MOSAIC Rule Today?

Yeesh. 717 pages. This is the summary table...and you can do night with training from a CFI. see bottom of page 585.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Half Fast said:
:yeahthat:

This has always been about benefit to manufactures, 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.
Click to expand...
Agree. By intent and title, MOSAIC was always about the aircraft, not the pilot. The new rules do exactly what they were set out to do.

A sport pilot will gain retract, constant speed, and more capable airframes as a drag along to enable the aircraft changes.

The SPL pax limitation was “necessary” to maintain the limitations of the Sport Pilot certificate in a more capable airframe.

The night privileges should have never been in the NPR and should have been cut from the final rule. It’s just regulatory bloat which confuses the regulations to end up back at the same place - if a pilot wants to fly at night, they need a medical - which means they would go for PPL not SPL.
 
TCABM said:
...but also will result in no MD ever signing the form.
Click to expand...

Even if I accept your premise that there might be some things that no MD will sign for any amount of money (seems doubtful; some docs will do anything for a buck), that's still not a "denial" in the FAA sense and the airman could still fly under Sport Pilot rules.
 
Half Fast said:
Even if I accept your premise that there might be some things that no MD will sign for any amount of money (seems doubtful; some docs will do anything for a buck), that's still not a "denial" in the FAA sense and the airman could still fly under Sport Pilot rules.
Click to expand...

I stipulated that. The end result is still the same: the pilot can’t fly using BasicMed for operations and aircraft that allow for that.

The pilot can still fall back to the Driver’s License (assuming they have one) option and exercise Sport Pilot privileges in qualifying aircraft and respecting the limitations of those privileges.
 
IMHO this change will not be 100% grass is greener.

If the idea is to allow foreign planes in, tariffs raise its head. Yeah people will mention manufacturing locally, but that requires a market to exists. And it might grow or it might not.

Now if everyone and their dog can fly and cost is lower for the hull, you have to then figure out where people will park all these brand new planes.

If no new cheaper hulls comes into the market then it’s more potential pilots competing for the same number of legacy hulls.

Frankly I can’t see clearly immediately this is a net positive.
 
Until it hits the Federal Register, it’s still in coordination. I expect it’ll get published there in the next week or two. Plenty of time for everyone to read and understand what it says.
 
Soooo ... can Vans now sell factory manufactured or 75% complete RV-10's as LSA, which an instrument rated PP with an LSRM can fly night IFR, maintain, and modify?
 
Last edited:
Flatiowa said:
Does this also open up multi engine if the stall speed is met? I’m not seeing the former single engine restriction…
Click to expand...
Yes, this opens up multi engine. They specifically called out things like multi rotor as potential new technologies they wanted to include.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Soooo ... can Vans now sell factory manufactured or 75% complete RV-10's as LSA, which an instrument rated PP with an LSA repairman cert can fly night IFR, maintain, and modify?
Click to expand...
They could have before. The only thing that would have had to happen, is that LSA aircraft would have been re-certified as an ELSA.

After a few reads, I think the recertification is no longer required. Then again, I think many things.

Edit: Must improve my reading for comprehension. Ed wrote RV-10, I read and answered for an RV-12.
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
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.
Click to expand...
Your 250kt LSA being able to be maintained by an LSRM instead of an A&P will also benefit pilots.
 
RV-10 will still be considered EAB. “It is important to note, however, that you cannot convert your existing EAB aircraft into an LSA. The rule makes it clear that an aircraft previously certificated as an EAB would likely not be eligible for an LSA certificate because the manufacturer cannot sign a statement of compliance for an aircraft they did not build, and the amateur builder does not hold the design and manufacturing data required to do so.”
 
Reading some parts of the Final Rule and this bit on pp 44-46 struck me as clarifying.

“…enables the FAA to establish separate limits for new light sport aircraft and for sport pilots…is beneficial for several reasons…Separate limits allow certification requirements for light-sport category aircraft to be established without regard to a specific grade of pilot certificate as is true for other aircraft categories. Under this light-sport category aircraft are intended for operation by all grades of pilots…to achieve greater performance and utility that is equivalent to four-seat normal and primary category aircraft as well as EAB aircraft…”

I really never thought the FAA would go this far.

So, @Ed Haywood, philisophically, yes…Van’s could offer a completed LSA RV-10 potentially rebadged as an RV11, after the certification stuff is effective.
 
Andrew Morris said:
RV-10 will still be considered EAB. “It is important to note, however, that you cannot convert your existing EAB aircraft into an LSA. The rule makes it clear that an aircraft previously certificated as an EAB would likely not be eligible for an LSA certificate because the manufacturer cannot sign a statement of compliance for an aircraft they did not build, and the amateur builder does not hold the design and manufacturing data required to do so.”
Click to expand...

Not talking about EAB. Talking about a factory built RV-10.
 
Andrew Morris said:
“It is important to note, however, that you cannot convert your existing EAB aircraft into an LSA. The rule makes it clear that an aircraft previously certificated as an EAB would likely not be eligible for an LSA certificate because the manufacturer cannot sign a statement of compliance for an aircraft they did not build, and the amateur builder does not hold the design and manufacturing data required to do so.”
Click to expand...
This was a little confusing to me. Before, there was S-LSA and E-LSA. Will there continue to be E-LSA?
 
Ed Haywood said:
Not talking about EAB. Talking about a factory built RV-10.
Click to expand...
I should have made that distinction in my original post. That’s what makes this so freaking exciting! What are all of these manufacturers thinking about right now? All of the possibilities, existing airframes, and new clean sheet designs to come in the future. GA is exciting again!

I personally can’t wait for the Blackwing to arrive in the US and to one day fly a Turbotech TP-R90 powered Zlin Norden that is considered an LSA hahah. Ah!!!
 
So, I take the above to imply that something like the JMB VL-3 could be sold under LSA, as opposed to the current requirement for experimental....? Doesn't that still imply all of the existing bureaucracy of certification, just under a different segment of the FAR, and open to sports pilots as well as PPL?
 
StraightnLevel said:
So, I take the above to imply that something like the JMB VL-3 could be sold under LSA, as opposed to the current requirement for experimental....? Doesn't that still imply all of the existing bureaucracy of certification, just under a different segment of the FAR, and open to sports pilots as well as PPL?
Click to expand...
Yes. JMB just needs to conform to ATSM consensus standards and we have a new LSA that can be flown by a sport pilot in that case too.
 
StraightnLevel said:
So, I take the above to imply that something like the JMB VL-3 could be sold under LSA, as opposed to the current requirement for experimental....? Doesn't that still imply all of the existing bureaucracy of certification, just under a different segment of the FAR, and open to sports pilots as well as PPL?
Click to expand...
Certification is under consensus standards (ATSM) not part 23. Vastly reduced bureaucracy.
 
Andrew Morris said:
SLSA already use experimental avionics. They conform to ASTM consensus standards.
Click to expand...
New they do. If you want to change them you need their authorization, though if it's a minor modification it's not mandatory now.

Or if the manufacturer goes kaput, you can go E-SLA too
 
StraightnLevel said:
So, I take the above to imply that something like the JMB VL-3 could be sold under LSA, as opposed to the current requirement for experimental....? Doesn't that still imply all of the existing bureaucracy of certification, just under a different segment of the FAR, and open to sports pilots as well as PPL?
Click to expand...
The Vl3 is already available in Canada. I have never seen one or heard one on the radio.

I wonder how many new aircraft will be sold on these new rules.
 
Doc Holliday said:
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".
Click to expand...
The market hasn't materialized? Or is it that manufacturers (especially smaller/foreign ones) could not economically supply the market? Idk that people would complain about $250-400K for that kind of performance, especially out of a brand new bird. I sure wouldn't, and neither would anyone I know at my local fields. Most of us are already paying $200K for antiques.

The FAA may have just saved GA yesterday. I'm willing to say it at risk of looking like a fool in five years if this post doesn't age well.
 
traumamed said:
The market hasn't materialized? Or is it that manufacturers (especially smaller/foreign ones) could not economically supply the market? Idk that people would complain about $250-400K for that kind of performance, especially out of a brand new bird. I sure wouldn't, and neither would anyone I know at my local fields. Most of us are already paying $200K for antiques.

The FAA may have just saved GA yesterday. I'm willing to say it at risk of looking like a fool in five years if this post doesn't age well.
Click to expand...
You’re spot on! 100% saved GA. This is going to spur innovation and drive new aircraft sales like we’ve never seen before! I cannot wait for the next ten years!
 
idahoflier said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The significance of NOT having to own your plane yet to take the class is that you can get prepared for the plane you want to buy BEFORE you buy it. This allows you to remove one more question mark from ownership before you buy.
 
Last edited:
Doc Holliday said:
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".
Click to expand...
But those 50 year old "bargains" are now worth more because they can now be flown by sport pilots, so the entire price spectrum may shift.
Andrew Morris said:
RV-10 will still be considered EAB. “It is important to note, however, that you cannot convert your existing EAB aircraft into an LSA. The rule makes it clear that an aircraft previously certificated as an EAB would likely not be eligible for an LSA certificate because the manufacturer cannot sign a statement of compliance for an aircraft they did not build, and the amateur builder does not hold the design and manufacturing data required to do so.”
Click to expand...
Existing EAB's can't be converted to LSA, and there would be no point in doing so, anyway. But Van's could (and likely will) choose to bring out an SLSA version of the RV-10 or any of their other models.
Andrew Morris said:
I doubt it. No need for ELSA now the way I see it.
Click to expand...
ELSA also includes non-51% kits, and converting an SLSA to ELSA allows owners to do their own maintenance, and modify the plane.
 
asicer said:
Here's hoping that there will be some sort of reciprocal agreement whereby the FAA will accept EASA certification.
Click to expand...
I am wondering when the impenetrable bureaucracy developed. I have seen many Type Certificates from the late 50's and the 60's where, "A U.S. airworthiness certificate may be issued on the basis of an NAA Export C of A signed by a representative of the German Airworthiness Authority."
 
Andrew Morris said:
You’re spot on! 100% saved GA. This is going to spur innovation and drive new aircraft sales like we’ve never seen before! I cannot wait for the next ten years!
Click to expand...

I would not go so far as ‘saved’ yet. What’s happened with the EASA stuff is likely a better indicator for the future.

I could also accept Textron and Piper getting out of the new SEP market over time as a result of effects from this change. FrEx: if Van’s or Sling can deliver enough factory built LSAs that are competitive against a 172/equivalent for the 141 market, the juice might just not be worth the squeeze any longer.
 
Where I see the benefit to this for many is on the medical cost side.
Scenario #1
Guy owns a 172 has a 3rd class gets tired of dealing with the FAA and the constant fear he might lose his medical. Maybe has a minor issue that the FAA wants him to jump through hoops for.
Guy goes to Basic Med. Guy has a minor heart attack. Gets fixed up and recovers.
Guy can still fly his 172 without getting an SI.

Scenario #2
Guy has a condition that would prevent him from getting a class 3 medical so is told take up gliders or ultra-lights.
Guy decides to get a SP cert and fly with a DL.
Guy can fly a 172 instead of a Champ or Cub and can get most of the sign offs to do what a PPL can do.

Scenario #3
Guy has some money and manufacturers build very capable airplanes that he can fly.
250K, retract with constant speed, great avionics, auto-pilot,...
Guy flies a very capable go places airplane and never has to deal with the FAA medical division.

Biggest downside is only 2 passengers but honestly for most people this isn't a problem.

A good question may be how insurance companies will deal with all this.
 
GBear286 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, my PCP completed the paperwork as part of a routine physical. All I had was the $35 copay.
 
Doc Holliday said:
. . . . many will still complain the cost is too high. People are still gravitating towards the 50+ year old clapped out "bargains".
Click to expand...
I have trouble speaking to my grandparents' and parents' generations about money. Because when they were my age a dollar was worth $6 or $3. Prices haven't gone up so much as value has gone down. Waaay beyond what Mr. Hamilton suggested. Along with median household incomes losing a lot of ground (gaining only 422% and 29% in the same period).

Maybe there are 50+ year old clapped out airplanes hiding in old tee hangars somewhere. The 90, 70, 50 year old airplanes that are hangared* at this field - and the other ones that I have frequented - are generally maintained and retain value. Unlike a car that is purchased and driven to the junkyard.

*I despise spell-wreck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top