MOSAIC rule to be published on 7/24

kyleb said:
From a numbers perspective, there can be a significant difference. The difference is close to 5 knots in my RV-10.
Click to expand...
Between power on/off, or between Vs0 and Vs1?
 
RussR said:
Mark, it's still not clear what is meant by "true indicated airspeed". In today's terminology, it's either "true airspeed" or "indicated airspeed". "True indicated airspeed" is a contradiction. Kind of like "real imitation crab meat".

Is there another section in the book that defines terms? Because my first thought was like @Tspin 's, where "true indicated" means "accurately corrected indicated", which says to me "calibrated".

Or it's possible, of course, that "indicated" is an extraneous word. Or it's possible that back in 1957 the terms weren't defined the same as today. Or several other scenarios.
Click to expand...
The airspeed correction table noted will have nothing other than the IAS and TIAS on it. with no other parameters, it would have to be CAS.
 
Baked Potato said:
I see. How is that explained? Stalls should happen at the same critical angle of attack - how does the throttle setting affect that?
Click to expand...

Because if you have a positive pitch angle, the prop thrust counteracts some of the aircraft's weight. Also, just the power alone (at any given AOA) blows more air over the inboard sections of the wing, creating more lift.
 
Ok folks....time to submit your comments....as soon as it's published. The language can change.
 
MPB said:
I'm seldom one to express my displeasure with things, but this rule making is poorly envisioned and just an outright waste of time! I'm not sure what AOPA and EAA saught to accomplish here but I'd really like to know if they are honestly happy with what they got. The thing that messes this up to me is the performance based standard. The rule makers have obviously written the rules such that they do not cover the majority (if not all) of the legacy 4 seat cruiser aircraft. Indeed, I suspect the arbitrary 54 KCAS VS1 was selected for this very purpose.
Click to expand...
54 knots is exactly 100 km/hr, so it may be too correspond to some Euro rule.

No, this won't make everybody happy, but they have to draw the line somewhere. Remember that LSA originated as a way to make all the 2 seat "fast ultralights" legal. Me, I'm pretty happy with it... my Hatz isn't LSA only for gross weight (it's gross is 1550), now it will be. For a lot of pilots who can't get a medical, it's a godsend.
MPB said:
Another thing that is poorly though out are the additional pilot and instructor capabilities. Sport pilot instructors should not be teaching outside of traditional sport pilot aircraft - enough said there - if they want to teach at a higher level they should become CFIs.
Click to expand...
What's a "traditional sport aircraft"? A fat ultralight? A Cub? A Pitts? My Hatz? I'd say all of them, but currently the last two don't qualify.
MPB said:
Similarly, sport pilots who want additional capabilities should be allowed to pursue private licenses in normal category sport pilot eligible aircraft. These folks would then become private pilots limited to sport pilot eligible aircraft (whatever that becomes) with the same capabilities as current private pilots who are doing the sport pilot thing without a medical.
Click to expand...
You can get a Private today in a LSA, but you need a medical to take the checkride.
Baked Potato said:
I see. How is that explained? Stalls should happen at the same critical angle of attack - how does the throttle setting affect that?
Click to expand...
At very high AOA, the propeller contributes to holding the plane up, and increased airflow over the wings delays separation.
 
MauleSkinner said:
No, not enough said there. What makes a CFI-SP unqualified to teach in the expanded envelope, and what makes a CFI not a CFI?
Click to expand...
Ok I'll bite - here's an example.

To provide the night sign off as an instructor all you need to do is be night eligible yourself. Hey, I'm going to teach you how to fly at night when I've only got three night hours myself. I'm not denigrating the sport pilot CFIs -but with only three hours of night experience I suspect they may be trying to just keep themselves oriented much less ride herd on a student.
 
MPB said:
Ok I'll bite - here's an example.

To provide the night sign off as an instructor all you need to do is be night eligible yourself. Hey, I'm going to teach you how to fly at night when I've only got three night hours myself. I'm not denigrating the sport pilot CFIs -but with only three hours of night experience I suspect they may be trying to just keep themselves oriented much less ride herd on a student.
Click to expand...
where does it say a CFI-SP is only allowed to have three hours of night experience?
 
Dana said:
54 knots is exactly 100 km/hr, so it may be too correspond to some Euro rule.

No, this won't make everybody happy, but they have to draw the line somewhere. Remember that LSA originated as a way to make all the 2 seat "fast ultralights" legal. Me, I'm pretty happy with it... my Hatz isn't LSA only for gross weight (it's gross is 1550), now it will be. For a lot of pilots who can't get a medical, it's a godsend.

What's a "traditional sport aircraft"? A fat ultralight? A Cub? A Pitts? My Hatz? I'd say all of them, but currently the last two don't qualify.

You can get a Private today in a LSA, but you need a medical to take the checkride.

At very high AOA, the propeller contributes to holding the plane up, and increased airflow over the wings delays separation.
Click to expand...
Okay but why note include the legacy 4 place cruisers?

They talk about promoting safety, but we all have to agree that all these sport pilots would be way safer in an old spam can 172.
 
MPB said:
Okay but why note include the legacy 4 place cruisers?

They talk about promoting safety, but we all have to agree that all these sport pilots would be way safer in an old spam can 172.
Click to expand...
I'm confused. Doesn't this new rule, in effect, include any normal 172?
 
MauleSkinner said:
where does it say a CFI-SP is only allowed to have three hours of night experience?
Click to expand...
No, that's what they have to have to sign someone off for night. Let's hope they've got more!
 
MPB said:
172p vs1 = 51KIAS which is 56KCAS
Click to expand...
The checklists I have of two of my school's 172s state 47 knots indicated (a 172M and 172N).
I haven't cross-checked the POHs though
 
MPB said:
No, that's what they have to have to sign someone off for night. Let's hope they've got more!
Click to expand...
your statements that they’re not qualified are based on not exceeding minimum qualifications, and your determination of actual qualification is based on hope?

sounds like you don’t know any pilots.
 
Am I understanding this correctly - Both the Cessna 172 AND 182 would be accessible with Sport Pilot Privileges?

C172 - VS1 - 48 KCAS
C182 - VS1 - 54 KCAS
 
I’ll wait till some enterprising person complies a list of qualifying planes. Wonder if the F-35B qualifies in the VTOL only mode
 
Baked Potato said:
The checklists I have of two of my school's 172s state 47 knots indicated (a 172M and 172N).
I haven't cross-checked the POHs though
Click to expand...
Well I'm a dumb a-s and misread the P manual it's actually 51KCAS - maybe they are picking on Pipers?
 
MauleSkinner said:
what’s its power off clean stall speed in VTOL mode?
Click to expand...
Horizontally, it could be very small. Vertically, power off...probably doesn't qualify. But I think it's over 3000 lbs too and exceeds 250 kts.
 
MauleSkinner said:
your statements that they’re not qualified are based on not exceeding minimum qualifications, and your determination of actual qualification is based on hope?

sounds like you don’t know any pilots.
Click to expand...
Been to Venice, Florida lately - at night???
 
MauleSkinner said:
full of CFIs who never get night flying experience?
Click to expand...
No - dead private pilots and their families who sleep with the fishes - never had a chance to use that before.

They’ve had a couple of bad night accidents with folks leaving out of there at night after dinner - it’s a black hole departure right over the Gulf.You’ve obviously got an affinity for Maule’s and anyone who likes an airplane made in Moultrie GA is my buddy and likely a real good stick and rudder person who doesn’t like or tolerate incompetent folks/pilots. It just concerns me the bar is so low for Sport Pilot CFI that loosing (some - not all) of these folks in 172s is going to be worrisome.
 
MPB said:
No - dead private pilots and their families who sleep with the fishes - never had a chance to use that before.

They’ve had a couple of bad night accidents with folks leaving out of there at night after dinner - it’s a black hole departure right over the Gulf.You’ve obviously got an affinity for Maule’s and anyone who likes an airplane made in Moultrie GA is my buddy and likely a real good stick and rudder person who doesn’t like or tolerate incompetent folks/pilots. It just concerns me the bar is so low for Sport Pilot CFI that loosing (some - not all) of these folks in 172s is going to be worrisome.
Click to expand...
If the CFI-As are screwing it up that badly, maybe it SHOULD be handed over to someone else. The CFI-SPs I know personally have more relevant experience than the average flight school CFI-A anyway.

And I’m partial to the pilots flying airplanes built in Napoleon, MI. You might keep your ignorance and prejudices to one topic at a time.
 
As much as the FAA making changes in the right direction is laudable, it could still be so much better if Congress would just allow Basic Med without a prior 3rd class. As much as I respect the Sport Pilot, the additional training that a PPL gives you would be very helpful.

BTW - nothing preventing the FAA to make the a new 4th class medical identical to Basic Med, allowed to be issued by any state doctor. Then make it expire after 24 hours. Why? Then a person could then move directly to Basic Med.

Something preventing the person from getting Basic Med? Then they have to get a 3rd class - no different from today.
 
bflynn said:
Well, the RV vs Zenith decision just got much easier.

Now, where to build....
Click to expand...
So if I'm the builder registered on the TC, and my flight testing determines Vs1 at 54kt or below, regardless of what Vans says in their literature, I should be legal no?
 
FLEngineer said:
Am I understanding this correctly - Both the Cessna 172 AND 182 would be accessible with Sport Pilot Privileges?

C172 - VS1 - 48 KCAS
C182 - VS1 - 54 KCAS
Click to expand...
I think the numbers you quoted may be KIAS not KCAS. My C172N has a max VS1 of 47 KIAS and 53 KCAS. But the wing changed with the C172M so speeds may be different for all the models...
 
MauleSkinner said:
If the CFI-As are screwing it up that badly, maybe it SHOULD be handed over to someone else. The CFI-SPs I know personally have more relevant experience than the average flight school CFI-A anyway.

And I’m partial to the pilots flying airplanes built in Napoleon, MI. You might keep your ignorance and prejudices to one topic at a time.
Click to expand...
So I’ve reported your post to the moderators as I do not appreciate being called either ignorant or prejudiced- that’s what’s called bullying.
 
idahoflier said:
I think the numbers you quoted may be KIAS not KCAS. My C172N has a max VS1 of 47 KIAS and 53 KCAS. But the wing changed with the C172M so speeds may be different for all the models...
Click to expand...

Doing a quick search for C182 POHs on Google, depending on model and year the KCAS stall speeds I'm seeing are all 56 or 54 knots. Here are a couple of the 54s:
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2023-07-21 at 9.48.17 AM.png
    Screenshot 2023-07-21 at 9.48.17 AM.png
    879.8 KB · Views: 20
  • Screenshot 2023-07-21 at 9.46.15 AM.png
    Screenshot 2023-07-21 at 9.46.15 AM.png
    263.5 KB · Views: 19
Dana said:
54 knots is exactly 100 km/hr, so it may be too correspond to some Euro rule.
Click to expand...

Maybe FAA picked 54 kts initially to build-in some room for negotiation?

I seem to recall discussion that under the original LSA NPRM, the clean stall speed was somewhere around 40 kts. After the comment period/etc, the final rule bumped it up to 45 kts. Perhaps FAA is anticipating something like that this time around too? Just hopeful speculation on my part, to get PA-28s in the fold.
 
FLEngineer said:
Doing a quick search for C182 POHs on Google, depending on model and year the KCAS stall speeds I'm seeing are all 56 or 54 knots. Here are a couple of the 54s:
Click to expand...
Skip down to chapter 5 ("Performance"). The tables there say 54KCAS is at most rearward CG and 56KCAS is most forward CG.
1689948881960.png
 
RyanShort1 said:
That's why you can have a 100% stock Taylorcraft, but it's not legal because someone back in the day put a Beech Roby in-flight adjustable prop on it even though it's looooong gone. Ask me how I know.
Click to expand...
Aaaaannnnnnnnddddddd...... From the wording of the proposed reg, looks like that is STILL not fixed for the case where the prop came and went... Prolly worth commenting on when they open up the comments.

(b) If you hold a sport pilot certificate, you may act as pilot in command of an
airplane that, since its original certification, has retractable landing gear or a controllable
pitch propeller if you have met the training and endorsement requirements specified in
§ 61.331
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top