MOSAIC Rule Today?

There hasn't been as much discussion in this thread about what is, to me, the biggest impact of this new rule: can (or cannot?) new 4-seat planes be designed under the LSA "ASTM" spec (avoiding Part 23)?

When the LSA rule initially went into effect, my sense was "who give a hoot about new 2-place aircraft designs limited to 1,320 pounds??" but nonetheless, there was an explosion of 2-seat designs. To those that decry costs, I'd point out some of those 2-seaters run into the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars and still seem to be selling just fine. If there is a new opportunity for this same explosion of designs to happen for 4-seat designs not limited by weight and capped at 250 knots - i.e. infinitely more capable and interesting aircraft than the original LSA 2-seat limitations - it seems that this could be massive.

I agree it's unlikely the Cessna and Beechcraft are going to jump on this opportunity, but they'll probably get their lunches "eaten" as a result. Could we see a factory-produced and sold RV-10? How about the same for Lancairs or Glasairs? New 4-seat designs from the successful 2-seat LSA manufacturers? A 4-seat bushplane design factory produced like the Bearhawk? If I am understanding this correctly and there's an opportunity for all these planes to be approved by the old LSA process which, itself, produced a ton of new designs... I think this is really exciting.
 
AA5Bman said:
There hasn't been as much discussion in this thread about what is, to me, the biggest impact of this new rule: can (or cannot?) new 4-seat planes be designed under the LSA "ASTM" spec (avoiding Part 23)?

When the LSA rule initially went into effect, my sense was "who give a hoot about new 2-place aircraft designs limited to 1,320 pounds??" but nonetheless, there was an explosion of 2-seat designs. To those that decry costs, I'd point out some of those 2-seaters run into the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars and still seem to be selling just fine. If there is a new opportunity for this same explosion of designs to happen for 4-seat designs not limited by weight and capped at 250 knots - i.e. infinitely more capable and interesting aircraft than the original LSA 2-seat limitations - it seems that this could be massive.

I agree it's unlikely the Cessna and Beechcraft are going to jump on this opportunity, but they'll probably get their lunches "eaten" as a result. Could we see a factory-produced and sold RV-10? How about the same for Lancairs or Glasairs? New 4-seat designs from the successful 2-seat LSA manufacturers? A 4-seat bushplane design factory produced like the Bearhawk? If I am understanding this correctly and there's an opportunity for all these planes to be approved by the old LSA process which, itself, produced a ton of new designs... I think this is really exciting.
Click to expand...
These new planes already exist in Europe. Most of them are complex with Rotax engines, so they haven't had a ready market in the US under the prior ruleset.
 
This EAA summary page is helpful: https://www.eaa.org/eaa/advocacy/top-issues/mosaic-aircraft-certificate
So a Cessna 172 and similar 4-seat aircraft are now LSA? Sport pilots can fly them but are limited to 2 passengers?
If so, in many cases, a private pilot with 3rd class concerned about losing his medical can switch to sport and continue flying the same airplane he already owns.
 
TCABM said:
Yep. Our club policy stipulates BasicMed or higher as a condition of coverage.
Click to expand...
I think the realities will be that this removes some barriers to bringing new aircraft to market and simplifies some barriers to maintain the existing fleet. Good stuff.

In practical terms, I’m not so sure you’re going to see massive shifts in what can be flown sans medical (or BM). Be that due to regulation, insurance, or aircraft price point…

172’s, PA-28’s and the like from legacy. We’ll see what innovations come.

Good adds to be sure - but some of the exuberance of “I’m gonna fly a 250 knot multi engine retract with CS props at night on a drivers license medical” may be just a bit optimistic .
 
MRC01 said:
If so, in many cases, a private pilot with 3rd class concerned about losing his medical can switch to sport and continue flying the same airplane he already owns.
Click to expand...

Can't he already do that with Basic Med?

I'll be honest, I love many parts of this reg, but I do not like the drivers license provision. I live in Florida, AKA God's Waiting Room. There are many elderly people on the roads who no longer have any business driving. Not sure I want to be sharing airspace with them. I say that knowing in 10 or 20 years I'll be in the same boat.

There is an older guy at my field with a vintage biplane. His health is a mess. Can barely walk to his plane. Multiple cardiac events. The last two times he flew, he ground looped the plane and clobbered runway markers. He has no business flying. Removing the requirement for a doctor to sign off makes it that much easier for him to keep deluding himself.

IMO they should have fixed the Basic Med rules to eliminate Class 3 Russian Roulette instead. If you are denied or deferred a medical cert, pursuing a basic med signoff for reduced privileges should be an option.
 
TCABM said:
Yep. Our club policy stipulates BasicMed or higher as a condition of coverage.
Click to expand...
Do you have any LSAs for rent to Sport Pilots?
If not, they do that because that is what the FAA requires.
There is a very real possibility that they will continue to go with the FAA requirements. By that, I mean that they will drop the Basic Med requirement to rent the newly sanctioned LSA Cessna 172s, for example, in your stable.
 
Last edited:
Dana said:
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.

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.

ELSA also includes non-51% kits, and converting an SLSA to ELSA allows owners to do their own maintenance, and modify the plane.
Click to expand...

Keep dreaming that airplane prices are going to “shoot up” with mosaic. That’s a pipe dream like so many others will disappear.
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
Do you have any LSAs for rent to Sport Pilots?
If not, they do that because that is what the FAA requires.
There is a very real possibility that they will continue to go with the FAA requirements. By that, I mean that they will drop the Basic Med requirement to rent the newly sanctioned LSA Cessna 172s, for example, in your stable.
Click to expand...

We have no aircraft with an LSA Special Airworthiness Certificate; we have a 172 and are adding a 182.

There’s a real possibility of a lot of change, but our in force policy’s pilot qualifications are what they are.
 
I believe the rule also opens many more vintage aircraft to SPs. Previously only certain Ercoupes, Luscombes, Taylorcrafts, etc., satisfied LSA rules, but now I think they all will.
 
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...
Couldnt the rv10 now be in the same category as an rv12?
 
AA5Bman said:
I agree it's unlikely the Cessna and Beechcraft are going to jump on this opportunity, but they'll probably get their lunches "eaten" as a result. Could we see a factory-produced and sold RV-10? How about the same for Lancairs or Glasairs? New 4-seat designs from the successful 2-seat LSA manufacturers? A 4-seat bushplane design factory produced like the Bearhawk? If I am understanding this correctly and there's an opportunity for all these planes to be approved by the old LSA process which, itself, produced a ton of new designs... I think this is really exciting.
Click to expand...
The US old-timers are not interested in GA in the slightest. The imaginative Eastern European guys, maybe; some nifty aircraft models out there, soon to be marketed to the US. But for sheer innovation, it’s tough to beat the Chinese these days. Case in point: the Jiangling Motors SC-01. The dimensions of a Miata; 0-60 under three seconds; priced at $32k. That’s pretty extreme. But they produce plenty of decent quality cars that sell for under $10k.

Imagine what Chinese engineers could come up with, given a clean slate for airframe, powerplant, and avionics. A simple two-place, 100hp, modern electronics, for $75k, delivered? I think they can pull it off.
 
t3chiman said:
...Imagine what Chinese engineers could come up with, given a clean slate for airframe, powerplant, and avionics. A simple two-place, 100hp, modern electronics, for $75k, delivered? I think they can pull it off.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The idea that we are going to have $75k modern 2 seat sportster is probably not realistic. Currently, a fully built RV12 LSA is $250k. DIY cost of an RV10 north of $300k. An LSA version of an RV10 would be mid 400's to start. And someone not interested in kit built can get a nice, albeit older generation Cirrus for $300-500k. China tariffs are high, and engines are not going to get cheaper. Lycoming motors based on designs from the 1950's are 50-100k and up, and the wait list is out a year... Seems Rotax is the only proven alternative. A number of new interesting designs for motors, but none of those new engine manufacturers are advertising that their motors will be half the cost of a Lycoming or Continental. So, yeah...

I don't want to be a Debbie downer here, but some realism is in order. MOSAIC is great news. And, we will see a new generation of 4 seat planes, newer, some from abroad as well as home grown. But they will likely be all in the $300-500k and up range. There still aren't any hangars to put them in anyway...

And, for some of these LSA's, like the RV10 if it were to be made as an LSA, you'll still likely need basic medical or a third class...
 
I've now had a chance to read the full rule and digest it some. So i think...IMHO...

While this is not everything, it's a really big deal and will change a lot of things about our advocation. There will be collateral fallout (good and bad) that is yet to be determined, but I see this as a very good thing.

After reading the whole thing, I must say kudos to the FAA team that wrote this. It was thorough and they addressed the comments (for and against) in a fair and clear way. They also did the best job I've seen in intelligently addressing the safety continuum and how over-regulation is unnecessary and not helpful. They done good.

As before, people continue to confuse Sport Pilot (Pilot privileges and Limitations) with Light Sport Aircraft (aircraft design, certification, maintenance). Once you mentally separate them, things like the different stall speed rules become clear and make sense. Admittedly it's hard since there is very much overlap. They could have made it less "confusing" by just picking one number but I for one am glad they didn't because that would have driven the changes to the lowest common denominator.

For the aircraft, a lot will depend on the manufacturers next steps. For example, I could see Tecnam simply updating their statement of compliance on the P2008 and using the weight the EASA aircraft are certified to. Will they make the P2010 LSA? Don't know, no idea. Some current LSA companies might just leave the existing fleet alone and start marketing a "Gen 2" with higher weights to sell more new planes.

The big winner I think might be EAB, their share of the market has been growing and I think this makes its growth accelerate. We'll see.

I'm happy today.
 
Mark K said:
The idea that we are going to have $75k modern 2 seat sportster is probably not realistic. Currently, a fully built RV12 LSA is $250k. DIY cost of an RV10 north of $300k. An LSA version of an RV10 would be mid 400's to start. And someone not interested in kit built can get a nice, albeit older generation Cirrus for $300-500k. China tariffs are high, and engines are not going to get cheaper. Lycoming motors based on designs from the 1950's are 50-100k and up, and the wait list is out a year... Seems Rotax is the only proven alternative. A number of new interesting designs for motors, but none of those new engine manufacturers are advertising that their motors will be half the cost of a Lycoming or Continental. So, yeah...

I don't want to be a Debbie downer here, but some realism is in order. MOSAIC is great news. And, we will see a new generation of 4 seat planes, newer, some from abroad as well as home grown. But they will likely be all in the $300-500k and up range. There still aren't any hangars to put them in anyway...

And, for some of these LSA's, like the RV10 if it were to be made as an LSA, you'll still likely need basic medical or a third class...
Click to expand...

Have you seen this LSA just unveiled at Oshkosh. $69,500 factory built, single seat, custom engine. https://spiriteng.com/se-1-aircraft/

I don't know much about them or how they do it, but one can hope this could be the future. With the new rules, they might be able to turn this into a two-seater for under $100k.
 
Ed Haywood said:
There is an older guy at my field with a vintage biplane. His health is a mess. Can barely walk to his plane. Multiple cardiac events. The last two times he flew, he ground looped the plane and clobbered runway markers. He has no business flying. Removing the requirement for a doctor to sign off makes it that much easier for him to keep deluding himself.
Click to expand...
The libertarian part of me wants to say, let him. He knows exactly what he's doing. The other part of me says he'll likely help to drive up insurance prices for the rest of us. :shrug:

Ed Haywood said:
IMO they should have fixed the Basic Med rules to eliminate Class 3 Russian Roulette instead. If you are denied or deferred a medical cert, pursuing a basic med signoff for reduced privileges should be an option.
Click to expand...
This. Something pops up that requires an SI but would be fine under Basic Med or Sport Pilot; you apply for an SI, get denied, now you're done for life. Doesn't make sense at all. The FAA never dropped the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, I guess.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Can't he already do that with Basic Med?

I'll be honest, I love many parts of this reg, but I do not like the drivers license provision. I live in Florida, AKA God's Waiting Room. There are many elderly people on the roads who no longer have any business driving. Not sure I want to be sharing airspace with them. I say that knowing in 10 or 20 years I'll be in the same boat.

There is an older guy at my field with a vintage biplane. His health is a mess. Can barely walk to his plane. Multiple cardiac events. The last two times he flew, he ground looped the plane and clobbered runway markers. He has no business flying. Removing the requirement for a doctor to sign off makes it that much easier for him to keep deluding himself.

IMO they should have fixed the Basic Med rules to eliminate Class 3 Russian Roulette instead. If you are denied or deferred a medical cert, pursuing a basic med signoff for reduced privileges should be an option.
Click to expand...
I suspect that a lot of these guys down here either don’t have any kind of medical, or have a doctor who gives out Christmas gifts 365 days a year.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
If they do, I'll have to consider seriously making a very poor financial decision...
Click to expand...

I honestly very interested in this new company. The aircraft is very attractive, the price point is unbeatable. I'm curious how they came about so quietly, and how they are able to engineer and produce an aircraft and engine so cheaply. They already have about 20 airframes at the factory nearly finished and ready to go for delivery this year, and snuck 4 of them to Oshkosh.

My only problem is putting that much fun money in a toy only I can enjoy. If I'm sinking $70k into a toy, the wife will probably want a part of it.
 
midwestpa24 said:
My only problem is putting that much fun money in a toy only I can enjoy. If I'm sinking $70k into a toy, the wife will probably want a part of it.
Click to expand...
yes, these have a habit of becoming $140K his and her toys. New airplane for me meant new truck for my wife, in the last round.
I probably should have tried negotiate her down to a tractor, but didn't want to bring it up as it might cost me a truck and a tractor.

Brian
 
DFH65 said:
Biggest downside is only 2 passengers but honestly for most people this isn't a problem.
Click to expand...

MRC01 said:
So a Cessna 172 and similar 4-seat aircraft are now LSA? Sport pilots can fly them but are limited to 2 passengers?
Click to expand...
ONE passenger, plus the pilot. 2 persons on board.
MRC01 said:
If so, in many cases, a private pilot with 3rd class concerned about losing his medical can switch to sport and continue flying the same airplane he already owns.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:
Ed Haywood said:
Can't he already do that with Basic Med?
Click to expand...
Not if he has one of the conditions requiring a time time SI.
Mark K said:
...we will see a new generation of 4 seat planes, newer, some from abroad as well as home grown. But they will likely be all in the $300-500k and up range.
Click to expand...
Still a lot less than a new Cirrus or even 172.
Mark K said:
And, for some of these LSA's, like the RV10 if it were to be made as an LSA, you'll still likely need basic medical or a third class...
Click to expand...
Even if Van's doesn't certify the RV-10 as an SLSA, a sport pilot will able to fly the E-AB version without a medical.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Have you seen this LSA just unveiled at Oshkosh. $69,500 factory built, single seat, custom engine. https://spiriteng.com/se-1-aircraft/

I don't know much about them or how they do it, but one can hope this could be the future. With the new rules, they might be able to turn this into a two-seater for under $100k.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you can't generate a bare bones plane under 100k. But take a step back. This is a single seat plane with a 42 hp two cylinder motor and a useful load of 360 pounds. I mean, for 80k you can get a 10 year old mid time RV12, 2 seats and 100hp. Yes, used, but I think more practical with higher resale value.

We probably will see some cheaper LSA's. We're just not going to see a 4 seater with ~900 useful load and a 180 hp motor that cruises at 175 for even 3x75k. Kit price for something like the sling tsi is mid to high 200's. Even a bare bones kit equivalent to the tsi not likely to be much below the low 200's. I just don't see a manufacturer making money.

China probably could make something like a carbon fiber tsi 4 seater with a 200 hp motor for domestic use under 100k. But I just don't see that product coming here anytime soon. The infrastructure isn't present in the US, and the governmental/regulatory climate is currently not conducive to cheap foreign imports.

Look, I want a revolution in aviation. But the tarmac is full of rusting old Cessna's and Pipers with 70 year old engine designs (er, sorry?). I don't see the revolution happening very quickly, or being particularly inexpensive. The going rate for a new T hangar in my area is pushing 200k. I mean, it's California, so some of that is expected. All of this is getting more expensive, not less expensive.

Mosaic is a big step in the right direction. But at the end of the day we'll now have a larger number of 300-500k more potent LSA designs to tuck in under the 500k -1 million plus for a new certificated 4 seat aircraft and more a modest number of additional LSA pilots...

So maybe I can get a 300k 4 seat LSA to go with my 200k hangar...sigh...
 
Dana said:
ONE passenger, plus the pilot. 2 persons on board.

:yeahthat:

Not if he has one of the conditions requiring a time time SI.

Still a lot less than a new Cirrus or even 172.

Even if Van's doesn't certify the RV-10 as an SLSA, a sport pilot will able to fly the E-AB version without a medical.
Click to expand...

My bad. I Was thinking the flaps down stall of the RV10 was 63 kt, but it's 63 mph. So you are right. You could build and fly under sport pilot rules. Which I think, is pretty cool.
 
The weight change is what Vashon has been waiting for. When I spoke to them at SNF a few years ago, they told me the Ranger was good for well above the 1320lb limit, and I think the base model is selling for $130k or so. The plane has been hampered by a heavy engine, but now it might become more viable and a bargain.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
If they do, I'll have to consider seriously making a very poor financial decision...
Click to expand...

You probably don't realize it yet, but from a purely financial standpoint that upcoming baby wasn't the wisest of decisions. But it's nothing that can't be fixed with a second job....
:biggrin:
 
Half Fast said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's what I 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? 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."

I'm fairly certain some docs would sign off even if there are obvious problems that would interfere with safe piloting.

From the AOPA guide to Basic Med for physicians:"If, in your medical opinion, after completing the examination, you are aware of anything that could interfere with the safe operation of a motor vehicle, in this case a small aircraft, you are encouraged to work with the patient to develop an appropriate treatment regimen."

Since opinions are arbitrary it shouldn't be too hard to find a doc who will sign off on anybody. Doctor shopping is a feature of Basic Med and not a bug.

There is some truth to the idea that Basic Med is a glorified form of driver's license medical. So all of the LSA changes could be a moot point from a medical certification perspective.
 
Last edited:
GBear286 said:
That's what I 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? 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."

I'm fairly certain some docs would sign off even if there are obvious problems that would interfere with safe piloting.

From the AOPA guide to Basic Med for physicians:"If, in your medical opinion, after completing the examination, you are aware of anything that could interfere with the safe operation of a motor vehicle, in this case a small aircraft, you are encouraged to work with the patient to develop an appropriate treatment regimen."

Since opinions are arbitrary it shouldn't be too hard to find a doc who will sign off on anybody. Doctor shopping is a feature of Basic Med and not a bug.

There is some truth to the idea that Basic Med is a glorified form of driver's license medical. So all of the LSA changes could be a moot point from a medical certification perspective.
Click to expand...
So, I can tell you, as a physician, this isn't usually how it plays out. If I see you and see that you have a major league disability, say you're 70 and had a stroke that gave you a visual field cut, no way you could pay me enough to risk a major lawsuit when you land on top of that RV...

So if you have major medical impairments, it's just not worth it to me to sign off (as well as being the wrong thing to do to sign the form).

But, since anyone can fill out this form, what I suspect a lot of aspiring pilots with sketch medical histories do is, well, lie on the basic med form and go see someone who doesn't know them. The basic med form, IIRC, only requires the doc to review the information provided. It does not require the doc to do any additional searching. That's why it might be harder for you to get your PCP that's known you for 20 years. And, you just happen to "forget" to mention the medical problem on the application, the doc of the day reviewing your chart won't know. And, may indeed not look that hard. Plausible deniability on both sides,I suppose.

The system seems to work. Until it doesn't...
 
GBear286 said:
There is some truth to the idea that Basic Med is a glorified form of driver's license medical. So all of the LSA changes could be a moot point from a medical certification perspective.
Click to expand...
Except for those pilots with one of the listed medical conditions that invalidate basicmed until you get a one time SI, which can be very expensive even if ultimately successful.
 
StraightnLevel said:
These new planes already exist in Europe. Most of them are complex with Rotax engines, so they haven't had a ready market in the US under the prior ruleset.
Click to expand...
Well, right - isn't that kinda the point (also, as an aside, aren't these mostly 2-seat planes you're referring to, or are we talking 4? Most of what I can think of is really two seat stuff).
t3chiman said:
The US old-timers are not interested in GA in the slightest. The imaginative Eastern European guys, maybe; some nifty aircraft models out there, soon to be marketed to the US. But for sheer innovation, it’s tough to beat the Chinese these days. Case in point: the Jiangling Motors SC-01. The dimensions of a Miata; 0-60 under three seconds; priced at $32k. That’s pretty extreme. But they produce plenty of decent quality cars that sell for under $10k.

Imagine what Chinese engineers could come up with, given a clean slate for airframe, powerplant, and avionics. A simple two-place, 100hp, modern electronics, for $75k, delivered? I think they can pull it off.
Click to expand...
The market and regulatory framework for a 2-place already exists though and I don’t see a lot of Chinese entrants?

There was a comment somehwere in here that a 4-place production aircraft designed under LSA rules would still cost $500k or more, and while I think that’s true, I don’t see it as a problem per se. The number of people that can afford that kind of plane is way bigger than it might seem, and that is still a bargain compared to the historically approved Part 23 aircraft purchased new (e.g. 182s, 206s, SR22s, A36 and the like), many of which are now listing with new prices over a million dollars. Despite those prices, SR22s in particular are selling like hotcakes, and while perhaps few if any participants in this thread are buyers for those planes, they do enter the market and increase the supply of used aircraft in circulation, and eventually filter down to those of use who are lucky enough to buy them second or third hand years later. The mere existence of new 4-place designs would put downward pressure on *all* prices, and while we may not be immediate beneficiaries of those planes, I don’t see how it is not a positive movement. All other things being equal, competition and general supply increase is a really good thing.
 
AA5Bman said:
There was a comment somehwere in here that a 4-place production aircraft designed under LSA rules would still cost $500k or more, and while I think that’s true, I don’t see it as a problem per se. The number of people that can afford that kind of plane is way bigger than it might seem, and that is still a bargain compared to the historically approved Part 23 aircraft purchased new (e.g. 182s, 206s, SR22s, A36 and the like), many of which are now listing with new prices over a million dollars. Despite those prices, SR22s in particular are selling like hotcakes, and while perhaps few if any participants in this thread are buyers for those planes, they do enter the market and increase the supply of used aircraft in circulation, and eventually filter down to those of use who are lucky enough to buy them second or third hand years later. The mere existence of new 4-place designs would put downward pressure on *all* prices, and while we may not be immediate beneficiaries of those planes, I don’t see how it is not a positive movement. All other things being equal, competition and general supply increase is a really good thing.
Click to expand...
Agree. Even if a 190-210 knot "LSA" ran $500-600K new, that still represents a more than 50% discount off of the new price of the most popular current-production airplane that does that: an SR-22T. And as you say, used prices will take a similar haircut. No way 10-15 year old Cirri continue to sell for $400-600K if comparably capable aircraft are available new for the same price. Cirrus should be shaking in their boots right now.

Current prices are a product of artificially constrained supply as a result of regulatory burdens that are about to be lifted. We are going to see manufacturers from Europe and Asia enter the market. There will be planes available with modern, non-duopoly engines. Some of these aircraft designs are already flying, but until now had no economically feasible pathway to US certification.
 
wayneda40 said:
This topic is very prone to confuse "aircraft" (light sport aircraft) with "pilot license" (SPL, PPL, etc).
The way I read the prelim docs available... someone with a "Private Pilot License" should be able to enjoy all current privileges (night, IFR, no limit on #px???) in the newly defined "light sport aircraft" (i.e. MOSAIC, stall and seat limited)... and presumable do so on merely a drivers license "medical".
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that is correct. A sport pilot can receive the endorsement (they don’t need to upgrade to being a private pilot), but needs additional medical clearance to fly at night. BasicMed or a FAA medical is required for night flight.

LSA aircraft which meet the IFR requirements can be used for IFR but the pilot still needs an IFR rating and appropriate medical.
 
Dana said:
Except for those pilots with one of the listed medical conditions that invalidate basicmed until you get a one time SI, which can be very expensive even if ultimately successful.
Click to expand...
This is true. It's a bit scary that there will be people with major cardiac, neurological and psychiatric problems flying under Light Sport rules. Apparently the accident rates for 3rd Class medical and Basic Med are similar but it's about double for those flying under LSA rules. Is this an airplane or pilot issue or both? I suspect smaller airplanes might be harder to control in gusty conditions but medical issues are probably a major factor. The insurance market may sort this out for us.

I think that Basic Med process is flawed but it works for many pilots. I have used it for myself as it is much easier process than 3rd Class. I will meet with my AME today for a routine exam to discuss going back to 3rd Class. I'm pretty sure I should have no problem but not taking any chances. I'm doing this as I expect insurance providers will be more comfortable renewing my policy in the future if I have the 3rd Class at my age (late 60s). I wonder if I could even find insurance for my DA40 if I were to fly it as a LSA airplane.

I would like to offer some advice from a physician's perspective in terms of obtaining Basic Med. I recommend starting with your primary care doc and asking in advance if he/she is familiar with Basic Med. If not, I'd give a copy of the AOPA Physician's Guide to Basic Med and politely ask if he/she would review it. Call the office a few days later and ask if the physician is willing to schedule the exam portion. Don't show up for a regular annual appointment and yell "Surprise! You need to fill this out" as you shove the Basic Med checklist is his/her face.


Basic Med is a bit scary in terms of potential legal liability for the signing physician, a particularly ugly form of liability known as non patient 3rd party. If someone (the sole passenger or person on the ground) is injured in an accident and can reasonably claim that that pilot had a medical condition that contributed to the accident, the Basic Med physician might have some explaining to do in court. If the physician loses the lawsuit malpractice insurance does not cover the cost of damages to 3rd parties.

So MOSAIC has the potential of allowing medically unfit persons to fly while removing physician responsibility from the equation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top