When will we start seeing MOSAIC (Sport Aircraft 2.0) planes?

Bell206 said:
I wonder with the new 2.0 LSA if there will still be a path to E-LSA as with the old versions?
Click to expand...
Yes. But only for aircraft originally certificated as SLSA, not TC'd aircraft.
 
Dana said:
Yes. But only for aircraft originally certificated as SLSA, not TC'd aircraft.
Click to expand...
Was that specifically stated in MOSAIC, or is that simply a carryover from the original LSA rule? I had looked for a reference in MOSAIC given the expanded performance capabilities of the 2.0 LSAs. I think that single ability to move a 2.0 S-LSA into E-LSA will have a greater impact on things especially with the LS repairman update.
 
Bell206 said:
For an S-LSA aircraft... yes, the 2-day class allows you to perform the annual condition on your aircraft and as an owner you can perform the listed prevent mx items in the AMM. However, to perform any other maintenance the owner must have a maintenance rating, ie, the 15 day course. Been that way since day one. Hence the reason a number of S-LSAs were converted to E-LSAs. MOSAIC only expanded the LS repairman privileges to E/AB annual condition inspections with the mx rating allowing one to sign off other E/AB aircraft.


And that will be the interesting part. In some processes, the SLSA paperwork and sign off can be more complex than on a TC'd aircraft. I wonder with the new 2.0 LSA if there will still be a path to E-LSA as with the old versions? I think after a year of LSR-M rules like on a TC'd aircraft some maybe looking to go back to easier times???


Well, based on my experiences with my owner-assist years, and owners performing prevent mx, I think it will be closer to 30% in the S-LSA category but not linear across all owners.


I think this is closer to the mark but will still be interesting how the "heavy" side will work out after an owner preforms "a lot more" on the aircraft. Another thing interesting is the guidance for the Part 65 previous experience requirement for LSR mechanics is a bit different than for A&P mechanics. What I see in the near future is that in addition the 15 day LSR-M rating there will be factory maintenance courses offered so you can actually perform the mx per Part 65.
Click to expand...
There has to be additional training. The LSRM does not cover the maintenance of retracts, prop governors, etc, which will be now allowed in the category.
 
Ashara Keliyn said:
There has to be additional training. The LSRM does not cover the maintenance of retracts, prop governors, etc, which will be now allowed in the category.
Click to expand...
Previous LSR-Ms will be grandfathered into to the new MOSAIC requirements, so no additional training is required at that level. However, the previous task experience requirements per 65.109 will apply to those original LSR-Ms which will require the LSR-M to receive training or work under supervision prior to working on retracts, prop gov, etc. or any other task they have never performed. However, all LSR-Ms, new and old, must receive additional training prior to performing any major repair.
 
Should we start a list? I’ll put forward:
Wasatch SD3
Texas Airways Stallion
Veloce ANG
 
I think the news is mostly good. One thing to keep in mind is that MOSAIC aircraft will fairly soon work their way in to used market, likely mitigating prices for used light aircraft overall. I think this happened to an extent with the Cirrus, the most mass produced and successful light aircraft in recent history. A new Cirrus is eyewateringly expensive, however-fairly modestly priced used models from the early to mid 2000's are actually reaching reasonable prices for recently made high performance light aircraft, and certainly compared to new ones. I think the reason is mainly due a contrinuous stream of personally owned Cirrus hitting the used market as their well-off owners either upgrade or leave flying. I would think the same will occur with MOSAIC aircraft. My overall point is that any regulatory move leading to increased production will increase the number of personal-use airworthy aircraft overall and help keep costs in check. This is about economics more than anything.
 
pilotmichael said:
Nice. Yeah I think Oshkosh this year will be pretty lively with announcements as the mLSA (aircraft rule) goes into effect at the end of Oshkosh week (7/24/26).
Click to expand...
Apparently, Tecnam never got the memo -

Page 307 of MOSAIC Final Rule said:
"A sport pilot cannot obtain multiengine privileges in the current, nor in the proposed or adopted, framework. Sections 61.311 and 61.313 only set forth flight proficiency and aeronautical experience requirements for single-engine land or sea privileges for the airplane category. FAA did not propose a sport pilot airplane multiengine privilege and maintains the status quo that a person seeking to operate a multiengine airplane will need to obtain a private pilot certificate or higher with an airplane multiengine rating."
Click to expand...
 
Jon Wilder said:
Apparently, Tecnam never got the memo -
Click to expand...
No, they did... But here's the memo YOU didn't get: Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft no longer have anything to do with each other under MOSAIC. A Sport Pilot can fly *any* aircraft which qualifies under the new sport pilot rules. A Light Sport Aircraft is now just a different way of certifying light aircraft that's easier than Part 23. Sport Pilots can fly any aircraft, and any pilots can fly Light Sport Aircraft. There is no longer a relationship between the two the way there has been for the last 18 or so years.
 
Mooney Fan said:
$$$$
Click to expand...

If light sport taught anyone anything, it was there's no money in stripped base models. All the $$ is in the options and features, same as cars, same as homes.

This isn't aviation in the 1950s (tho I wish it was), where you could get a Cessna 140, base model, for a song and a dance, and you really had nothing but an airframe and an engine, and 3-4 instruments.

These days, everyone wants everything, and the prices reflect that.

Now, there is a company in Texas (REOTrucks) that is going to try to build stripped, gas powered trucks with zero options. If they make a go of it, then I'll be wrong, and be happier for it.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
No, they did... But here's the memo YOU didn't get: Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft no longer have anything to do with each other under MOSAIC. A Sport Pilot can fly *any* aircraft which qualifies under the new sport pilot rules. A Light Sport Aircraft is now just a different way of certifying light aircraft that's easier than Part 23. Sport Pilots can fly any aircraft, and any pilots can fly Light Sport Aircraft. There is no longer a relationship between the two the way there has been for the last 18 or so years.
Click to expand...
I think that's where a lot of the confusion comes in.

Sport Pilots think there's a multiengine privilege now for two reasons. Reason 1 being they're still associating LSA with Sport Pilot privileges. Since they're making multiengine LSA's now, they think that grants them a multiengine privilege.

Reason 2 being "Well I don't see anything in the regs that sez we can't". They overlooked the fact that there's no path to obtain a multiengine privilege of any sort under Sport Pilot in the Airplane category. Only single engine land and single engine sea are available to Sport Pilot under 61.313(a)(1).

They also overlook in the MOSAIC Final Rule where it clearly states that "A sport pilot cannot obtain multiengine privileges in the current, nor in the proposed or adopted, framework. Sections 61.311 and 61.313 only set forth flight proficiency and aeronautical experience requirements for single-engine land or sea privileges for the airplane category. FAA did not propose a sport pilot airplane multiengine privilege and maintains the status quo that a person seeking to operate a multiengine airplane will need to obtain a private pilot certificate or higher with an airplane multiengine rating."
 
Jon Wilder said:
They also overlook in the MOSAIC Final Rule
Click to expand...
I agree with the comments, but I'm not sure you can "overlook" something that's not typically read.

"Well I don't see anything in the regs that sez we can't"" in this context means no pilot certificate is required at all :D But you don't need to go to the final rules to answer that one because there is something in the regs on point when read together with the lack of a path to a multi sport privilege.

61.3(m). For a person who possesses a sport pilot certificate. No person may exercise sport pilot privileges under § 61.313 unless that person receives a qualifying logbook endorsement under §61.317 or §61.321 of this part for the appropriate category and class privilege.​

No category/class privilege endorsement means you can't fly that category/class.

OTOH, there is a potential path for a a private/commercial/etc pilot with a MEL rating to fly one when moving down to sport privileges. 61.3(m) goes on to say

The requirement in this paragraph (m) does not apply to a person who already holds the appropriate category and class rating on their pilot certificate.​
 
So a Sport Pilot can’t fly a King Air? :biggrin:
 
midlifeflyer said:
OTOH, there is a potential path for a a private/commercial/etc pilot with a MEL rating to fly one when moving down to sport privileges. 61.3(m) goes on to say

The requirement in this paragraph (m) does not apply to a person who already holds the appropriate category and class rating on their pilot certificate.​
Click to expand...
Except (m) is titled "For a person who possesses a sport pilot certificate". Why would they put that exception in a paragraph that is explicitly titled for a certificate type that would not have a rating printed on it?
 
Jon Wilder said:
Except (m) is titled "For a person who possesses a sport pilot certificate". Why would they put that exception in a paragraph that is explicitly titled for a certificate type that would not have a rating printed on it?
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, titles to sections are pointers and not legally operative language. To the extent the might be considered aids to operative, it’s as aids to interpretation when the regulatory text is unclear, they cannot be read to contradict the regulatory text.

Jon Wilder said:
Oh I didn't realize there actually was a seat clause to the final rule. Shows how much I need to read. :D
Click to expand...
See how much reading helps? :D
 
midlifeflyer said:
I agree with the comments, but I'm not sure you can "overlook" something that's not typically read.

"Well I don't see anything in the regs that sez we can't"" in this context means no pilot certificate is required at all :D But you don't need to go to the final rules to answer that one because there is something in the regs on point when read together with the lack of a path to a multi sport privilege.

61.3(m). For a person who possesses a sport pilot certificate. No person may exercise sport pilot privileges under § 61.313 unless that person receives a qualifying logbook endorsement under §61.317 or §61.321 of this part for the appropriate category and class privilege.​

No category/class privilege endorsement means you can't fly that category/class.

OTOH, there is a potential path for a a private/commercial/etc pilot with a MEL rating to fly one when moving down to sport privileges. 61.3(m) goes on to say

The requirement in this paragraph (m) does not apply to a person who already holds the appropriate category and class rating on their pilot certificate.​
Click to expand...

I was wondering about that. Sounds like a Private Pilot could obtain a MEL Rating and then fly an LSA Twin using Sport Pilot Privileges? Or just fly the Hummel Multicruiser Ultralight with no certificate of any kind.

 
Jon Wilder said:
I think that's where a lot of the confusion comes in.

Sport Pilots think there's a multiengine privilege now for two reasons. Reason 1 being they're still associating LSA with Sport Pilot privileges. Since they're making multiengine LSA's now, they think that grants them a multiengine privilege.

Reason 2 being "Well I don't see anything in the regs that sez we can't". They overlooked the fact that there's no path to obtain a multiengine privilege of any sort under Sport Pilot in the Airplane category. Only single engine land and single engine sea are available to Sport Pilot under 61.313(a)(1).

They also overlook in the MOSAIC Final Rule where it clearly states that "A sport pilot cannot obtain multiengine privileges in the current, nor in the proposed or adopted, framework. Sections 61.311 and 61.313 only set forth flight proficiency and aeronautical experience requirements for single-engine land or sea privileges for the airplane category. FAA did not propose a sport pilot airplane multiengine privilege and maintains the status quo that a person seeking to operate a multiengine airplane will need to obtain a private pilot certificate or higher with an airplane multiengine rating."
Click to expand...
Ummm, if you already have AMEL and let your medical lapse, don't you then have the ability to still fly under Sport Pilot, including your various ratings and endorsements? Now, you can't acquire a Multi from SP, but a multi/private/instrument/complex/hp doesn't lose those endorsements when their medical expires.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Ummm, if you already have AMEL and let your medical lapse, don't you then have the ability to still fly under Sport Pilot, including your various ratings and endorsements? Now, you can't acquire a Multi from SP, but a multi/private/instrument/complex/hp doesn't lose those endorsements when their medical expires.
Click to expand...
But…. If a ppl with a multi and IR doesn’t have a current medical or Basic Med, they can’t fly as a PPL. But could fly as a Sport with all the limitations of Sport.

Sport doesn’t allow IFR, so even though the person has an IR as a PPL, they can’t use it flying under Sport.

So a Sport can’t obtain an IR because a Sport can’t fly IFR. A Sport can’t obtain a multi rating because they aren’t allowed to fly a Multi?? So even if you had a multi as a PPL you can’t use it as a Sport???
 
midlifeflyer said:
In the King Air, it was easy to mention the seats.

Can you find a Baron meeting 61.316 limitations? Since a Bonanza (except for the earliest 35s) doesn’t, I’m gonna go out in a limb and say no.
Click to expand...
Duchess? 4 seats, below 59 kts stall across most of the weight range.
I'm not seeing a specific prohibition on multi anywhere in 61.316, aside from cockpit-adjustable prop being a practical limit.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Ummm, if you already have AMEL and let your medical lapse, don't you then have the ability to still fly under Sport Pilot, including your various ratings and endorsements? Now, you can't acquire a Multi from SP, but a multi/private/instrument/complex/hp doesn't lose those endorsements when their medical expires.
Click to expand...
No. Without your medical or basicmed, even though you have a private or commercial or ATP, you're "exercising Sport Pilot privileges", which don't include flying a multi engine aircraft. The only endorsements that carry through are those that a SP could earn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
Dana said:
No. Without your medical or basicmed, even though you have a private or commercial or ATP, you're "exercising Sport Pilot privileges", which don't include flying a multi engine aircraft. The only endorsements that carry through are those that a SP could earn.
Click to expand...
I disagree. That’s like saying a private pilot needs a constant speed prop endorsement when exercising sport privileges. I would be looking for something like "has only one engine" in 61.316, not something like this in 61.3
For a person who possesses a sport pilot certificate. No person may exercise sport pilot privileges under Sec. 61.313 unless that person receives a qualifying logbook endorsement under Sec. 61.317 or Sec. 61.321 of this part for the appropriate category and class privilege. The requirement in this paragraph (m) does not apply to a person who already holds the appropriate category and class rating on their pilot certificate. (emphasis added)​
 
Last edited:
Dana said:
No. Without your medical or basicmed, even though you have a private or commercial or ATP, you're "exercising Sport Pilot privileges", which don't include flying a multi engine aircraft. The only endorsements that carry through are those that a SP could earn.
Click to expand...
Where is the limitation prohibiting multi-engine operation under SP privileges?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top