Soon Sport Pilots with drivers license eligibility will be able to fly most light aircraft.

Paul Hamilton CFI

Paul Hamilton CFI

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
30
Display Name
Display name:
Paul Hamilton CFI
With all this stuff floating around about the new LSA MOSIAC making Light-sport aircraft faster with bigger payloads, NOTHING is being said about the pilots to fly them. It is my understanding from the FAA that all sport pilots will be able to be trained and fly them with the same minimum 20 hours minimum training verses 40 hours minimum training for private pilots. Sport pilots will have a new arsenal of aircraft to choose from.

Another big step for aviation.
 
Seeing is believing.

I think that all this talk and no firm numbers on what will be allowed has hurt the LSA manufacturers.

Seems they might be hesitant to go forth with new designs as they have no idea what the approved specs could be. Secondly, if greater weights, speeds, and other offerings are to be had under the new rules why continue to make the weight and speed limited planes they are currently producing?

Does not this also indicate that anyone considering the purchase of a new Light Sport plane should wait as they can possibly get a bigger, stronger, faster, better, LSA if they can hold out for a couple more years?
 
Daleandee said:
Does not this also indicate that anyone considering the purchase of a new Light Sport plane should wait as they can possibly get a bigger, stronger, faster, better, LSA if they can hold out for a couple more years?
Click to expand...

That might be a decent idea if one’s flying career going forward was without limitation.

With an aging population, a lot of folks are looking at 10 or 20 years remaining to fly. A “couple more years” can really eat into that, if a pilot is delaying purchasing something that suits his or her needs now, especially since some have been waiting for years already.

Not saying it would have zero impact on a Light Sport purchase, as in a case like mine where I’ve already benefited for over 13 years by going Light Sport. If I were planning an upgrade (I’m not) I might be predisposed to wait just a little longer. But for most, I think Nike’s marketing slogan makes more sense.
 
Daleandee said:
Does not this also indicate that anyone considering the purchase of a new Light Sport plane should wait as they can possibly get a bigger, stronger, faster, better, LSA if they can hold out for a couple more years?
Click to expand...

The big question for me is whether or not legacy planes with standard airworthiness certificates will be grandfathered in with any weight increase from MOSAIC, as was done with sport pilot.

Today, $60k will get you into a 50 year old pa28 or a 15 year old LSA. If older planes are grandfathered, I would expect their prices to go up, and the prices of existing LSAs to go down.

That said, I would choose to delay the purchase of an LSA today, if it meant a chance at more capability (but probably at higher cost) in a few years.
 
GeorgeC said:
The big question for me is whether or not legacy planes with standard airworthiness certificates will be grandfathered in with any weight increase from MOSAIC, as was done with sport pilot.
Click to expand...
There is no "grandfathering". Either an aircraft meets the definition or "Light Sport Aircraft" in FAR 1.1 or it does not. If it does, it can be flown under the sport pilot rules.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
There is no "grandfathering". Either an aircraft meets the definition or "Light Sport Aircraft" in FAR 1.1 or it does not. If it does, it can be flown under the sport pilot rules.
Click to expand...

I think the main point of "grandfathering" has to do with weight limit. As an example, the Sling 2 LSA has a weight limit of 1,320. The same Sling 2 experimental is 1,543. If and when the new rules come into effect, will the Sling 2 LSA be grandfathered up to the 1543 weight limit? Many believe it can, with the factory's blessing.
 
Paul Hamilton CFI said:
With all this stuff floating around about the new LSA MOSIAC making Light-sport aircraft faster with bigger payloads, NOTHING is being said about the pilots to fly them. It is my understanding from the FAA that all sport pilots will be able to be trained and fly them with the same minimum 20 hours minimum training verses 40 hours minimum training for private pilots. Sport pilots will have a new arsenal of aircraft to choose from.

Another big step for aviation.
Click to expand...

There's no big step here, none of the above is a given, in the least. Were you around for the part 23 nothing burger? I still keep a copy of the Aviation Rulemaking Commitee's Report on the legislation, so people in the future don't try to gaslight me as to the chasm between what was proposed and voted on, and what the FAA in the end decided to implement.

LAMA has pretty much admitted the thrust of the lobbying on MOSAIC revolves around merely allowing legacy LSA to operate for revenue. That's it. The rest is astroturfing fodder like "primary non-commercial" was during part-23 legislation. Meant to gen up interested eyes in what is actually needed for regulatory relief in cost, which the FAA will never let happen, with *OEM backbench support for its killing as the motivation behind it (*my conjecture).

I can't believe I'm already facing my 5th decade in this planet and I've been waiting for Godot for two decades of participation in this blasted sector already. It's a fool's errand. @FastEddieB is right, the Nike approach is the only thing left at this point: one has to ---- or get off the pot. The cavalry ain't coming and time is an outright luxury when it comes to a medical-dependent access to an activity. In my case I'm going EAB, but if medical woes were lurking, I'd pinch my nose and downgrade to an existing LSA and just keep on trucking, or just quit when it no longer satisfies my recreational wants. Waiting on MOSAIC to disappoint you is a adding a penalty to what was already a sunk cost.
 
Cluemeister said:
I think the main point of "grandfathering" has to do with weight limit. As an example, the Sling 2 LSA has a weight limit of 1,320. The same Sling 2 experimental is 1,543. If and when the new rules come into effect, will the Sling 2 LSA be grandfathered up to the 1543 weight limit? Many believe it can, with the factory's blessing.
Click to expand...
So, you are talking about changing things like MTOW for existing aircraft to take advantage of the revised limits - as opposed to bringing aircraft that are currently too heavy (i.e. Cessna 150) under the LSA umbrella.

I think that would be more of a manufacturer issue than a regulation issue. You wouldn't want to increase the gross of the original Avid Flyer from 1050 to 1543 just because the rules changed.
 
Cluemeister said:
I think the main point of "grandfathering" has to do with weight limit. As an example, the Sling 2 LSA has a weight limit of 1,320. The same Sling 2 experimental is 1,543. If and when the new rules come into effect, will the Sling 2 LSA be grandfathered up to the 1543 weight limit? Many believe it can, with the factory's blessing.
Click to expand...

yes I plan to upgrade the weight of my sling 2 when the new updated weight happens
 
What ever MOSAIC comes out, and there will be something coming out soon/eventually, will be just like the last LSA rules. Any aircraft, (probably a 150 and possibly a 172), if it fits the new definition of a LSA, it will be a LSA. Just like a j3 cub meets the definition now. See FAR part 1.1 light sport aircraft. No grandfathering. IF ANY AIRCRAFT MEETS THE NEW LSA DEFINITION, old or new, it WIlL BE A LIGHT SPORT AIRCRAFT. No magic, no mystery. Exactly what the new definition is we do not know. But I would bet on an increase in weight to some extent. The FAA can not Wiesel out of this one, too much pressure. We shall see. Two years (hopefully), we will look back at this post and see.
 
Even if the weight is raised to allow a Cessna 150 & 172 and/or Piper Cherokees, and other such in the mix so they can be flown by Light Sport pilots, I'm guessing that they will remain a certified aircraft like the Cubs & other older crafts that qualify now.
 
Daleandee said:
Even if the weight is raised to allow a Cessna 150 & 172 and/or Piper Cherokees, and other such in the mix so they can be flown by Light Sport pilots, I'm guessing that they will remain a certified aircraft like the Cubs & other older crafts that qualify now.
Click to expand...
I would agree since all the heavy lifting is done. None of the classic aircraft made the change. Note there plenty of heavy “Sport Pilots” also. Not every Sport Pilot is light.
 
That would be so cool, if the options for sport pilots (or those exercising sport pilot privileges) expanded to include even some portion of the traditional GA trainer fleet.
 
I feel like that 1320 max gross was just a number they pulled out of their a$$ anyway, just to penalize the 150. The 150 is by FAR, a better, safer, and forgiving airplane for a new pilot, than ANY tailwheel airplane will ever be.
 
Marshall Alexander said:
I feel like that 1320 max gross was just a number they pulled out of their a$$ anyway,
Click to expand...

1320 lbs divided by 2.2 = 600 kg. You may "feel" 1320 is arbitrary, but I doubt it.

The differences between CAR4a/CAR3/FAR23 aircraft operated as light sport and S-LSA is significant, especially when it comes to maintenance.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Legally, we use the metric system for our base units. The pound is, by definition, exactly 0.45359237 kg.

https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.pdf


Yes, but what does that have to do with LSAs????????
Click to expand...



I don't think any of my POHs have a conversion chart for lbs to kg. Everything in my POHs is in lbs. I still think it's an arbitrary number. Why couldn't it have just as easily been 700 or 800 kg?

Arnold mentioned the maintenance issue.
 
hindsight2020 said:
There's no big step here, none of the above is a given, in the least. Were you around for the part 23 nothing burger? I still keep a copy of the Aviation Rulemaking Commitee's Report on the legislation, so people in the future don't try to gaslight me as to the chasm between what was proposed and voted on, and what the FAA in the end decided to implement.

LAMA has pretty much admitted the thrust of the lobbying on MOSAIC revolves around merely allowing legacy LSA to operate for revenue. That's it. The rest is astroturfing fodder like "primary non-commercial" was during part-23 legislation. Meant to gen up interested eyes in what is actually needed for regulatory relief in cost, which the FAA will never let happen, with *OEM backbench support for its killing as the motivation behind it (*my conjecture).

I can't believe I'm already facing my 5th decade in this planet and I've been waiting for Godot for two decades of participation in this blasted sector already. It's a fool's errand. @FastEddieB is right, the Nike approach is the only thing left at this point: one has to ---- or get off the pot. The cavalry ain't coming and time is an outright luxury when it comes to a medical-dependent access to an activity. In my case I'm going EAB, but if medical woes were lurking, I'd pinch my nose and downgrade to an existing LSA and just keep on trucking, or just quit when it no longer satisfies my recreational wants. Waiting on MOSAIC to disappoint you is a adding a penalty to what was already a sunk cost.
Click to expand...

I agree, I put no faith in the government doing anything that actually makes sense. My plan is the same as yours. If they bump up LSA weights great I can keep my 172 or get a J5 or PA12 eventually like I want. If they don't and Basic Med is no longer an option but I am still healthy enough to self certify I will fly an LSA Champ. At 55 I hope and pray for 15-20 more years of flying if the good Lord wills. With my family's track record that may be optimistic. Fighting genetics is like arguing with the FAA sometimes. :(
 
Arnold said:
The differences between CAR4a/CAR3/FAR23 aircraft operated as light sport and S-LSA is significant, especially when it comes to maintenance.
Click to expand...

Marshall Alexander said:
See post #17
Click to expand...

Marshall Alexander said:
Also, I think a Cub, or a Champ would require more maintenance/inspections than a 150.
Click to expand...

Again, you guys have lost me.

The S-LSA maintenance rules have nothing to do with Champs / Cubs or, potentially, 150s.

65.107 (Repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft): Eligibility, privileges, and limits) only applies to aircraft that have "been issued an experimental certificate for operating a light-sport aircraft under §21.191(i) of this chapter" - not to standard category aircraft that meet the definition of "LSA" in 1.1 (Definitions and Abbreviations).
 
Here is the rationale from the final rule:

"The FAA is increasing the weight limitation of the light-sport aircraft from the proposed 1,232 pounds (560 kilograms) to 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms). The originally proposed weight limitation was based on the 1,200-pound weight limitation proposed by the ARAC’s light-sport aircraft working group. The FAA agrees that there may be a safety benefit to light-sport aircraft designs to include provisions for currently produced type certificated four-stroke engines and ballistic parachute recovery systems. Commenters submitted data that indicated that an additional 60 to 70 pounds would accommodate four-stroke aviation powerplants, and that an additional 30 to 40 pounds would accommodate the ballistic parachute recovery systems. For these reasons, the FAA has revised its proposed maximum takeoff weight limitation to 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft designed for operation on land."

See. https://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=FAA-2001-11133-2712&contentType=pdf

In common English.

The FAA had an advisory committee which proposed a 1200# weight limit. The FAA in the proposed rule upped this to 1232# (the final rule does not explain how this slight increase came about but the NPRM might). After reviewing comments they agreed that 1232# was too low due to the safety advantage of heavier 4 stroke engines and BRS. Based on comments received in response to the NPRM they decided to up the weight.

Weights and Measures: The U.S. is a member of ICAO which uses the metric system rather than the weights and measures used here in the U.S. It makes sense that they adjusted the weight to a convenient metric number. Though, again, this is not specifically stated in the final rule.
 
Marshall Alexander said:
I don't think any of my POHs have a conversion chart for lbs to kg. Everything in my POHs is in lbs.
Click to expand...

FWIW, for the most part the POH for my Italian-made Sky Arrow uses lbs, but includes kg in parentheses. Similarly distances are in feet or miles, with the metric equivalent also in parentheses. But not always - speeds and altitudes do not give metric equivalents.
 
FastEddieB said:
FWIW, for the most part the POH for my Italian-made Sky Arrow uses lbs, but includes kg in parentheses. Similarly distances are in feet or miles, with the metric equivalent also in parentheses. But not always - speeds and altitudes do not give metric equivalents.
Click to expand...

While Lady Luscombe is in pieces I have been flying a Tecnam P2008. The aircraft is great. The manual is cr@p.
 
Arnold said:
I am referring to the different maintenance requirements between a S-LSA/E-SLA v. a certificated aircraft, in my case CAR 4a for the Luscombe, operated as an LSA.
Click to expand...
Yes, the maintenance requirements are a function of the certificate type, not if they meet the definition of LSA in 1.1 and can be flown under the sport pilot. In my case, maintenance requirements for an E-AB that fits the LSA definition are closer to, but not the same as, E-LSA. And your Luscombe is, of course, under the venerable part 43 unlike all those others.
Totally illogical. Therefore, exactly the way it should be.
 
Arnold said:
While Lady Luscombe is in pieces I have been flying a Tecnam P2008. The aircraft is great. The manual is cr@p.
Click to expand...

I thought the same about the P2006T I did multi in. The POH didn’t always have standard English syntax and structure, and even had the electrical schematic in half Italian and half English. Fortunately I knew the symbol for a battery, as it was labeled soemthing like Accumuladore. How the FAA approved the manual was a mystery.
 
ateamer said:
I thought the same about the P2006T I did multi in. The POH didn’t always have standard English syntax and structure, and even had the electrical schematic in half Italian and half English. Fortunately I knew the symbol for a battery, as it was labeled soemthing like Accumuladore. How the FAA approved the manual was a mystery.[/QUOTE

How about a pilot report on the airplane? "Inquiring minds want to know."
Click to expand...
 
ateamer said:
How the FAA approved the manual was a mystery.
Click to expand...
FYI: The FAA didn't physically approve it. It was accepted as is by proxy via a bi-lateral agreement between the US and ENAC/EASA just as most aircraft that are produced/certified in other countries with a similar CAA agreements. Be thankful it was only a schematic as in the past some "approved" flights manuals had only metric performance figures and charts which created a few interesting scenarios for some US pilots at the beginning.
 

Easy plane to operate and fly.

I became a fan of Rotax. They start right up no matter what, automatic mixture control, and burn almost zero oil at all.

The initial climb angle at 100 below max gross and takeoff flaps was surprisingly steep, considering it only has 196 horsepower. Single-engine performance was good, too. On a pretty close to standard day, holding altitude at 3500 or so was no problem.

Good flying qualities overall, nothing unusual.

Now the negatives: The cabin heat knob is just there for show. Heat is ducted from a small liquid-cooled engine, through the wing, down the A-pillar and into the cabin. Too far to go and it’s practically at ambient temp by then.

With only 98 HP per side, I never felt at all challenged during VMC demos or anything on one engine. There definitely is training value and the OEI issues are clear, but I didn’t feel prepared to fly anything with much performance.

Low useful load, especially full-fuel payload. Like most light four seaters, it’s actually a 2+2 unless you’re only going short distances.

Poor visibility out the sides. The side windows don’t go very far up - I’m only six feet tall and the top of the side window was at my eyebrows.

Sloooooow landing gear. Something like 20 seconds to retract. That’s too long to clean up when you’re low and slow. The gear mechanism is complex, too, as it retracts into the belly and sponsons. I bet that extending the nacelles and having long Aero Commander type struts would be lighter and certainly simpler.

Overall, a functional and safe trainer and maybe decent for personal light-duty travel. I believe their target market is flight schools. But why spend 450 grand on a limited-utility trainer when there are scads of light twins out there for a fraction of the cost?
 
Marshall Alexander said:
I feel like that 1320 max gross was just a number they pulled out of their a$$ anyway, just to penalize the 150. The 150 is by FAR, a better, safer, and forgiving airplane for a new pilot, than ANY tailwheel airplane will ever be.
Click to expand...
My understanding was that 1320# was to align the LSA definition with a similar European class that had a 600kg limit.

As for the 150, I'll grant "forgiving". Safer, doubtful, better, definitely not, in the sense of being a good trainer, the tailwheel aircraft will make better pilots.

Excluding the 150 and other aircraft was, IMHO, a deal to support the manufacturers of new LSA aircraft by limiting the competition from used aircraft.
 
[QUOTE="Dana, post: 3048829, member: 29318"

Excluding the 150 and other aircraft was, IMHO, a deal to support the manufacturers of new LSA aircraft by limiting the competition from used aircraft.[/QUOTE]


I don't have any data to back it up, but I'd venture to say the 150/152 has taught more people to fly than any other single airplane out there. Including ANY Cub, Champ, T-craft, or any other tailwheel airplane you can name.


As was mentioned on another forum, by someone else, I really doubt the FAA cared about competition, or getting more pilots in the sky. They were more/mostly interested in getting the ultralights registered. It just so happened that a few other people actually benefitted from it. lol

When was the last time you saw the federal government do something in the spirit of helping someone or "group" without there being a "gotcha" attached to it. The light sport category was created to do just what the government likes, control, control over something in which they had no control, namely the ultralights.

I believe it was Ronald Reagan that said "the scariest 8 words in the world is, we're from the government, we're here to help".
 
Last edited:
Marshall Alexander said:
As was mentioned on another forum, by someone else, I really doubt the FAA cared about competition, or getting more pilots in the sky. They were more/mostly interested in getting the ultralights registered. It just so happened that a few other people actually benefitted from it. lol
Click to expand...
Originally it was about registering the fat ultralights, yes, but it got pre-empted by the new generation of Euro-style microlights, in the process killing the ultralight movement. The FAA doesn't talk much about the internal decision making process, so we'll never know what deals were or weren't made.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Yes, the maintenance requirements are a function of the certificate type, not if they meet the definition of LSA in 1.1 and can be flown under the sport pilot.
Click to expand...

This is the reason I mentioned that if this comes to fruition these planes are going to remain in the certified world. To me that's going to be a hindrance for at least the poor boys like me. At least if I bought an ELSA I can get the certificate to do the maintenance & inspections on it (although if it's Rotax powered there might be a different snake to kill). Even a SLSA can be changed over to ELSA if the owner wants to give up certain privileges such as use for flight training and such.

But the cost of maintaining a certified aircraft against the cost of an experimental (ELSA or EAB) where the owner can perform their own maintenance & inspections is gonna be significant. Not sure how much impact it will have but there is a reason that I don't own an older classic that would be difficult and expensive to find parts for.
 
[QUOTE="Dana, post: 3048949, member: 29318" The FAA doesn't talk much about the internal decision making process, so we'll never know what deals were or weren't made.[/QUOTE]


You are absolutely, 100% correct. The United States of America has the best politicians money can buy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top