Oshkosh: Mosaic for Private and Sport Pilots session on Wed

Learnin’ to fly…

Learnin’ to fly…

Pre-Flight
Joined
Apr 11, 2023
Messages
65
Display Name
Display name:
Learnin’ to fly…
Had this on my agenda to attend. Couldn’t pull myself away from watching the overhead entertainments.

Anyone attend and were there any meaningful takeaways?

Thanks
 
IIRC, it should be a done deal by mid 2025.

Cliff Notes on the Cliff notes.
 
Has anyone come up with a list of aircraft that are expected to be eligible yet?
 
As I haven't seen any major updates from EAA, Kitplanes, or other outlets I'm guessing it was "We should be done in 2025 and have no detailed specifics that we can talk about, you'll have to wait and read about it."
 
EAA contacted me a couple of weeks back, asking me to go through the registry and estimate how many aircraft will qualify under MOSAIC.

Out of about 144,000 Standard category, single-engined, recip-powered aircraft in the US, roughly half (77,100) will be able to be flown by pilots operating under Sport Pilot rules. However, that 77K aircraft does include about 14,000 aircraft that meet the current Light Sport rules.

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. Retractable gear is allowed, but few meet the MOSAIC limit stall-speed limit. And a quarter of them are single-seaters (Mooney Mites).

The other bugaboo is seating capacity. MOSAIC is limited to four seats, but there are a number of older designs certified to fly with an additional seat in the baggage compartment ("child's seat"). The way the proposed rules are written, though, pilots flying MOSAIC-qualified aircraft under Sport Pilot can still carry only one passenger.

It's harder to estimate the EAB aircraft that will qualify, but a rough guess is about 45% of the ~28,000 fleet. Each homebuilt is technically a unique aircraft, and won't have formal CAS determination of clean stall speed. The FAA released a list of Standard-Category aircraft that qualified as Light Sport; they never did the same for homebuilts and left it to the individual owners. I anticipate the same for MOSAIC.

This is all based on the current version of the MOSAIC NPRM. It's possible that the limits may change, a number of folks (including myself) submitted comments about how most RVs will be excluded with the 54-knot limit.

One thing interesting in the NPRM is that the FAA is proposing to reduce the confusion factor between aircraft certified Light Sport and the ability to fly non-Light-Sport-Certified aircraft under Sport Pilot. They're removing the "Light Sport Aircraft" definition from Part 1. Instead, Part 21 will define the requirements for a Special or Experimental Light Sport Aircraft, and Part 61 will define Sport Pilot and the requirement for planes that are allowed to be flown.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Current interpretation by EAA (Tom Bogenhagen (SP?) the presenter) is since the manufacturer of an E-AB is the builder, the Builder determines the stall speed regardless what the Kit manufacturer might say. You might have to convince the FAA Examiner that your speed is correct via data from your flight test.

The whole presentation was just a repetition of the original NPRM with some guesses as to what might change based of the comments of the Alphabets and the public had sent in as comments.

If you knew what the NPRM said, you didn’t learn much new if anything except EAA expects the final thing “Early next year”.
 
Last edited:
hindsight2020 said:
iow, buncha wishcasting of little import.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that the FAA is only pretending that they're going to adopt new rules, or are you talking about the calls for them to make the proposed rules even more permissive?
 
X3 Skier said:
Current interpretation by EAA (Tom Bogenhagen (SP?) the presenter) is since the manufacturer of an E-AB is the builder, the Builder determines the stall speed regardless what the Kit manufacturer might say. You might have to convince the FAA Examiner that your speed is correct via data from your flight test.

The whole presentation was just a repetition of the original NPRM with some guesses as to what might change based of the comments of the Alphabets and the public had sent in as comments.

If you knew what the NPRM said, you didn’t learn much new if anything except EAA expects the final thing “Early next year”.
Click to expand...

X3 Skier said:
Current interpretation by EAA (Tom Bogenhagen (SP?) the presenter) is since the manufacturer of an E-AB is the builder, the Builder determines the stall speed regardless what the Kit manufacturer might say. You might have to convince the FAA Examiner that your speed is correct via data from your flight test.

The whole presentation was just a repetition of the original NPRM with some guesses as to what might change based of the comments of the Alphabets and the public had sent in as comments.

If you knew what the NPRM said, you didn’t learn much new if anything except EAA expects the final thing “Early next year”.
Click to expand...
Thanks! Sounds like I made the right call with my time .
 
X3 Skier said:
Current interpretation by EAA (Tom Bogenhagen (SP?) the presenter) is since the manufacturer of an E-AB is the builder, the Builder determines the stall speed regardless what the Kit manufacturer might say. You might have to convince the FAA Examiner that your speed is correct via data from your flight test.
Click to expand...
I’m curious as to when this FAA Examiner is supposed to make this assessment, and how the pass/fail aspect of this is recorded. As far as I know, the DAR is the last official involvement in the certification of an EAB, and since the plane hasn’t flown by then, there’s no way to tell if the aircraft meets Light Sport/MOSAIC criteria. And I haven’t seen such status reflected in the FAA registry.

It might be referring to an FAA *Investigator*, which might get involved if the Feds suspect the plane is not Sport Pilot eligible, but is being flown as if it is.

Has a friend who came down with diabetes. He took the spinner and wheel pants off his Emeraude and claimed it met the Light Sport criteria. No one official ever checked.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
He took the spinner and wheel pants off his Emeraude and claimed it met the Light Sport criteria. No one official ever checked.
Click to expand...
Well, even if that worked, it doesn't work per the rules (continuously since certification...). But no one has ever checked to see if my ride meets the criteria for Light Sport (it was flying before the rule came into being) but I know that it is more than slow enough, so, good to go.
 
As I'm still confused, will MOSAIC allow a SEL private pilot to fly a qualifying plane with more than one passenger with only a valid driver's license?
That would be the holy grail.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
As I'm still confused, will MOSAIC allow a SEL private pilot to fly a qualifying plane with more than one passenger with only a valid driver's license?
That would be the holy grail.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt it. That would be sort of like saying a commercial pilot could fly for hire with only a third class medical.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
As I'm still confused, will MOSAIC allow a SEL private pilot to fly a qualifying plane with more than one passenger with only a valid driver's license?
That would be the holy grail.
Click to expand...
No. You'll be able to fly a four seat airplane, but two of those seats must be empty, one passenger max.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
As I'm still confused, will MOSAIC allow a SEL private pilot to fly a qualifying plane with more than one passenger with only a valid driver's license?
Click to expand...
As the NPRM currently states, no. A person operating as a Sport Pilot (e.g., driver's license medical) would be permitted to fly a qualifying aircraft with up to four seats, but only two of them can be occupied.

1721999550979.png

Ron Wanttaja
 
I've often wondered why the 10,000 foot limitation. What's gonna happen between 10 and 12.5 that doesn't happen below 10?

I don't even see a need to limit below 18k. Heck, I'd rather see a lower limit. lol Other than for purposes of takeoff and landing, you must maintain 2,000 ft AGL. ;)
 
StraightnLevel said:
10,000 is where the 250 kt speed limit is in place, so it's consistent.
Click to expand...
The 250 knot thing only applies to aircraft certificated under the Mosaic rules - it is not a limitation on what can be flown under the Sport Pilot rules - at least according to the original NPRM. (Not that you are likely to find something that exceeds the limit and still has a clean stall speed under 45 knots.)
Salty said:
So? What do private pilots have that makes it safer between 10 - 12.5k?
Click to expand...
A "real" medical certificate.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
The 250 knot thing only applies to aircraft certificated under the Mosaic rules - it is not a limitation on what can be flown under the Sport Pilot rules - at least according to the original NPRM. (Not that you are likely to find something that exceeds the limit and still has a clean stall speed under 45 knots.)

A "real" medical certificate.
Click to expand...
But they have that below 10k also.
 
Salty said:
I've often wondered why the 10,000 foot limitation. What's gonna happen between 10 and 12.5 that doesn't happen below 10?
Click to expand...
Maybe they're concerned about pilots who have anemia. :dunno:
 
Any word on possible changes to the 54 stall speed limit ?
 
StraightnLevel said:
So, that sounds like MOSAIC would allow operation of some of the newer European ELSAs with retractable gear, adjustable pitch props, and small turboprops, as well as a whole bunch of existing trainer planes. That's a game-changer.

bydanjohnson.com

Europe's Passionate Need for Speed — JMB Enlists Turbine Power to Go Faster Yet - ByDanJohnson.com

Over many years as an affordable aviation journalist I have learned two things. First, stick to airplanes. That’s what moves the needle for most pilots; nearly always such articles are the best-read on this website. Second, pilots love more powerful engines, especially when they display new...
bydanjohnson.com bydanjohnson.com
Click to expand...
A turboprop LSA makes no sense whatsoever.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Have you seen the prices of the Euro ultralight planes in comparison to US planes with comparable capabilities?

Adding retract and a constant speed prop to gain speed and efficiency is apparently less expensive than using a larger, heavier engine to achieve similar performance.
Click to expand...
The turbine engine in your article costs $100,000 alone.
 
hindsight2020 said:
...you spelled moot wrong.

By the linked article's own admission: "Cost is the main impediment to wider acceptance." Talk about burying the lead. Should have titled the article with it…
Click to expand...

At $100K for the motor, that’s not much of a premium over a new IO-540. But that ignores the one hot start or the occasional prop strike.

The real limit is “I’ve got a turbine and it doesn’t make enough power to takeoff on a hot summer day.”
 
wanttaja said:
I’m curious as to when this FAA Examiner is supposed to make this assessment, and how the pass/fail aspect of this is recorded. As far as I know, the DAR is the last official involvement in the certification of an EAB, and since the plane hasn’t flown by then, there’s no way to tell if the aircraft meets Light Sport/MOSAIC criteria. And I haven’t seen such status reflected in the FAA registry.

It might be referring to an FAA *Investigator*, which might get involved if the Feds suspect the plane is not Sport Pilot eligible, but is being flown as if it is.

Has a friend who came down with diabetes. He took the spinner and wheel pants off his Emeraude and claimed it met the Light Sport criteria. No one official ever checked.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
I believe he was referring to the DAR. But since this is all shrouded in the Final Rule Making process, I suspect he used a generic term to cover FSDO, DAR, Karnak,”The Administrator’ or whoever would decide. I also suspect there might some sort of AC or AC revision to address this. But I’m just SGOTI.
 
Last edited:
StraightnLevel said:
Yeah, heat will be an issue….but longer TBOH and lower fuel consumption offsets the higher initial cost. ….
Click to expand...
Right up to the point those 130 horses won’t get you off the ground the in the space you have.

TBO isn’t the bogeyman with most turbines, the hot section inspection (and associated intervals) is. And I wasn’t joking about the prop strike. That cost additive may get insurers out of the business of subsidizing an OH.

None of that gets past the physics though. Turboprops, like turbos, see the best efficiency in the low teens to mid-twenties.

I wish them the best in designing a better mousetrap.
 
Last edited:
X3 Skier said:
I believe he was referring or rhe DAR. But since this is all shrouded in the Final Rule Making process, I suspect he used a generic term to cover FSDO, DAR, Karnak,”The Administrator’ or whoever would decide. I also suspect there might some sort of AC or AC revision to address this. But I’m just SGOTI.
Click to expand...
Gotcha.

As far as I know, the FAA never issued an AC that covered EAB eligibility for Light Sport. Nor have I heard of any sort of clamping down, or attempts at enforcement. So I'm curious if an attempt will be made for MOSAIC.

There are two RV-10s listed as Experimental Light Sports in the FAA registry, for example...the "Grandfathered" type of ELSA, where builders of new homebuilts or owners of fat ultralights could get an ELSA certificate basically just for the asking. I'm assuming these two are merely record-keeping errors, but....

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.....

Ron Wanttaja
 
TCABM said:
At $100K for the motor, that’s not much of a premium over a new IO-540. But that ignores the one hot start or the occasional prop strike.

The real limit is “I’ve got a turbine and it doesn’t make enough power to takeoff on a hot summer day.”
Click to expand...
It also ignores the fact that we aren't talking about a 300 horse power engine for that $100,000
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top