Oshkosh: Mosaic for Private and Sport Pilots session on Wed

My own Fly Baby is a good example. Everyone agrees it qualifies as a Sport Pilot-eligible machine, and I've been flying it as such for the past 20 years. However, it stalls at about 55 MPH indicated, vs. the 45-knot/51 MPH limit for Light Sport. But the airspeed indicator shows a CRUISE of about 105 MPH, which makes me think the calibration is a weeee bit off.....
I know you know this, of course, but the LSA stall speed limit is calibrated airspeed.

My Starduster stalled at 50 mph indicated. No idea how accurate the ASI was, I suspect it read a bit low ;), but after my accident the FAA never questioned my lack of a current medical.
 
I have not read much of the proposed rule; I’m curious about the number of engines. According to the table above, there will be no limit; what’s the parenthetic comment about single engine rating about?
There is discussion in the original NPRM about multi engine aircraft with "simplified controls" that have no adverse control problems due to an engine failure (don't recall the exact words), but there is no path for a sport pilot to have anything other than a single engine rating.
 
There is discussion in the original NPRM about multi engine aircraft with "simplified controls" that have no adverse control problems due to an engine failure (don't recall the exact words), but there is no path for a sport pilot to have anything other than a single engine rating.

I think that clarifies it some. The thing about MOSAIC, to me, is it appears they’re trying to make cake soup by rewriting the Sport Pilot privileges and limitations while doing the same thing, albeit with a backwards looking glass, on LSAs by kludging together parts of legacy fleet and ASTM-type standards going forward.

That’s a disaster in the making from a regulatory standpoint.
 
I know you know this, of course, but the LSA stall speed limit is calibrated airspeed.
Of course. The point being is that I cannot PROVE the airplane meets the Light Sport standard. The FAA doesn't require such proof for homebuilts, which is kind of refreshing for a government agency.

Ron Wanttaja
 
What exactly is the proposed mosaic altitude limit??
Below 10,000, or 10,000 and below??

At 10,000 there is no 250 rule. Just keep it below Mach 1.0
 
What exactly is the proposed mosaic altitude limit??
Below 10,000, or 10,000 and below??

At 10,000 there is no 250 rule. Just keep it below Mach 1.0


14 CFR § 61.315 (c) (11), sport pilots are not permitted to fly at an altitude of more than 10k (MSL) or 2k (AGL), whichever is higher.

So going over the mountains I can let 'er rip ... ;)
 
10,000 is where the 250 kt speed limit is in place, so it's consistent.
Well yes but the sport aircraft are limited to much slower speed, over 10k vfr limits change 1000 above and below, plus 1 mile viz. the 10k rule has always irked me, wish 10.5 and 11.5 were available for mountain areas in West.
 
Well yes but the sport aircraft are limited to much slower speed, over 10k vfr limits change 1000 above and below, plus 1 mile viz. the 10k rule has always irked me, wish 10.5 and 11.5 were available for mountain areas in West.
I probably should have quoted the earlier post that speculated the 10k limit was due to speed.
 
Of course. The point being is that I cannot PROVE the airplane meets the Light Sport standard. The FAA doesn't require such proof for homebuilts, which is kind of refreshing for a government agency.

Ron Wanttaja
Don’t say that too loud. I’m sure it’s an oversight.
 
14 CFR § 61.315 (c) (11), sport pilots are not permitted to fly at an altitude of more than 10k (MSL) or 2k (AGL), whichever is higher.

So going over the mountains I can let 'er rip ... ;)
Which always struck me as odd. Since a Sport Pilot cannot fly IMC, they should not be at 10k anyway (except <3 AGL). So why not appropriate VFR altitude limit of either 9.5 or 10.5?
 
Which always struck me as odd. Since a Sport Pilot cannot fly IMC, they should not be at 10k anyway (except <3 AGL). So why not appropriate VFR altitude limit of either 9.5 or 10.5?
Great question. VFR cruising altitudes start above 3000 AGL
 
Which always struck me as odd. Since a Sport Pilot cannot fly IMC, they should not be at 10k anyway (except <3 AGL). So why not appropriate VFR altitude limit of either 9.5 or 10.5?
What are you taking about? I’ve spent more than a hundred hours vfr over 10k.
 
Last edited:
What are you taking about? I’ve spent more than a hundred hours vfr over 10k.
14 CFR § 61.315 (c) (11) limits a Sport Pilot, or someone exercising as a Sport Pilot, to 10k (or 2k AGL).

14 CFR § 61.315 (c) (12) &(13) limits to VFR

14 CFR §91.159 stipulates VFR cruising altitudes at ALT+500.

So, unless the 10k (or above) is less than 3k AGL, 9500 is the actual max altitude an SPL can fly (eastbound) or 8500 (westbound).

Just always thought it was odd that they didn’t make it either 9500 or 10500.
 
I swear your original post didn’t say sport pilot. I guess I misread. I agree with you.
 
I swear your original post didn’t say sport pilot. I guess I misread. I agree with you.
Not to worry - I posted a link to ACS standards a few weeks ago that was, if I remember correctly, 15 years old. I swear it was dated 2024!
 
...So, unless the 10k (or above) is less than 3k AGL, 9500 is the actual max altitude an SPL can fly (eastbound) or 8500 (westbound).

Just always thought it was odd that they didn’t make it either 9500 or 10500.
During the two years during which I exercised sport-pilot privileges, this didn't inconvenience me at all in areas of high terrain, because the VFR altitude rules don't apply while climbing or descending.

There is a theoretical issue with the plane not being able to climb as fast as the terrain does in some areas, so I just did whatever I had to do to stay safe in those situations.
 
14 CFR §91.159 stipulates VFR cruising altitudes at ALT+500.

So, unless the 10k (or above) is less than 3k AGL, 9500 is the actual max altitude an SPL can fly (eastbound) or 8500 (westbound).
91.159 only applies to level cruising flight. So a SP could legally climb to 10K and circle there or do aerobatics.
 
I swear your original post didn’t say sport pilot. I guess I misread. I agree with you.

I misunderstood, too. His original post said
Since a Sport Pilot cannot fly IMC, they should not be at 10k anyway (except <3 AGL).
which seems to say a Sport Pilot can't fly over 10k because doing so would require IMC flight which a SP can't do.
 
...which seems to say a Sport Pilot can't fly over 10k because doing so would require IMC flight which a SP can't do.
Given the "<3 AGL" I took it as a reference to the hemispherical rule and would be surprised if that's not what they were referring to.

Nauga,
unsported
 
Given the "<3 AGL" I took it as a reference to the hemispherical rule and would be surprised if that's not what they were referring to.

Nauga,
unsported

Ah, got it. At 10k, emphasis on AT.
 
For a whole 2 minutes!
No, the 2 minutes only applies to a holding pattern:

"Except while holding in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less, or while turning, each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude or flight level..."
 
91.159 only applies to level cruising flight. So a SP could legally climb to 10K and circle there or do aerobatics.
Or, the the Sport pilot with a glider rating could be in an LSA qualified glider.

(And, yes, SP glider is a thing. A pointless thing, but a thing none the less. The even more funnier part is that you can't get a SP glider rating if you failed a medical, but you can get a PP glider rating.)
 
I misunderstood, too. His original post said

which seems to say a Sport Pilot can't fly over 10k because doing so would require IMC flight which a SP can't do.
No - just that 10k is an IFR cruising altitude (which a Sport Pilot should not be flying as they can not fly IMC) unless they were flying over an area with an elevation of more than 7001 ft in which case cruising altitude would not apply.
 
No, the 2 minutes only applies to a holding pattern:

"Except while holding in a holding pattern of 2 minutes or less, or while turning, each person operating an aircraft under VFR in level cruising flight more than 3,000 feet above the surface shall maintain the appropriate altitude or flight level..."
Yes, that’s right. I forgot about the “while turning” part.

In the end - I doubt it really makes a difference to anyone. I just think it’s one of those areas where the rules overlap just enough to be a bit silly.
 
14 CFR § 61.315 (c) (11) limits a Sport Pilot, or someone exercising as a Sport Pilot, to 10k (or 2k AGL).

14 CFR § 61.315 (c) (12) &(13) limits to VFR

14 CFR §91.159 stipulates VFR cruising altitudes at ALT+500.

So, unless the 10k (or above) is less than 3k AGL, 9500 is the actual max altitude an SPL can fly (eastbound) or 8500 (westbound).

Just always thought it was odd that they didn’t make it either 9500 or 10500.
That would make the legal altitude tolerance for a Sport Pilot -whatever/+0 feet. 10,000 gives a 500-ft buffer from a legal cruise altitude before a violation can be issued.

But I’m sure it actually has more to do with being a round number.
 
I wish they would raise the 10k limit some so that a sport pilot can transition over Bravo airspace.
 
Last edited:
The biggest item that disqualify many aircraft is the 54-knot clean stall limit. Sure, twins and turboprops will be *allowed* under MOSAIC, but few (if any) meet the 54 knot limit. The situation with the Cessna 182 is an example. Early 182s meet the limit, but as of the 182E, they raised the gross weight and hence the stall speed rose to 56 knots.
I know some people just want new airplanes, but this is what I've been telling people who ask if MOSAIC will help the Light Sport industry. My answer is no, I think it puts the final nail in their coffin. My friend works for a company that was designing an all-metal, two-place, folding wing airplane that could be tailwheel or nosewheel. It's a cool design, but they're already talking about what they want to do next if they cancel the project.

I fly a 1959 182B and I paid $120K for it a few years ago. It has nice paint and interior from 2016, and I got a freshly overhauled engine when I bought it. I cruise at roughly 150 mph at 11 gph at 7500-8500' and have 55 gallons usable. There is nothing on the existing Light Sport market that can compare. I usually keep the back seat out and my girlfriend loves that she can take just about anything she wants when we go to Oshkosh.

Will the value of my plane go up? I think so. I'm not ready to sell it, but I do have my eye on a local Cessna 195, so who knows? :)
 
I wish they would raise the 10k limit some so that a sport pilot can transition over Bravo airspace.
It would not surprise me if they are intentionally disallowing that option for SP.
 
It would not surprise me if they are intentionally disallowing that option for SP.
I agree with you. I am a PP flying as a SP. it seems to me that if a SP can get an endorsement to fly into a Bravo, you should be able to get an endorsement to fly over it. It also seems to me that there should be some sort of an allowance if you hold the next rating or higher. I'm not less qualified because I'm operating as a sport pilot. There's ATPs flying as "sport" pilot's.....
 
Last edited:
I agree with you. I am a PP flying as a SP. it seems to me that if a SP can get an endorsement to fly into a Bravo, you should be able to get an endorsement to fly over it. It also seems to me that there should be some sort of an allowance if you hold the next rating or higher. I'm not less qualified because I'm operating as a sport pilot. There's ATPs flying as "sport" pilot's.....
The rules make it appear that they don't want anyone flying at higher altitudes without a medical of some sort. I don't think it has anything to do with the cert level, it's about the medical.

In the case of the Bravo overflight, consider that you are putting that plane directly over a congested airspace, and often directly over a very dense populated area. I would surmise that this is exactly the sort of flying that they don't want someone doing if they can't get at least a BasicMed signoff.

If you're a PP, why not go ahead and get BasicMed?
 
The rules make it appear that they don't want anyone flying at higher altitudes without a medical of some sort. I don't think it has anything to do with the cert level, it's about the medical.

In the case of the Bravo overflight, consider that you are putting that plane directly over a congested airspace, and often directly over a very dense populated area. I would surmise that this is exactly the sort of flying that they don't want someone doing if they can't get at least a BasicMed signoff.

If you're a PP, why not go ahead and get BasicMed?
I own a light sport and have enjoyed not dealing with medicals. I also routinely fly over congested airspace here in florida. However, I must admit that recently I have been thinking about renewing my class 3 or getting basic med. Btw, daily, I'm way more worried about the hundreds of drivers (without medicals)crashing in to me than I am a pilot without a medical crashing into my house. I wonder how many "heart attack specials" go zooming by me everyday while in close proximity while on their phones.....
 
I own a light sport and have enjoyed not dealing with medicals. I also routinely fly over congested airspace here in florida. However, I must admit that recently I have been thinking about renewing my class 3 or getting basic med. Btw, daily, I'm way more worried about the hundreds of drivers (without medicals)crashing in to me than I am a pilot without a medical crashing into my house. I wonder how many "heart attack specials" go zooming by me everyday while in close proximity while on their phones.....
You're not wrong about relative risk of distracted drivers. That's not the FAAs problem, though, and I don't think that they will change their view of pilot risk where no medical evaluation has been performed.
 
… I must admit that recently I have been thinking about renewing my class 3 or getting basic med......

If you are eligible for BasicMed (last third class date, no dq’ing events since), there really isn’t a value to do the third class; go straight to BasicMed.
 
You're not wrong about relative risk of distracted drivers. That's not the FAAs problem, though, and I don't think that they will change their view of pilot risk where no medical evaluation has been performed.
I'm sure you are correct. BTW, I have agreed with all your points and have enjoyed the banter.
 
If you are eligible for BasicMed (last third class date, no dq’ing events since), there really isn’t a value to do the third class; go straight to BasicMed.
I am eligible and probably will go that route.
 
The rules make it appear that they don't want anyone flying at higher altitudes without a medical of some sort. I don't think it has anything to do with the cert level, it's about the medical.

In the case of the Bravo overflight, consider that you are putting that plane directly over a congested airspace, and often directly over a very dense populated area. I would surmise that this is exactly the sort of flying that they don't want someone doing if they can't get at least a BasicMed signoff.

If you're a PP, why not go ahead and get BasicMed?
If safety is the goal - wouldn’t we prefer pilots at a higher altitude? I would argue a pilot transitioning a densely populated area at 10k feet with lots of glide range/options is safer than a pilot scooting underneath the shelf at 1700 feet and (nearly) no options.
 
If safety is the goal - wouldn’t we prefer pilots at a higher altitude? I would argue a pilot transitioning a densely populated area at 10k feet with lots of glide range/options is safer than a pilot scooting underneath the shelf at 1700 feet and (nearly) no options.
Imagine someone in a LSA over Chicago who has a sudden problem. Where are they going to go? ORD? MDW? They're not going into Lake Michigan....

Now you've got a LSA at best glide of, say, 62 knots slowly trundling along under a declared emergency right into one of the busiest airport areas on the planet. Put yourself in ATCs office for a moment and ask yourself how you feel about that.

The pilot may feel safer at the higher altitude over the Bravo, but I would surmise (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that ATC (and the FAA by proxy) doesn't want that hazard in their Class-B airspace.

See the incident below - play it out with him dropping from above into ORD, JFK, or ATL. Listen to the pilot and how he responds, then think about whether or not he has a driver's license that would qualify him to fly SP without a medical cert.

 
Back
Top