same expansion in § 65.109(b)(2) for those holders of a light-sport repairman certificate with a maintenance rating." Page 436

Ah, I see where I got that impression:
"d. Changes to FAA Policy for Issuance of a Repairman Certificate (Light-Sport)Inspection Rating FAA will no longer require an applicant for a light-sport repairman certificate to show evidence of aircraft ownership and will not deny a certificate or rating based on whether an applicant owns an aircraft certificated in accordance with § 21.191(g), (i), (k),or (l). Though not discussed in the NPRM, this is a change to internal policy and does not impose new burdens or obligations to the regulated community, nor does this change affect existing or future certificate privileges. Ownership is not a certificate or rating eligibility requirement specified in § 65.107(b); rather, ownership is a requirement to exercise the privileges of an inspection rating, as specified in adopted § 65.109(a).Furthermore, applicants will not be asked to provide, and repairman certificates (light sport) will not be issued with, aircraft registration number (N-number) and serial number(S/N) information of aircraft owned by the applicant." Page 439

TL;DR: You can earn your LSRI-A without owning a plane, but you can only exercise the privilege on aircraft you own.
 
Last edited:
Kiddo's Driver said:
I believe MOSAIC removes the "owned" requirement.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately they didn't go that far...

65.109 Repairman certificate (light-sport): Privileges and limitations. (a) The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport) with an inspection rating may perform the annual condition inspection on an aircraft:
(1) That is owned by the holder;
(2) That has an experimental airworthiness certificate issued in accordance with § 21.191(g), (i), (k), or (l) of this chapter; and
(3) That is in the same category, and class as applicable, of aircraft for which the holder has completed the training course specified in § 65.107(c) of this part.
 
idahoflier said:
Unfortunately they didn't go that far...

65.109 Repairman certificate (light-sport): Privileges and limitations. (a) The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport) with an inspection rating may perform the annual condition inspection on an aircraft:
(1) That is owned by the holder;
(2) That has an experimental airworthiness certificate issued in accordance with § 21.191(g), (i), (k), or (l) of this chapter; and
(3) That is in the same category, and class as applicable, of aircraft for which the holder has completed the training course specified in § 65.107(c) of this part.
Click to expand...
Yea, I found it & edited my post.
It did remove the requirement to own an E-LSA to get the LSRI-A, but to exercise the privileges, you have to own the plane.
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
Yea, I found it & edited my post.
It did remove the requirement to own an E-LSA to get the LSRI-A, but to exercise the privileges, you have to own the plane.
Click to expand...
If I understand correctly, the change is that previously you had to have built the plane but now you only have to own it?
 
asicer said:
If I understand correctly, the change is that previously you had to have built the plane but now you only have to own it?
Click to expand...

Sort of. AFAIK you can still obtain a Repairman Certificate which allows you to perform the condition inspection on an EAB that you built (no class required). What has changed is that anyone that takes the 16 hour Repairman certificate (light-sport) class and obtains a Repairman certificate (light-sport) with Inspection rating may also perform the condition inspection on an EAB aircraft that they own.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Yeah if they change the course to become de facto A/P requirements, that'd be pretty bad faith on their part.

The text of their "concur for EAB/non-concur for spam cans" gives credence to the idea they'd be willing to leave LSRM alone as is, but I guess we'll see.
Click to expand...

There’s a section somewhere in the 700 pages that discusses changes to the various ACSs. That’s on my list to compare as well and should answer the mail (in the short term at least) and may trigger me to just that done sooner rather than later.
 
asicer said:
So I can buy a 4-seat 250kt turboprop next year?
Click to expand...
Well, if you have enough money, you can buy one today that probably goes faster than 250 kts lol.

But if you are referring to "manufactured in conformity with the new LSA standards," yes, that is correct.

To me, as a holder of a PPL, IR, and full medical, this is the most exciting part! We might actually get some new aircraft to market that have cruise speeds in the 200+ kt range that don't cost seven figures.

For everyone who is saying the new rules don't make sense with the Vs1 speed of 59 kts for pilots exercising sport pilot privileges and Vs0 of 61 kts for new LSA aircraft (as well as up to 4 seats in new LSA aircraft), look at it this way. The FAA has decided to use LSA as the route to get new GA aircraft to market more efficiently and affordably for manufacturers.

While the FAA has also greatly expanded sport pilot privileges, they still don't want a sport pilot flying three passengers around in a high-performance aircraft that requires (relatively) faster approach speeds and may be less forgiving low and slow.
 
Mooney Fan said:
Basic Med was the starting point. Essentially, if your doctor thought you were safe enough to drive then short of special issuance criteria, they had to issue.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. What happens if I refuse to sign the form if I decide that person should not fly based on my assessment of that person's medical history or exam? It's completely up to the licensed physician.

That being said I'm pretty sure there are physicians who will sign the form if you can simply arrive at the office with a fistful of cash.
 
GBear286 said:
What happens if I refuse to sign the form if I decide that person should not fly based on my assessment of that person's medical history or exam?
Click to expand...

You’re not the only game in town. If I like, I can go find another physician who sees it differently or is willing to lay out a treatment plan that will make him comfortable with signing the form. That’s a big difference between Basic Med and a Class 3. There is no such thing as a denial with Basic.
 
traumamed said:
To me, as a holder of a PPL, IR, and full medical, this is the most exciting part! We might actually get some new aircraft to market that have cruise speeds in the 200+ kt range that don't cost seven figures.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. There has to be a market for this and so far that hasn't materialized. Even if such an aircraft comes in around a $250 to $400K range many will still complain the cost is too high. People are still gravitating towards the 50+ year old clapped out "bargains".
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
Faster/less burdensome certification process.
Can be maintained by LSRM-A mechanics instead of A&P mechanics.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

This has always been about benefit to manufacturers, not to pilots. It’s intended to open US markets to foreign-manufactured aircraft that don’t meet the old LSA limits. I’d be very surprised to see Cessna or Beechcraft developing new LSAs under MOSAIC.
 
Last edited:
Does this also open up multi engine if the stall speed is met? I’m not seeing the former single engine restriction…
 
Half Fast said:
..There is no such thing as a denial with Basic.
Click to expand...

Au contraire, just not in the traditional sense of a Part 67 medical certificate denial.

To begin with, the prerequisite Class 3 or higher is not a ‘must issue’ certificate. Then, there’s the disqualifying conditions that require another trip through Part 67 land, where SI issuance is not guaranteed. Can’t be on BasicMed without a qualifying Part 67 medical in your history and that is effectively a denial.

Finally, since there are no absolutes in aviation medicine, my guess is there are some edge cases of conditions or combinations of conditions or treatments that don’t require a trip back for a one time SI but also will result in no MD ever signing the form.

You know that, though. I think what BasicMed enables for a pilot moreso than a Part 67 medical is ‘permission’ to seek treatment with much less fear of regulatory repercussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top