It seems like years since pilots began talking about the FAA’s new regulation for Light-Sport Aircraft called Mosaic or the Modernization Of Special AIrworthiness Certification. As 2021 closes, it doesn’t feel so far away anymore.
Here is an update on what we know, with a disclaimer that everything is subject to change until the FAA finalizes its work.
One aspect of Mosaic that is often overlooked — partly as the new proposal is often called by its abbreviated name — is the word “Special.” This refers to the airworthiness certificates given to specific classes of airplanes, including warbirds, Experimental-Amateur Built, Light-Sport Aircraft, and perhaps the biggest group that we may be welcoming into our airspace: Drones, unmanned aerial systems (UAS), and eVTOLs or multicopters … or whatever you prefer to call them.
For clarification, Cessna, Piper, Cirrus, Mooney, and others have Standard category certificates, not Special.
Mosaic is a big, sprawling regulation but, as always, my focus remains on Light-Sport Aircraft and the kit-built aircraft that Sport Pilots may fly.
Nearby you will see an information-packed slide that was shown as part of a presentation from the FAA given to LSA industry leaders at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2021. The slide is only one of several FAA officials presented, but this one has so much detail that it is worth a closer review.
You should study it and interpret the information for yourself, but allow me to suggest a few items of particular interest and address some commonly-asked questions:
Will LSA gain additional capabilities such as weight, speed, capacity, extra seats, retractable gear, in-flight adjustable props and more?
Yes, it appears, although details are still being determined. Certainly, however, it seems the LSA category is set for a major expansion.
Of note, 2020’s proposed new term and category, Light Personal Aircraft, was scrapped during meetings at AirVenture 2021 between industry representatives, general aviation organizations, and the FAA.
Which of the new aircraft will Sport Pilots (or higher-certificated pilots using Sport Pilot privileges to fly without an aviation medical) be allowed to fly?
Answers are hinted, but another division inside FAA called Flight Standards will decide. That group has been less forthcoming to date because the FAA will continue to make all rules for pilots and operations, while the industry, through consensus standards pounded out by ASTM, will provide the FAA with the criteria to approve aircraft.
Because of the industry’s pivotal involvement in the aircraft approval process, FAA rule writers have to share draft proposals with ASTM committee members so that the private group can accommodate the major changes associated with Mosaic and revise the standards. This is a large task and it will mostly be done by people who volunteer their time to prepare standards.
What about gyroplanes — that were never fully brought into the LSA segment — or other rotary-winged flying machines?
“Rotorcraft” will be included, although exactly in what form is still a question. It seems quite certain that gyroplanes will at long last be approved as fully-built aircraft — but the term rotorcraft can imply accommodations for helicopters, too.
What about current-day LSA that have received weight exemptions from the FAA (Icon, Terrafugia, Vickers)?
Aircraft that have received weight exemptions should no longer have to rely on the exemption method. Those increased weights may now be incorporated into the regulation so the exemptions (always intended as a short-term fix) can be ended.
What will happen to professional builder-assist centers?
America’s homebuilt sector — which over many years of support from the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) has grown to be a substantial share of all aircraft flying in the USA — has evolved through professional builder-assist centers. These have been operating in a gray area of regulation, and through inclusion in Mosaic, professional build centers may expand.
Everyone recognizes that expert help can help make safer homebuilts, especially when those designs are more sophisticated assemblies.
Will existing general aviation airplanes — for example, the Cessna 150, 152 and 172, Piper Cherokees, and others, including vintage designs — be included? Will Sport Pilots be permitted to fly them?
This must be a two-part answer as the question has two elements.
Yes, the FAA may include aircraft as those described in a category that can be flown by someone with a Sport Pilot certificate (or using those no-medical privileges with a higher certificate). Those aircraft will not become LSA. They will retain their current airworthiness certificates.
A common follow-on question is: “Can a Sport Pilot fly a four seater like the Cessna 172?” As noted earlier, we do not have full information about this from the Flight Standards people but, for example, the FAA may permit a Sport Pilot privilege user to fly with only two persons on board.
If a GA aircraft that otherwise fits the eventual parameters is retractable, can a Sport Pilot fly it? This is already permitted for amphibious LSA that have what FAA once called “repositionable gear.” Additional training may be required.
The most intriguing aspect of the preceding discussion involves the endorsement process. FAA officials are pleased with how this has worked in LSA, where a pilot can obtain additional training — learning how to properly fly into Class B airspace, for one example — and can then begin doing so after an instructor endorses his or her logbook.
Endorsements could allow a Sport Pilot to get retractable gear training and then fly using the endorsement method. No checkride is needed.
All these changes are subject to an overriding mantra: Keep Light-Sport Aircraft “light and docile.” What does that mean, exactly?
The FAA wants the industry and the flying community to define this. That means extra work for ASTM volunteers, but permits us, the recreational flying community, to make decisions.
Many experts are pleased about much of what the FAA proposes. These developments have a way of changing in unexpected directions, but since I’ve been listening to these rule writers for several years, I’ve gained confidence that most of the changes will be well received by pilots and manufacturers alike.
When will we see the Mosaic regulation?
My prediction is for the FAA to introduce its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2022. That’s not so much guessing the future as back-calendaring the agency’s Congressionally-imposed deadline.
When the FAA sought additional funding a few years back (partly to accommodate drones), political leaders agreed but dictated that the FAA integrate drones into the National Airspace System and to complete this work by the end of 2023.
Remember, this happened during the Trump administration when the president was requiring the elimination of two regulations before bureaucrats created a new one. To make changes to the LSA rules as requested by the industry associations, such as the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association (LAMA), it would be required that one regulation cover more — explaining the inclusion of drones with all the rest in the proposed Mosaic rule.
Once an NPRM is issued, citizens will be able to comment. FAA officials must read and evaluate every single one of these comments. To do this properly, then to make changes to the draft to accommodate comments and new ideas raised, the FAA needs time. How much time? The agency advised “16 months.”
Since the regulation needs to be done by the last day of 2023, it’s a simple calculation to say the FAA needs to issue the NPRM at AirVenture 2022 in order to meet the deadline. Of course, in bureaucratic maneuvering, things can change that were never planned.
Regardless of the exact dates and the specifics of what will be included, FAA’s Mosaic regulation is fast approaching its official introduction to the public. For those interested in this newest of aviation regulations, get ready to read the analysis by several organizations and then — please! — plan to comment. It’s your right and the FAA needs to hear what you think!
Currently the law states a PPL can only do preventive Maintenance on a certified aircraft. This creates a problem for Sport Pilots who want to buy a vintage aircraft like a J3-Cub legally a Sport Pilot can’t even check the oil on a Cub but it’s required for every pre-flight inspection. If they open up lot more certified aircraft they need to change this. Will the allow a light sport repairmen to maintain a certified aircraft like an AME does? Will they just expand the rules for new light sport aircraft such as higher weight limits, retracts only those can a LS repairmen work on. I could see the industry smiling with dollar signs in their eyes hoping to sell 1000’s of new aircraft at 200k a pop to anyone who can’t pass a medical. Light sport manufactures what they want is to tap into Wealthy Americans who can’t pass a medical that want something closer to a certified aircraft. The working class can’t afford $210k sling we are stuck with old aircraft, or newer homebuilt ultralight types. I could see this being a windfall for manufactures, but a downfall for working class who can only afford older certified aircraft.
Hello:
We need to clean up some of the old rules. A good start would be to merge the Recreational Pilot rules into Sport Pilot. This would allow sport pilots to fly larger aircraft and the remaining recreational pilots could get cross country training.
The Sport Pilot of today is like the Private Pilot of the 1970’s. So, if you got your private ticket in the 70’s or 80’s in a Piper Cub you are pretty much a sport pilot. Also, light sport aircraft (LSA) require better skills to fly and land. You can not drop a LSA onto the runway over and over and expect the gear to survive.
There is no major difference between sport and private pilot. Airspace, weather, medical issues, theory of flight, etc. are all the same for sport and private pilot. Fuel costs are the same for all pilots. A cross wind is a cross wind to either pilot. The sport pilot with a more delicate aircraft will tend to fly more cautiously. Hopefully, both private and sport pilots are getting proper weather briefings and conducting proper pre-flight checks.
Let us build upon the basic framework that all pilots have. Most General Aviation (GA) aircraft that are 2 or 4 seats are pretty similar and most fly under 150 mph. It is time to recognize the fact that any properly trained pilot can handle basic GA planes.
Peace,
Rich
is this it?
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/23/2022-03775/consensus-standards-light-sport-aircraft-notice-no-noa-21-01
Remember the Sport Pilot ( Drivers License Medical) being allowed to fly a Certified aircraft is what I feel is the most important new rule. That way the aircraft mfg’ers don’t need to change the POH or any certification. The weight, power and wing area can be used to determine what aircraft would be eligible for a Sport Pilot to fly.
This leads into Armature Build Experiential Certification being allowed to fly these aircraft under Sport Pilot rules too using the same weight, power and wing area determinations.
Max level flight speed at sea level is not a good rule, but if there is a critical airspeed it would be stall speed.
The issue with the aircraft that meet the LSA rules is they are just a pattern airplane, as they are so slow that it’s pain full to fly 300 miles to visit family, or go on vacation.
The constant speed prop is another top item that should be included, as this feature acts as a speed brake as you start down from cruse to pattern altitude.
Man, I would love it if Sport Pilot allowed me to build and fly a Sling-HighWing https://slingaircraft.com/aircraft/sling-hw/
like a lighter weight modern 150/172.
I get just modifying it enough to allow all of the piston powered 2 seat legacy trainers… but it would be nice if there was an optional step-up to the sport pilot license that allowed you to put 2 people in the back of a 172 or a Sling-HW.
It seems like the weight limit increase for each individual airplane would be dependent on the manufacturer re-writing the POH. What is the likelihood that any given manufacturer would complete the engineering analysis and bureaucratic paperwork to make this happen?
The issues are:
1) What are the basics needed to be classified an LSA?
2) What should the limits for Sport Piloting?
If the FAA keeps it simple, and not let the high end manufacturers make the rules, then the outcome will be overwhelming positive.
First, classify an LSA as a reciprocating aircraft under 180 hp, with no more than four seats, which flys a a speed no more than 150 knots, fixed gear and stalls a reasonable and safe speed as aerodynamic engineers determine for that aircraft. All RG etc. extras can seek FAA exemptions.
Second, keep LSA Pilot training as it is. No night flight, entry into B, C or D airspace or above 10000 ft unless endorsed to do so. Other exemptions can be listed for evaluations, but this could be a start.
So are they going to get reasonable on the stall speed requirement and let us use flaps to meet it? That is the way the rest of the world does it and our approach makes no sense. What it does do is carry a bunch of extra wing area (and corresponding tail area) to meet the limit and uses up way too much of the gross weight. With that change there would be a better useful load to work with and maybe the rest of the airframe will not have to be extensively engineered to shave off enough weight for those huge wings. That would seem to be implied if they are going to let a C150 or C172 to be used but then they might just limit those exceptions for no flaps stall speed to certified planes.
Vashon emailed me last week and said they’d increase their gross to 1,500 lbs. as soon as it was allowed. That would allow two real people and full fuel to take flight.
It’s interesting how I need a medical, but each day I self perform a medical examination on myself, including my brain to determine if I fit to fly.
As we get older this is more critical.
I find that there is less pressure to fly now, since I am retired. In the past if I wanted to fly I had to hope the weekend was friendly to flying. If the weather was borderline I might “try it”. Not now, tomorrow might be better and a less crowded airport and pattern
I have a question.. can anybody explain to me how somebody without a medical is healthy enough to fly a RV12 but not healthy enough to fly a cherokee? Or a bonanza? Or even a C310? The medical requirement is arbitrary and the fact that you can fly an LSA without a medical and PPL’s can opt for basic med just proves it. Drop the requirement for a medical for private pilots and expand the aircraft that sport pilots can fly to include the 150, 172, Cherokee, etc.
I think there is a reason that they cannot drop the medical requirement for PPL, but to impose basic Med. US is an ICAO contracting state, so the FAA has to somehow follow the Annex (an ICAO document) to make sure the FAA license issued can be accepted internationally. I do agree that FAA should expand program like the basic Med, but I definitely do not want the FAA to completely drop the medical requirement, or some of us who sometimes fly internationally may get into troubles.
I wish that the government would put that much effort into making our roads safe. Get the uninsured motorist off the streets, 30%, so when I drive to the airport, the most dangerous part of my pre-flight, I might get there in one piece.
Not mentioned in this article (but discussed other places) is the need to allow actual IFR flight for S-LSA planes sufficiently equipped.
Right now you can buy (for example) a Vashon Ranger R7 that is fully equipped for IFR, but you can only use it for IFR training in VFR conditions.
I see the big money interests are at it again and that industry will guide the decision the FAA makes Money talks and we will all be walking.
Keep it simple and just do one thing at a time
Let all the certified 2 seat piston engine trainers from the past be used by sport pilots. It is that simple.
The folks that want retractable gear and adjustable props and 4 seats are gumming up the works .
The companies that build expensive LSA are also the ones that will get their way with the government as always.
Keep it simple and do one step at a time.
I personally am getting older waiting for the chance to fly again. I doubt if I will be alive by the time the FAA comes to any real decision that will help grass root pilots like myself get back into the right seat
What is missing is the owner repairman certificate. With the demise of type specific repair stations, many owners already today often have more type-specific competencies than many A&Ps. You should be able to train on the job under IA supervision for say 200-300 hours on your specific airplane and then get a repairman certificate for this N-number.
Are they waiting for us or general aviation to die first?
As they say, embrace the power of “and.”
Also, it’s like the Iran-Iraq War: Either outcome is good, from the FAA’s perspective.