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

Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
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)​
Click to expand...
I want to clarify that this shall not be construed to allow a person who already holds an instrument rating on their pilot certificate to operate IFR under sport pilot privileges. This exception only mentions "appropriate category/class rating", and not "appropriate instrument rating".
 
Jon Wilder said:
I want to clarify that this shall not be construed to allow a person who already holds an instrument rating on their pilot certificate to operate IFR under sport pilot privileges. This exception only mentions "appropriate category/class rating", and not "appropriate instrument rating".
Click to expand...
Right. Operational privileges are different from aircraft privileges. That's true throughout the FAR.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Right. Operational privileges are different from aircraft privileges. That's true throughout the FAR.
Click to expand...
But I can just hear it now -

"Well...you let us do it with category and class ratings, why not with instrument ratings?" :rolleyes:
 
Jon Wilder said:
But I can just hear it now -

"Well...you let us do it with category and class ratings, why not with instrument ratings?" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You hear all sorts of things.

Interestingly. though, they can probably log PIC in actual instrument conditions. Same separation. Same distinction. Same reasoning.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I wouldn't cite a non-regulatory handbook for a regulatory definition, but that's why I asked.
Click to expand...
Okay...we'll do this your way.

14 CFR §1.2 defines it as -
1787323582035.png

You'll notice identical language in the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook. ;)
 
Jon Wilder said:
Okay...we'll do this your way.

14 CFR §1.2 defines it as -
View attachment 154481
Click to expand...
Yeah, but just about every other time it's used in the FAR, they use "without the use of lift-enhancing devices" as the "specified configuration." That includes over 30 times in the MOSAIC Final Rule. My favorite is when they point out that in an aircraft without lift-enhancing devices, Vs1 and Vs0 are equal.
 
Jon Wilder said:
Okay...we'll do this your way.

14 CFR §1.2 defines it as -
View attachment 154481

You'll notice identical language in the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook. ;)
Click to expand...
To be excessively pedantic, this says "a specific configuration". It does not say WHICH "specific configuration", and thus leaves the rule open to all sorts of creative interpretation.
 
Jon Wilder said:
I want to clarify that this shall not be construed to allow a person who already holds an instrument rating on their pilot certificate to operate IFR under sport pilot privileges. This exception only mentions "appropriate category/class rating", and not "appropriate instrument rating".
Click to expand...
Right. Multi-engine land airplane is a category/class.

I'll go back to the underlying question: What in the CFR prevents a AMEL/CMEL from flying something like the Jabiru 432 under sport pilot privileges?
 
midlifeflyer said:
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)​
Click to expand...
I think we're misinterpreting 14 CFR 61.3(m). Let's take a look at what 61.3(m) is actually saying.

"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."

All 14 CFR 61.3(m) is doing is requiring that the airman "receive a qualifying logbook endorsement under § 61.317 or § 61.321 of Part 61 for the appropriate category and class privilege" to exercise sport pilot privileges under § 61.313.

The next sentence simply states that the requirement to "receive a qualifying logbook endorsement under § 61.317 or § 61.321 of Part 61 for the appropriate category and class privilege" does not apply to "a person who already holds the appropriate category and class rating on their pilot certificate."

Of course this led me down a rabbit hole to § 61.316 What are the performance limits and design requirements for the aircraft that a sport pilot may operate?. If we go down to § 61.316(a)(5), we find -

"For powered aircraft other than balloons or airships, the loss of partial power would not adversely affect directional control of the aircraft and the aircraft design must allow the pilot the capability of establishing a controlled descent in the event of a partial or total powerplant failure."
 
StraightnLevel said:
I'll go back to the underlying question: What in the CFR prevents a AMEL/CMEL from flying something like the Jabiru 432 under sport pilot privileges?
Click to expand...
14 CFR 61.316 What are the performance limits and design requirements for the aircraft that a sport pilot may operate?
(a)(5) For powered aircraft other than balloons or airships, the loss of partial power would not adversely affect directional control of the aircraft and the aircraft design must allow the pilot the capability of establishing a controlled descent in the event of a partial or total powerplant failure.
 
When I investigated thru AOPA how a Private Pilot exercising Sport Pilot Privileges could go about obtaining an Instrument Rating, the limiting factor seemed to be the pilot must have a 3rd Class Medical (or Basic Med) to get the Rating.

Never asked the question about a Private Pilot with an Instrument Rating could file and fly IFR while exercising Sport Pilot Privileges. In other words, can a Private Pilot with an Instrument Rating and no Medical or Basic Med legally file and fly IFR?
 
StraightnLevel said:
To be excessively pedantic, this says "a specific configuration". It does not say WHICH "specific configuration", and thus leaves the rule open to all sorts of creative interpretation.
Click to expand...
But 61.316 defines a specific configuration, specifically "without the use of lift-enhancing devices (VS1)"

Nauga,
unflappable
 
X3 Skier said:
When I investigated thru AOPA how a Private Pilot exercising Sport Pilot Privileges could go about obtaining an Instrument Rating, the limiting factor seemed to be the pilot must have a 3rd Class Medical (or Basic Med) to get the Rating.

Never asked the question about a Private Pilot with an Instrument Rating could file and fly IFR while exercising Sport Pilot Privileges. In other words, can a Private Pilot with an Instrument Rating and no Medical or Basic Med legally file and fly IFR?
Click to expand...
Once a PPL obtains a medical certificate and/or BasicMed, they're operating as a Private Pilot at that point.

There is no path for a SPL to obtain an Instrument rating under the prior and current framework.
 
Jon Wilder said:
Once a PPL obtains a medical certificate and/or BasicMed, they're operating as a Private Pilot at that point.

There is no path for a SPL to obtain an Instrument rating under the prior and current framework.
Click to expand...
That's not an answer to the question being posed.

The question is about a PPL+ holder who already has the additional certifications flying under Sport Pilot privileges.
 
StraightnLevel said:
The question is about a PPL+ holder who already has the additional certifications flying under Sport Pilot privileges.
Click to expand...
Sport Pilot Privileges and Limitations - §61.315
(c)You may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft:
(12) When the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles
(13) Without visual reference to the surface

No published exceptions for PPL+ holders with an instrument rating.
 
Jon Wilder said:
Sport Pilot Privileges and Limitations - §61.315
(c)You may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft:
(12) When the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles
(13) Without visual reference to the surface

No published exceptions for PPL+ holders with an instrument rating.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with multi-engine?
 
StraightnLevel said:
What does that have to do with multi-engine?
Click to expand...
When flying under Sport Pilot Privileges, you are limited to the same aircraft category/class that a sport pilot would be limited to. It's just as if you hold a Sport Pilot Certificate. You don't get to mix and match.

AMEL, AMES, and type ratings are not recognized under Sport Pilot.

§ 61.316 What are the performance limits and design requirements for the aircraft that a sport pilot may operate?
(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate, you may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that, since its original certification, meets the following requirements:
(5) For powered aircraft other than balloons or airships, the loss of partial power would not adversely affect directional control of the aircraft and the aircraft design must allow the pilot the capability of establishing a controlled descent in the event of a partial or total powerplant failure.

"For powered aircraft other than balloons or airships, the loss of partial power would not adversely affect directional control of the aircraft"

That's your key right there.
 
Jon, I think you are working too hard to find something to support the most restrictive interpretation possible. (And some say lawyers always try to say no :D) An adverse effect on directional control is most often used in the context of normal pilot control inputs being inadequate to maintain directional control. It's on the aircraft certification side rather than the pilot side, but there's a lot of discussion in the Final Rule about the concept. And, although the phrasing is a bit different, it's part of the controllability required for Part 23 certification. You know, like how a rudder is used to overcome adverse yaw in a full power climb or go-around in a single? Or, perhaps more directly, the need to push the stick forward and neutralize rudder to avoid a stall spin if you lose power in the departure climb?

Maybe I'm the one overthinking it, but to mee. if the FAA wanted to exclude multis entirely from even a multi-rated private (and higher) pilot exercising sport privileges, it seems to be the simplest path to have pulled out part of the pre-existing Part 1 definition of "light-sport aircraft" and simply say:

§ 61.316 What are the performance limits and design requirements for the aircraft that a sport pilot may operate?​
(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate, you may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that, since its original certification, meets the following requirements:​
(10) For powered aircraft, a single, reciprocating engine.​

I guess we'll just have to see.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Maybe I'm the one overthinking it, but to mee. if the FAA wanted to exclude multis entirely from even a multi-rated private (and higher) pilot exercising sport privileges, it seems to be the simplest path to have pulled out part of the pre-existing Part 1 definition of "light-sport aircraft" and simply say:

§ 61.316 What are the performance limits and design requirements for the aircraft that a sport pilot may operate?​
(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate, you may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that, since its original certification, meets the following requirements:​
(10) For powered aircraft, a single, reciprocating engine.​

I guess we'll just have to see.
Click to expand...
Two things...first, the FAA probably figured the absence of a path to a multiengine rating in "Sport Pilot Privileges" was adequate. The second thing being that a "multiengine rating" not existing in "Sport Pilot Privileges" would be self explanatory when it comes to a PPL operating under "Sport Pilot Privileges". Only those privileges available to someone holding a Sport Pilot Certificate would be available to someone with a higher certificate operating under Sport Pilot Privileges.

You have to obtain at least a PPL in order to obtain multiengine privileges. Therefore, it makes sense that a PPL with multiengine privileges would not be able to exercise such privileges while operating under SPL privileges. Multiengine is a PPL or higher privilege. SPL does not have a multiengine privilege. Therefore, a PPL with a MEL or MES rating can only exercise MEL/MES privileges while operating under PPL or higher privileges. You can't say you're operating under SPL privileges while at the same time exercising a PPL or higher privilege.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
tenor.gif
 
Jon Wilder said:
The second thing being that a "multiengine rating" not existing in "Sport Pilot Privileges" would be self explanatory when it comes to a PPL operating under "Sport Pilot Privileges". Only those privileges available to someone holding a Sport Pilot Certificate would be available to someone with a higher certificate operating under Sport Pilot Privileges.
Click to expand...
Where does it say that?

On the contrary, it does clearly 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.

If they wanted to limit to a single category/class, why would they have put this language into the rule?
 
StraightnLevel said:
Where does it say that?

On the contrary, it does clearly 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.

If they wanted to limit to a single category/class, why would they have put this language into the rule?
Click to expand...
Okay...it looks like you might be correct. § 61.303 may just be the smoking gun we were looking for.

The caveat to it, though, is that it must meet the requirements of § 61.316, which means the 59 KCAS or lower Vs1 speed limitation applies.

(a) Use the following table to determine what operating limits and endorsement requirements in this subpart, if any, apply to you when you operate an aircraft that satisfies the limitations identified in § 61.316. The medical certificate specified in this table must be in compliance with § 61.2 in regard to currency and validity. If you hold a recreational pilot certificate, but not a medical certificate, you must comply with cross country requirements in § 61.101(c), even if your flight does not exceed 50 nautical miles from your departure airport. You must also comply with requirements in other subparts of this part that apply to your certificate and the operation you conduct. In the following table, when the word “aircraft” is used, it refers to aircraft that satisfy the limitations identified in § 61.316.

Defer to § 61.303(b) for the requirements to use a U.S. driver license in lieu of a medical certificate.

1787441889441.png
 
Jon Wilder said:
Once a PPL obtains a medical certificate and/or BasicMed, they're operating as a Private Pilot at that point.

There is no path for a SPL to obtain an Instrument rating under the prior and current framework.
Click to expand...
Not the question. If the PP with an IFR Rating is flying under Sport Pilot privileges (NO current medical or Basic Med and never been revoked etc) can that pilot file and fly IFR.
 
X3 Skier said:
If the PP with an IFR Rating is flying under Sport Pilot privileges (NO current medical or Basic Med and never been revoked etc) can that pilot file and fly IFR.
Click to expand...
As PIC, no. Well, I guess one could make the argument that it was ok to act as PIC on an IFR flight plan so long as you (1) never entered a cloud, (2) did not fly above an undercast, (3) the visibility was always better than 3 SM, and (4) remained below 10,000 msl unless it was less than 2,000 agl (and never entered Class A if it was lower).
 
Last edited:
X3 Skier said:
If the PP with an IFR Rating is flying under Sport Pilot privileges (NO current medical or Basic Med and never been revoked etc) can that pilot file and fly IFR.
Click to expand...
Sport Pilot privileges prohibit flight in anything less than VMC. Filing and flying IFR in VMC is a separate question, which I have yet to uncover any limitations to. So far, it appears that you can file and fly IFR so long as you can maintain flight in VMC.
 
Jon Wilder said:
Sport Pilot privileges prohibit flight in anything less than VMC. Filing and flying IFR in VMC is a separate question, which I have yet to uncover any limitations to. So far, it appears that you can file and fly IFR so long as you can maintain flight in VMC.
Click to expand...
Correct. Applying similar logic, a multi-engine airplane that meets the LS standards would be legal for someone who has a multi cert, as long as they fly within the limitations of SP privileges.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Applying similar logic, a multi-engine airplane that meets the LS standards would be legal for someone who has a multi cert, as long as they fly within the limitations of SP privileges.
Click to expand...
That was covered a few posts ago when I laid out the chart in § 61.303(a).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top