11:00 The reason why it the proposed 61.329(d) is written that way is because 61.113(i) is in the Private Pilot section of Part 61 and that paragraph talks about being able to fly aircraft up to 6,000 lbs MTOW and carry 5 passengers, which is well outside what Sport Pilots will be able to do under MOSAIC. I may be wrong, but I think that since the Basic Med regulation was passed by Congress, the FAA can't change the language of it through the normal rulemaking process, like they can with MOSAIC. That may be why they had to write 61.329(d) that way. Also, regarding the simulator time, one thing that can be done with sims that can't be easily done in an actual airplane is run through certain emergency procedures all the way to the ground. You can do that in a sim and it doesn't break anything expensive. Adding that to the regs incentivizes using a sim in this way.
and you can better simulate realistic gyroscope failures and other instrument failures without a CFI reaching forward and announcing the failure by covering it up.
Twin centerline thrust is not a "loophole" because the spirit of the rule is to ward against a large asymmetric thrust upon an engine out. The only adverse force arising out of an engine out with a twin centerline setup would be P-factor -- thus being fine for a sport pilot
So, this opens up exp STOL aircraft like the Zenith CH750 and CH750 Super Duty to be used at the designed max gross with larger engines and constant speed props. It's something at least. Not sure if any complex aircraft will meet the Vs1 requirements. Do vortex generators and slats (fixed) count as lift enhancing devices? The slats are fixed on a Zenith, but variable on other aircraft.
Yes, it opens up the range of aircraft that can be flown under the sport pilot rules quite a ways. For things like fixed slats and vortex generators, I would think that they would not count as a "lift enhancing device" any more than a wing with an increased camber - but I don't have any official documentation to support that opinion. One gotcha could be that they would have to be there "since original certification" - you can't add VGs to lower the stall speed and then legitimately fly it under the SP rules. Automatic slats - I would not try to guess how the FAA sees those.
These are the planes I’m interested in more so the super duty. Hopefully I’ll be able to fly one. Prices still look decent so wondering if best to purchase before rules go in effect since I can always sell if not
@@Six6Fit Same here. The experimental space has changed a lot over the past 10 years. The Rans and Kitfox options are pretty decent; but a little more $ and I think the construction of the Zenith is way easier. The Zenith also makes some bold claims with their takeoff and obstacle clearance numbers. Living out west, it would be nice to be able get in to some back country spots with some camping gear in higher DA with some healthy safety margin. I think the insurance is also a bit cheaper with the nosewheel vs. conventional. I don't know how the nosewheel handles bumpy terrain though. Almost none of the demo videos out there seem to adequately address that concern. Dirt roads are a no-go if the gear can't handle them.
The proposal is intended to bring light sport in line with European and brazillian rules for light sport aircraft. 1. Weight to 3000 lbs 2. Speed to 250 knots 3. Constant speed prop 4. Retractable gear 5. Four place aircraft 6. Turbines 7. Night flight 8. Helicopters The shark TL stream Tarragon TL sparker JMB3 TURBINE AND 915 BRISTELL RG THESE ALL EXCEED 170 KNOTS AND FUTURE AIRCRAFT WILL BE FASTER.
@@LightAndSportyGuylistening to the president of EAA, he states that he fully expects that the legislation as proposed will not be changed much from what is proposed because the FAA has spent years running these changes through the process and to remove one proposal would mean that that process was a waste of time. They may tweak, but not remove or change drastically from the initial proposal. The only people I suspect are angry are the private pilots who think everyone should get a medical like them and do away with sport altogether ( this was one of the suggestions in the comments to the NPRM). I think there will be overwhelming support for the new rules and general aviation will be better because of it. Just my opinion!
@@mauriceevans6546I’m a PP with a Class-2 med. I have an RV8 EAB and a certified Aerotrek A220 LSA. My 1225# gross A220 will likely drop in value when C150’s, 172’s, Cherokee’s no longer require a Medical, but I welcome any change that gets more people flying and I REALLY look forward to innovative new designs🚀
@freerangevegan1 I think they are also focused on the new drone vehicles that will be coming as well. The price of the new aircraft are going to be out of the roof.
I will be demonstrating that the 2700 lb 4-seat Tecnam P2006 Twin can be flown as a Light Sport category aircraft. This will be accomplished with a vortex generator (VG) kit (not a lift device). The current Vmc is between Vs1 and Vso but with VGs the Vmc is reduced to Vso or lower so aircraft will stall before an asymmetric event. Unfortunately its top speed is 145 kts, not the upper limit of 250 kts.
keep in mind Vs1 and Vso speeds change with altitude as well. so make sure the condition applies at any altitude. But as stated, you may not be able to win with this approach regardless.
I've been trying to wrap my head around the maintenance changes, particularly the what the lsrm changes are besides a name change. I've read it several times and keep coming away with... well, not much.
Thanks for this rundown mate. I greatly appreciate what they're doing here, including the wording of the multi-engine section. Am I right in thinking that this rule allows for things like an ICE and electric combination in centreline arrangement? And perhaps any number of electric power units provided asymmetric thrust situations are excluded via automatic systems? Decent batteries are a fair way off. However, an electric motor and battery with 10 minutes of power is lighter than an ICE engine and cheaper to acquire and own. I like the idea of something with single engine economics yet centreline twin safety. And I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying that Sport/GA needs better safety and economics in order to survive or thrive.
Everything I have seen in the proposal for Sport Pilot Certificates still say single engine - so I don't know how an actual sport pilot could fly a multi engine combination. But the rules do appear to let a mult rated pilot fly a centerline arrangement. Might be worth commenting on this one. They do talk about automatic systems to mitgate the effects of asymmetric failures - but those seem to be in reference to multicopters and aircraft with simplified control systems. There may be some other references, but to be perfectly honest, at times my eyes glazed over as I tried to plow through the proposal. :-)
I have been wanting a flying e-bike since the MASK cartoon was a thing. Make that 10 minutes flight-time a 15-minute flight-time. With carbon fiber approaching the cost of fiberglass, being just as easy if not easier to work with, it's time.
This proposal does expand the range of "Light Sport Aircraft" and would allow for more capable aircraft to be built as E-LSA kits - where the 51% rule does not apply. But there is nothing in it to change the current rules for experimental amateur built aircraft. I was not personally aware that there was a proposal to eliminate the so called 51% rule.
@LightAndSportyGuy I heard this in several places but trying to dig deeper hasn't turned up anything. If the 51% rule was eliminated or altered, airframe kits could be built more economically and reliably in the factories and shipped like ARF RC planes.... Quality checks in the factory would far surpass home builders resulting in more true airframes as well. You'd still have to assemble the kit, wire it, install an engine and avionics but it would certainly open doors for delivering better products to the kit market improving safety and success rates for completion
Ok so I have a question. I have a CDL license which requires medical card in order to operate trucks which are more dangerous to operate than airplanes in my opinion. This medical card isn’t just a basic medical. Anyway basic medical is pretty much the same thing as the FAA 3rd class medical from what I was explained. There’s no difference there. Now I have the CDL medical card, but FAA is giving me difficulty with obtaining 2nd class medical. Makes absolutely no sense to me how am I ok to operate dangerous 18 wheelers, but not being able to do my private pilot license? I haven’t been denied the FAA medical yet, but the process is extending since February and I have a strong feeling that I will be denied. If I get denied, I guess I’ll just have to do LSA certification just so I could fly anything. Like what can I do to be able to obtain at least 3rd class medical if I get denied?
I'm sorry to hear about your problems. And, yea, makes no sense that you could drive a truck but the FAA doesn't believe that you could operate a Cessna 172. Unfortunately, it seems tends to be all too common and can take months and sometimes requests for multiple tests that doctors don't seem to see as necessary. I really have no advice on how to move forward through the process, but I will point out that the Sport Pilot rules require that you "Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent application (if the person has applied for a medical certificate); " So, bad news there as well. About all you can do at this point is keep pushing to get the third class. Sorry.
Unfortunately, you can't simply revert to sport pilot if you get denied an FAA medical. If you submit to an FAA medical and get denied, you can't use the driver's license medical provision of sport pilot. You are done flying unless and until you can pass a 3rd class or get a special issuance. If you had simply not attempted to get a 3rd class, you'd be fine. You'd be able to fly with sport pilot privileges. It's unfortunate that this isn't explained better. I'm sorry to say, it looks like it's already too late for you.
My only fear is that the LSA industry folks will oppose these rules because they have been bucking physics all these years to produce an expensive product that meets the 1320 lb GW limit and they will now lose their captive customer base. Hopefully I'm wrong because they would then be able to design and produce much more capable aircraft without that yoke around their necks.
Some may object, but I suspect that some others may see an expanded market. Certainly, the overseas manufactures that are already making aircraft outside the current LSA limits would be happy with this. And, some domestic manufacturers (e.g. SeaRey) are likely to up the gross weight up to the same limit as their E-AB versions. But, that's my opinion. Thanks for chiming in.
The Brazilian aircraft maker of the montaer just announced a four place light sport with 200 hp lycoming with 1100 range. They are all chopping at the bit for the new regs to become law. This is what they have been advocating for the last 10yrs with aopa and eaa. It is hreat change and as a sport, i am excited about the new types of aircraft coming
@joellong438 the shark aircraft already uses the edge performance engine. EDGEPERFORMANCE EP912STi - Redundancy Features / EdgePerformance As Thomas Hauklien ua-cam.com/video/fLuXDW5kcK4/v-deo.html
This will be a windfall for light sport. The current LSA's can go back and re-certify the ones they have now to a higher gross weight. Likely some of these aircraft flying under 1320 were under rated on purpose. There should be number of the current LSA's go up for sale at good prices those will have to maintain their 1320 max gross as the wealthier folks go out and buy brand new Cessna 182s. Us poor folks can buy their old light sport planes. I'm sure there are some out there who have the money to buy what they want but can't pass a medical.
So my questions is, I have about 12 hours of flight instruction but at this time I don't see myself finishing to get my private pilots license. Do I still need a medical to complete my sport pilot training? Or can I continue and get my sport pilots license just with my Class A CDL drivers license?
No FAA medical is required for a sport pilot - just a drivers license. However, if you have already applied for a medical you have to go through with that - there is a requirement that you have been found eligible and not had the medical suspended / revoked _IF_ you had applied for a medical. www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-61/subpart-J#p-61.303(b) If you have not applied for a medical then you should be good to go.
@@LightAndSportyGuy Thanks for your answer. I got sidetracked a few years ago and never completed my training. With the recent proposals in light sport I'm seriously looking to at least get a sport pilots license. But at 63 I would think it would be more difficult to get the medical required for a private pilots license even though I qualify for my Class A drivers license every year. I'm thinking if I can get my sports pilots license I could then continue for a private pilots license and if for some reason I can't get the medical I should still be able to fly sport pilot. Thanks for your help...
@@bartnash9084 Use caution. If you know you won't pass a 3rd class medical, don't attempt it. If you try and fail, you're done - you can't use the driver's license medical provision of sport pilot. Find out ahead of time from your regular doctor whether or not you would pass. You can't just revert to light sport if you fail a medical. You can only fly as a sport pilot if you have never failed a medical. Once you submit to an FAA medical and fail, you're done flying - whereas someone with the exact same medical condition who had never submitted to an FAA medical would be able to continue flying with sport pilot privileges. If you think you won't pass, don't risk it.
A sport pilot can command a 4 seat airplane, but can only fly one additional person. So, what good is that? Think baggage. Pilot & Partner with lots of baggage. You don't need to travel light, or use full tanks and you don't have to skimp on baggage. Planning on seeing extended family in 5 states? This avoids a lot of ground coordination that can go south. While weather is always a factor in keeping a schedule, carrying the stuff you will need on arrival is truly nice.
FAA explanation: In considering whether to expand this two-seat limitation, the FAA reviewed the privileges and limitations that apply to recreational pilots, which are contained in § 61.101, because a recreational pilot certificate is the next higher grade of pilot certificate and has very similar operating limitations to sport pilots. Currently, § 61.101(e)(1)(i) contains a general limitation that prohibits a recreational pilot from acting as PIC of an aircraft that is certificated for more than four occupants. The FAA adopted this requirement in 1989.48 In the final rule that adopted the four-seat limitation for recreational pilots, the FAA determined that limiting recreational pilots to two-seat aircraft was unnecessarily restrictive notwithstanding that a recreational pilot, like a sport pilot, is limited to carrying a single passenger.49 The FAA explained that the two-seat limitation was based on the premise that a recreational pilot certificate is intended for recreational purposes rather than transportation.50 However, there are many basic aircraft with seating capacities of four seats and these general aviation aircraft are often used for student training or recreational flying.51 At the time of the 1989 final rule, the FAA received overwhelming support for the four-seat occupancy limitation for recreational pilots.52 Since then the NTSB has only recorded 49 accidents with a recreational pilot acting as PIC and only six of those accidents involved a fatality over a 30-year period. Additionally, like recreational pilot certificates, the two-seat limitation for sport pilots is consistent with the premise that a sport pilot certificate is used for recreational purposes and not for carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. However, airplanes with seating capacities of four seats are often used for flight training and recreational flying while carrying only one passenger. etc...
It does a huge amount of good in that it opens up a vast swath of common aircraft to sport pilots and pilots utilizing driver's license medical. I don't own an airplane. There are very few LSA available to rent. So, without a medical, I can't currently fly. The new rules will open up the vast rental fleet to me and others like me. 172, Warrior, Archer, Musketeer, etc are widely available to rent. When I had a medical and was renting aircraft, I rarely had more than one other person with me. So, being able to rent a 172 again and bring one person with me is a big deal.
A great many affordable and easy to fly airplanes are 4-seat.More of them out there than cessna 150s and piper cubs. Not so many low cost 2-seat LSA that aren't taildraggers. C172 Cherokee 140 Cherokee 160 Warrior etc.
Why don't they just remove the 3rd class medical from PPL? The plane isn't the issue, it's making sure the pilot isn't gonna kick the bucket while flying tons of people around. Maybe add 3rd class medical for multiengine 1st class for professional pilots.
@@UncleKennysPlace They might. Seems silly given that would seem to be easier to bluff your way through a 5 minute office visit than an hour in the cockpit with an instructor. But, I ain't no insurance guy.
@@UncleKennysPlace I believe insurance will have a big issue with these changes. Already getting expensive adding more risk in the minds of the bean counters means they have higher chance of losing money. Insurance is like a casino the house always wins.
How about putting restriction on those that have had the ‘’vaccines and boosters’’ because they are becoming the most likely to become incapacitated now.😊
Now this is getting confusing because I feel like the AOPA video or Mojogrips video said clearly that light sport would be able to fly multi engine aircraft if it met the weight and stall speed requirements. Gonna have to watch all of these again 😂
Very confusing. Beyond confusing. The discussion says "the FAA proposes in § 61.316(h) that a person with a sport pilot certificate may only act as PIC for those powered aircraft (which could include multicopters) whereby the loss of partial power would not adversely affect the directional control of the aircraft." But in the proposed regulations, 61.316(H) does not exist. In the proposed 61.316(a) (7) it says "For powered aircraft other than balloons or airships, the loss of partial power would not adversely affect directional control of the aircraft and the aircraft design must allow the pilot the capability of establishing a controlled descent in the event of a partial or total powerplant failure." Which would suggest multi engine would be OK. However, In the proposed 61.313 it just says "(1) Airplane category and single engine land or sea class privileges," and further on 61.321(e) they talk about adding "single engine land or sea". But nowhere do I find anything about the requirements to obtain or add a multi-engine class to a sport pilot certificate. Does this mean that a Sport Pilot can somehow operate a multi engine aircraft with just a single engine class? Or is there a disconnect between the discussion and the actual proposal? I don't know. Probably worth commenting on the NPRM about this.
@@LightAndSportyGuy thanks for your reply! I will be doing this. Currently studying for my sport and didn’t know that I could voice an issue that others may share as well. Thanks.
Per the EAA, "The FAA will now review the thousands of comments it has received during the just-concluded public comment period. The agency is expected to issue a final rule sometime in 2024 or early 2025." www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publications/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/2024-01-22-mosaic-comments
What I don't understand is the night VFR they allow it with proper training because they say in winter months sport pilots without training might find themselves flying after dark. Then they throw in the need of a medical certificate, or basic medical. The only reason 99.9% people fly under sport pilot is because they don't want the hassle of a medical. If you have basic med why would anyone only geta Light sport doesn't make any sense to me. That same part at the end where it mentions "This controls" Have no clue what they mean by that. They just need to drop the medical completely or same light sport pilots will be flying at night without any training.
In the version that I downloaded it listed medical, basic med and driver’s license as described in 61.23c(3)… so normal sport pilot driver’s license rules apply
@@damienradford Proposed § 61.329(d) would also set forth certain medical requirements: the PIC must either hold a medical certificate issued under part 67, subpart D, Third-Class Airman Medical Certificate, or meet the requirements of § 61.23(c)(3) as long as the person holds a valid U.S. driver’s license. Additionally, the operation would be required to be conducted consistent with § 61.113(i). If there is any conflict between § 61.113(i) and proposed § 61.315(d)(4), then proposed. § 61.315(d)(4) would take precedence. According to what everyone is saying on Pilots of America forum they mention 61.113(i) means if you want to use a DL have to also meet basic medical which is 61.113(i)
@@damienradford 61.23c(3) is BasicMed. So, normal sport driver's license medical does NOT apply. In order to fly at night, you will need a 3rd class medical or BasicMed. Driver's license alone won't cut it.
Seems like there is a significant attempt to get the Bonanzas into this category (55mph stall).. yea, I'm rated in these, so I looked.. I would propose that a BSR be installed in all of these aircraft to get the non-medical rating.. I say this in concern for the general public that are being over flown .. and I would also go two passengers (that gives the controls over to those that can use them) non-trained (minimum of 5 h.). I say this in concern of safety.. but this needs to be done as there is an excess of GA aircraft that are just sitting around and an overall lack of interest in aircraft and aircraft improvements. I walked around Oshkosh yesterday and was discussed in the lack of improvement in the under 200k$ area, but marveled at all the old aircraft that probably would need new owners.. but at a more avoidable price. I listened to the story of Milenial cylinder replacements that revolutionized engine rebuilds 30 years ago, and cringed ar the prices that Continental was suggesting, and almost openly laughed at the stats, of there diesel engines, especially the three cylinder. For me it also was notable that Liuid Piston was absent, even though the claim a drone engine in development. There were a lot of parts dealers, but few newer engines that where affordable.. I liked the Jabiru engine display and an Alyson 250 turbine, as I am skeptic of freewheeling turbines, due to their power management requirements (something that would never be tolerated in helicopters) and I did not see any companies selling turbo normalization (I flew a V35TC, basicly turbo normalized).. Now.. I further more see the need for limited IFR for this to really take hold and revitalize the industry..
Does the third class medical “gotcha” still apply? That is, if you undergo a third class medical and you fail, you are barred from flying as a sport pilot?
Still applies. No change to 61.303 B 4 - Not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate (if the person has held a medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate withdrawn;
Yes, unfortunately, that ridiculous catch 22 still applies. Take two pilots with the identical medical condition. One submits to a 3rd class medical and fails. This person will never fly again. The other pilot never applies for an FAA medical and can fly with sport pilot privileges using the driver's license medical provision. This gotcha will never go away because powerful special interests don't want it to. The airline pilots union, the American Medical Association, aviation medical examiners, lawyers, insurance companies, and members of Congress that have been bought by these special interests always fight like hell against any medical changes.
That's nice, but I don't care about sport pilot certificates. MOSAIC was also supposed to create a category of certificated aircraft called "Light Personal Aircraft" that could be flown under Part 91 by a fully certificated pilot (PPL). This class was to have certification using industry standard consensus, instead of the current Part 23 rules, which treat a single piston Cessna/Cirrus the same as a twin turbofan jet. The current regs cause huge expense for new aircraft and STC on existing frames, and are the primary reason GA in the USA is dying. The Europeans and Chinese are eating our lunch here. I have not pulled the proposal. Anyone know about this?
Yes, the proposal significantly expands the limits of what can be certificated based on consensus standards - but does not change the designation from "Light Sport" to "Light Personal"...
@@LightAndSportyGuy There was an initial goal to create a category that would make smaller GA aircraft easier to certificate, to increase more competition and bring in new frames. An example is Pipstrel - Textron bought them and now says it'll be at least 2025 before Part 23 cert is ready. The goal of industry standards consensus was to knock that down significantly. But of course, that opens markets to competition. Ironically, Textron was probably one of the old guard that disappeared the effort. They use Part 23 as a huge barrier to entry in the USA. One of the reasons most planes sold today are still using 1960s designs.
@@FamilyManMoving This proposal does not go as far as a re-write of part 23 - but it does open things up quite a bit - for example, most 172s make it into the regulatory limits for stall speed / seats /etc. so a much wider range of aircraft could be designed under a consensus standard. But the whole thing falls short of a complete reform and somehow, I'm not surprised.
@@LightAndSportyGuy Thanks. I noticed the VS1 stall was set at the point where a number of 172/182 models won't make it, but some might. That is going to make the market for used planes more interesting. Some of the newer frames - like a Diamond DA40 - make it easy. So the DA40 is now available to a light sport pilot, but some 172s won't. Cirrus is nowhere near the limits. Neither are some new A/C like the Panthera. I keep using that as an example because it is totally new, proven and full of the types of tech and design the FAA claims they want...but won't streamline. I smell a lot of backroom lobbying. But that's just another Tuesday in Washington.
@@LightAndSportyGuy Re-reading my comments it sounds like I was sucking sour grapes. I need to say I am really, really pleased they did this. I had dinner with a tech guy last night, and he said all the nerds at his little company (Microsoft) were crazy interested in getting into aviation. The barriers to GA entry are high. The "juice" of an existing LSP cert is not worth the squeeze, and full GA is a lot of dedication. This new proposal makes it interesting. So yeah, I don't want to whine about good things. The more people we get into GA, the better for us all.
11:00 The reason why it the proposed 61.329(d) is written that way is because 61.113(i) is in the Private Pilot section of Part 61 and that paragraph talks about being able to fly aircraft up to 6,000 lbs MTOW and carry 5 passengers, which is well outside what Sport Pilots will be able to do under MOSAIC. I may be wrong, but I think that since the Basic Med regulation was passed by Congress, the FAA can't change the language of it through the normal rulemaking process, like they can with MOSAIC. That may be why they had to write 61.329(d) that way.
Also, regarding the simulator time, one thing that can be done with sims that can't be easily done in an actual airplane is run through certain emergency procedures all the way to the ground. You can do that in a sim and it doesn't break anything expensive. Adding that to the regs incentivizes using a sim in this way.
Thank you. That makes sense.
Chip away at the old law by getting small updates in different areas..Then go for the over all changes..
and you can better simulate realistic gyroscope failures and other instrument failures without a CFI reaching forward and announcing the failure by covering it up.
Thanks for your analysis, and posting the link.
Thank you for the comment.
I agree, too few UA-cam channels post any sources and references.
Twin centerline thrust is not a "loophole" because the spirit of the rule is to ward against a large asymmetric thrust upon an engine out. The only adverse force arising out of an engine out with a twin centerline setup would be P-factor -- thus being fine for a sport pilot
Good point. Thank you.
correct
So, this opens up exp STOL aircraft like the Zenith CH750 and CH750 Super Duty to be used at the designed max gross with larger engines and constant speed props. It's something at least. Not sure if any complex aircraft will meet the Vs1 requirements. Do vortex generators and slats (fixed) count as lift enhancing devices? The slats are fixed on a Zenith, but variable on other aircraft.
Yes, it opens up the range of aircraft that can be flown under the sport pilot rules quite a ways.
For things like fixed slats and vortex generators, I would think that they would not count as a "lift enhancing device" any more than a wing with an increased camber - but I don't have any official documentation to support that opinion. One gotcha could be that they would have to be there "since original certification" - you can't add VGs to lower the stall speed and then legitimately fly it under the SP rules. Automatic slats - I would not try to guess how the FAA sees those.
These are the planes I’m interested in more so the super duty. Hopefully I’ll be able to fly one. Prices still look decent so wondering if best to purchase before rules go in effect since I can always sell if not
@@Six6Fit Same here. The experimental space has changed a lot over the past 10 years. The Rans and Kitfox options are pretty decent; but a little more $ and I think the construction of the Zenith is way easier. The Zenith also makes some bold claims with their takeoff and obstacle clearance numbers. Living out west, it would be nice to be able get in to some back country spots with some camping gear in higher DA with some healthy safety margin. I think the insurance is also a bit cheaper with the nosewheel vs. conventional. I don't know how the nosewheel handles bumpy terrain though. Almost none of the demo videos out there seem to adequately address that concern. Dirt roads are a no-go if the gear can't handle them.
@@Brian_C_ yes I’m Interested in nose wheel as well and it’s capabilities for fly out camping.
The proposal is intended to bring light sport in line with European and brazillian rules for light sport aircraft.
1. Weight to 3000 lbs
2. Speed to 250 knots
3. Constant speed prop
4. Retractable gear
5. Four place aircraft
6. Turbines
7. Night flight
8. Helicopters
The shark
TL stream
Tarragon
TL sparker
JMB3 TURBINE AND 915
BRISTELL RG
THESE ALL EXCEED 170 KNOTS AND FUTURE AIRCRAFT WILL BE FASTER.
Thank you for that.
@@LightAndSportyGuylistening to the president of EAA, he states that he fully expects that the legislation as proposed will not be changed much from what is proposed because the FAA has spent years running these changes through the process and to remove one proposal would mean that that process was a waste of time. They may tweak, but not remove or change drastically from the initial proposal. The only people I suspect are angry are the private pilots who think everyone should get a medical like them and do away with sport altogether ( this was one of the suggestions in the comments to the NPRM). I think there will be overwhelming support for the new rules and general aviation will be better because of it. Just my opinion!
@@mauriceevans6546I’m a PP with a Class-2 med. I have an RV8 EAB and a certified Aerotrek A220 LSA.
My 1225# gross A220 will likely drop in value when C150’s, 172’s, Cherokee’s no longer require a Medical,
but I welcome any change that gets more people flying and I REALLY look forward to innovative new designs🚀
Rules for millionares
@freerangevegan1 I think they are also focused on the new drone vehicles that will be coming as well. The price of the new aircraft are going to be out of the roof.
I will be demonstrating that the 2700 lb 4-seat Tecnam P2006 Twin can be flown as a Light Sport category aircraft. This will be accomplished with a vortex generator (VG) kit (not a lift device). The current Vmc is between Vs1 and Vso but with VGs the Vmc is reduced to Vso or lower so aircraft will stall before an asymmetric event. Unfortunately its top speed is 145 kts, not the upper limit of 250 kts.
Be aware that the proposed regulations still contain the "since original certification" language.
keep in mind Vs1 and Vso speeds change with altitude as well. so make sure the condition applies at any altitude. But as stated, you may not be able to win with this approach regardless.
I've been trying to wrap my head around the maintenance changes, particularly the what the lsrm changes are besides a name change. I've read it several times and keep coming away with... well, not much.
I don't have anything to add on this part - I've looked at it some, but have not yet made sense of it all.
May be a help? ua-cam.com/video/GYvqGyp1sEM/v-deo.html
What i never understood is $3-5k more just get a PPL. Your a just a couple more inches away and 20 hours away from getting it all.
Assuming that a 3rd class medical is not an issue...
But, for many people getting that third class can be difficult, expensive, and time consuming.
Thanks for this rundown mate. I greatly appreciate what they're doing here, including the wording of the multi-engine section. Am I right in thinking that this rule allows for things like an ICE and electric combination in centreline arrangement? And perhaps any number of electric power units provided asymmetric thrust situations are excluded via automatic systems? Decent batteries are a fair way off. However, an electric motor and battery with 10 minutes of power is lighter than an ICE engine and cheaper to acquire and own. I like the idea of something with single engine economics yet centreline twin safety. And I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying that Sport/GA needs better safety and economics in order to survive or thrive.
Everything I have seen in the proposal for Sport Pilot Certificates still say single engine - so I don't know how an actual sport pilot could fly a multi engine combination. But the rules do appear to let a mult rated pilot fly a centerline arrangement. Might be worth commenting on this one. They do talk about automatic systems to mitgate the effects of asymmetric failures - but those seem to be in reference to multicopters and aircraft with simplified control systems. There may be some other references, but to be perfectly honest, at times my eyes glazed over as I tried to plow through the proposal. :-)
I have been wanting a flying e-bike since the MASK cartoon was a thing.
Make that 10 minutes flight-time a 15-minute flight-time.
With carbon fiber approaching the cost of fiberglass, being just as easy if not easier to work with, it's time.
Jaaaa you are so humble … we love your videos and your super studio we don’t care … very interesting video
Thank you!
When the FAA raises Part 103 to #500 ... and total fuel to 10gal.... 👏👏👏🤗👍👍👍 .. I can finish my over weight, over powered Super Eagle XL.
What about the proposed eliminating of the 51% rule???
This proposal does expand the range of "Light Sport Aircraft" and would allow for more capable aircraft to be built as E-LSA kits - where the 51% rule does not apply. But there is nothing in it to change the current rules for experimental amateur built aircraft. I was not personally aware that there was a proposal to eliminate the so called 51% rule.
@LightAndSportyGuy I heard this in several places but trying to dig deeper hasn't turned up anything.
If the 51% rule was eliminated or altered, airframe kits could be built more economically and reliably in the factories and shipped like ARF RC planes....
Quality checks in the factory would far surpass home builders resulting in more true airframes as well.
You'd still have to assemble the kit, wire it, install an engine and avionics but it would certainly open doors for delivering better products to the kit market improving safety and success rates for completion
Ok so I have a question. I have a CDL license which requires medical card in order to operate trucks which are more dangerous to operate than airplanes in my opinion. This medical card isn’t just a basic medical. Anyway basic medical is pretty much the same thing as the FAA 3rd class medical from what I was explained. There’s no difference there. Now I have the CDL medical card, but FAA is giving me difficulty with obtaining 2nd class medical. Makes absolutely no sense to me how am I ok to operate dangerous 18 wheelers, but not being able to do my private pilot license? I haven’t been denied the FAA medical yet, but the process is extending since February and I have a strong feeling that I will be denied. If I get denied, I guess I’ll just have to do LSA certification just so I could fly anything. Like what can I do to be able to obtain at least 3rd class medical if I get denied?
I'm sorry to hear about your problems. And, yea, makes no sense that you could drive a truck but the FAA doesn't believe that you could operate a Cessna 172. Unfortunately, it seems tends to be all too common and can take months and sometimes requests for multiple tests that doctors don't seem to see as necessary. I really have no advice on how to move forward through the process, but I will point out that the Sport Pilot rules require that you "Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent application (if the person has applied for a medical certificate); " So, bad news there as well.
About all you can do at this point is keep pushing to get the third class. Sorry.
Unfortunately, you can't simply revert to sport pilot if you get denied an FAA medical. If you submit to an FAA medical and get denied, you can't use the driver's license medical provision of sport pilot. You are done flying unless and until you can pass a 3rd class or get a special issuance. If you had simply not attempted to get a 3rd class, you'd be fine. You'd be able to fly with sport pilot privileges. It's unfortunate that this isn't explained better. I'm sorry to say, it looks like it's already too late for you.
My only fear is that the LSA industry folks will oppose these rules because they have been bucking physics all these years to produce an expensive product that meets the 1320 lb GW limit and they will now lose their captive customer base. Hopefully I'm wrong because they would then be able to design and produce much more capable aircraft without that yoke around their necks.
Some may object, but I suspect that some others may see an expanded market. Certainly, the overseas manufactures that are already making aircraft outside the current LSA limits would be happy with this. And, some domestic manufacturers (e.g. SeaRey) are likely to up the gross weight up to the same limit as their E-AB versions. But, that's my opinion. Thanks for chiming in.
The Brazilian aircraft maker of the montaer just announced a four place light sport with 200 hp lycoming with 1100 range. They are all chopping at the bit for the new regs to become law. This is what they have been advocating for the last 10yrs with aopa and eaa. It is hreat change and as a sport, i am excited about the new types of aircraft coming
I see lots of 912 turbos in the near future.
@joellong438 the shark aircraft already uses the edge performance engine.
EDGEPERFORMANCE EP912STi - Redundancy Features / EdgePerformance As Thomas Hauklien
ua-cam.com/video/fLuXDW5kcK4/v-deo.html
This will be a windfall for light sport. The current LSA's can go back and re-certify the ones they have now to a higher gross weight. Likely some of these aircraft flying under 1320 were under rated on purpose. There should be number of the current LSA's go up for sale at good prices those will have to maintain their 1320 max gross as the wealthier folks go out and buy brand new Cessna 182s. Us poor folks can buy their old light sport planes. I'm sure there are some out there who have the money to buy what they want but can't pass a medical.
So my questions is, I have about 12 hours of flight instruction but at this time I don't see myself finishing to get my private pilots license. Do I still need a medical to complete my sport pilot training? Or can I continue and get my sport pilots license just with my Class A CDL drivers license?
No FAA medical is required for a sport pilot - just a drivers license. However, if you have already applied for a medical you have to go through with that - there is a requirement that you have been found eligible and not had the medical suspended / revoked _IF_ you had applied for a medical.
www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-61/subpart-J#p-61.303(b)
If you have not applied for a medical then you should be good to go.
@@LightAndSportyGuy Thanks for your answer. I got sidetracked a few years ago and never completed my training. With the recent proposals in light sport I'm seriously looking to at least get a sport pilots license. But at 63 I would think it would be more difficult to get the medical required for a private pilots license even though I qualify for my Class A drivers license every year. I'm thinking if I can get my sports pilots license I could then continue for a private pilots license and if for some reason I can't get the medical I should still be able to fly sport pilot. Thanks for your help...
@@bartnash9084 Use caution. If you know you won't pass a 3rd class medical, don't attempt it. If you try and fail, you're done - you can't use the driver's license medical provision of sport pilot. Find out ahead of time from your regular doctor whether or not you would pass. You can't just revert to light sport if you fail a medical. You can only fly as a sport pilot if you have never failed a medical. Once you submit to an FAA medical and fail, you're done flying - whereas someone with the exact same medical condition who had never submitted to an FAA medical would be able to continue flying with sport pilot privileges. If you think you won't pass, don't risk it.
A sport pilot can command a 4 seat airplane, but can only fly one additional person. So, what good is that? Think baggage. Pilot & Partner with lots of baggage. You don't need to travel light, or use full tanks and you don't have to skimp on baggage. Planning on seeing extended family in 5 states? This avoids a lot of ground coordination that can go south. While weather is always a factor in keeping a schedule, carrying the stuff you will need on arrival is truly nice.
FAA explanation:
In considering whether to expand this
two-seat limitation, the FAA reviewed
the privileges and limitations that apply
to recreational pilots, which are
contained in § 61.101, because a
recreational pilot certificate is the next
higher grade of pilot certificate and has
very similar operating limitations to
sport pilots. Currently, § 61.101(e)(1)(i)
contains a general limitation that
prohibits a recreational pilot from acting
as PIC of an aircraft that is certificated
for more than four occupants. The FAA
adopted this requirement in 1989.48 In
the final rule that adopted the four-seat
limitation for recreational pilots, the
FAA determined that limiting
recreational pilots to two-seat aircraft
was unnecessarily restrictive
notwithstanding that a recreational
pilot, like a sport pilot, is limited to
carrying a single passenger.49 The FAA
explained that the two-seat limitation
was based on the premise that a
recreational pilot certificate is intended
for recreational purposes rather than
transportation.50 However, there are
many basic aircraft with seating
capacities of four seats and these general
aviation aircraft are often used for
student training or recreational flying.51
At the time of the 1989 final rule, the
FAA received overwhelming support for
the four-seat occupancy limitation for
recreational pilots.52 Since then the
NTSB has only recorded 49 accidents
with a recreational pilot acting as PIC
and only six of those accidents involved
a fatality over a 30-year period.
Additionally, like recreational pilot
certificates, the two-seat limitation for
sport pilots is consistent with the
premise that a sport pilot certificate is
used for recreational purposes and not
for carrying persons or property for
compensation or hire. However,
airplanes with seating capacities of four
seats are often used for flight training
and recreational flying while carrying
only one passenger.
etc...
It does a huge amount of good in that it opens up a vast swath of common aircraft to sport pilots and pilots utilizing driver's license medical. I don't own an airplane. There are very few LSA available to rent. So, without a medical, I can't currently fly. The new rules will open up the vast rental fleet to me and others like me. 172, Warrior, Archer, Musketeer, etc are widely available to rent. When I had a medical and was renting aircraft, I rarely had more than one other person with me. So, being able to rent a 172 again and bring one person with me is a big deal.
A great many affordable and easy to fly airplanes are 4-seat.More of them out there than cessna 150s and piper cubs. Not so many low cost 2-seat LSA that aren't taildraggers.
C172
Cherokee 140
Cherokee 160
Warrior
etc.
Why don't they just remove the 3rd class medical from PPL? The plane isn't the issue, it's making sure the pilot isn't gonna kick the bucket while flying tons of people around. Maybe add 3rd class medical for multiengine 1st class for professional pilots.
I assume you read my mind. 🙂
Gonna guess that insurance companies may require it for some aircraft; they already make some pilots get a 3rd every single year.
@@UncleKennysPlace They might. Seems silly given that would seem to be easier to bluff your way through a 5 minute office visit than an hour in the cockpit with an instructor. But, I ain't no insurance guy.
@@UncleKennysPlace I believe insurance will have a big issue with these changes. Already getting expensive adding more risk in the minds of the bean counters means they have higher chance of losing money. Insurance is like a casino the house always wins.
How about putting restriction on those that have had the ‘’vaccines and boosters’’ because they are becoming the most likely to become incapacitated now.😊
Now this is getting confusing because I feel like the AOPA video or Mojogrips video said clearly that light sport would be able to fly multi engine aircraft if it met the weight and stall speed requirements. Gonna have to watch all of these again 😂
Very confusing. Beyond confusing. The discussion says "the FAA proposes in § 61.316(h) that a person with a sport pilot certificate may only act as PIC for those powered aircraft (which could include multicopters) whereby the loss of partial power would not adversely affect the directional control of the aircraft."
But in the proposed regulations, 61.316(H) does not exist.
In the proposed 61.316(a) (7) it says "For powered aircraft other than balloons or airships, the loss of partial power would not adversely affect directional control of the aircraft and the aircraft design must allow the pilot the capability of establishing a controlled descent in the event of a partial or total powerplant failure." Which would suggest multi engine would be OK. However, In the proposed 61.313 it just says "(1) Airplane category and single engine land or sea class privileges," and further on 61.321(e) they talk about adding "single engine land or sea". But nowhere do I find anything about the requirements to obtain or add a multi-engine class to a sport pilot certificate.
Does this mean that a Sport Pilot can somehow operate a multi engine aircraft with just a single engine class? Or is there a disconnect between the discussion and the actual proposal? I don't know.
Probably worth commenting on the NPRM about this.
@@LightAndSportyGuy thanks for your reply! I will be doing this. Currently studying for my sport and didn’t know that I could voice an issue that others may share as well. Thanks.
@@Six6Fit Yup. Just click on the link in the description and type away. :-)
When is Mosaic supposed to be final?
Per the EAA, "The FAA will now review the thousands of comments it has received during the just-concluded public comment period. The agency is expected to issue a final rule sometime in 2024 or early 2025."
www.eaa.org/eaa/news-and-publications/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/2024-01-22-mosaic-comments
What I don't understand is the night VFR they allow it with proper training because they say in winter months sport pilots without training might find themselves flying after dark. Then they throw in the need of a medical certificate, or basic medical. The only reason 99.9% people fly under sport pilot is because they don't want the hassle of a medical. If you have basic med why would anyone only geta Light sport doesn't make any sense to me. That same part at the end where it mentions "This controls" Have no clue what they mean by that. They just need to drop the medical completely or same light sport pilots will be flying at night without any training.
In the version that I downloaded it listed medical, basic med and driver’s license as described in 61.23c(3)… so normal sport pilot driver’s license rules apply
@@damienradford Proposed § 61.329(d) would
also set forth certain medical
requirements: the PIC must either hold
a medical certificate issued under part
67, subpart D, Third-Class Airman
Medical Certificate, or meet the
requirements of § 61.23(c)(3) as long as
the person holds a valid U.S. driver’s
license. Additionally, the operation
would be required to be conducted
consistent with § 61.113(i). If there is
any conflict between § 61.113(i) and
proposed § 61.315(d)(4), then proposed.
§ 61.315(d)(4) would take precedence.
According to what everyone is saying on Pilots of America forum they mention 61.113(i) means if you want to use a DL have to also meet basic medical which is 61.113(i)
@@damienradford 61.23c(3) is BasicMed. So, normal sport driver's license medical does NOT apply. In order to fly at night, you will need a 3rd class medical or BasicMed. Driver's license alone won't cut it.
Seems like there is a significant attempt to get the Bonanzas into this category (55mph stall).. yea, I'm rated in these, so I looked.. I would propose that a BSR be installed in all of these aircraft to get the non-medical rating.. I say this in concern for the general public that are being over flown .. and I would also go two passengers (that gives the controls over to those that can use them) non-trained (minimum of 5 h.). I say this in concern of safety.. but this needs to be done as there is an excess of GA aircraft that are just sitting around and an overall lack of interest in aircraft and aircraft improvements. I walked around Oshkosh yesterday and was discussed in the lack of improvement in the under 200k$ area, but marveled at all the old aircraft that probably would need new owners.. but at a more avoidable price. I listened to the story of Milenial cylinder replacements that revolutionized engine rebuilds 30 years ago, and cringed ar the prices that Continental was suggesting, and almost openly laughed at the stats, of there diesel engines, especially the three cylinder. For me it also was notable that Liuid Piston was absent, even though the claim a drone engine in development. There were a lot of parts dealers, but few newer engines that where affordable.. I liked the Jabiru engine display and an Alyson 250 turbine, as I am skeptic of freewheeling turbines, due to their power management requirements (something that would never be tolerated in helicopters) and I did not see any companies selling turbo normalization (I flew a V35TC, basicly turbo normalized).. Now.. I further more see the need for limited IFR for this to really take hold and revitalize the industry..
Does the third class medical “gotcha” still apply? That is, if you undergo a third class medical and you fail, you are barred from flying as a sport pilot?
Still applies. No change to 61.303 B 4 - Not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate (if the person has held a medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate withdrawn;
Yes, unfortunately, that ridiculous catch 22 still applies. Take two pilots with the identical medical condition. One submits to a 3rd class medical and fails. This person will never fly again. The other pilot never applies for an FAA medical and can fly with sport pilot privileges using the driver's license medical provision. This gotcha will never go away because powerful special interests don't want it to. The airline pilots union, the American Medical Association, aviation medical examiners, lawyers, insurance companies, and members of Congress that have been bought by these special interests always fight like hell against any medical changes.
That's nice, but I don't care about sport pilot certificates. MOSAIC was also supposed to create a category of certificated aircraft called "Light Personal Aircraft" that could be flown under Part 91 by a fully certificated pilot (PPL). This class was to have certification using industry standard consensus, instead of the current Part 23 rules, which treat a single piston Cessna/Cirrus the same as a twin turbofan jet. The current regs cause huge expense for new aircraft and STC on existing frames, and are the primary reason GA in the USA is dying. The Europeans and Chinese are eating our lunch here.
I have not pulled the proposal. Anyone know about this?
Yes, the proposal significantly expands the limits of what can be certificated based on consensus standards - but does not change the designation from "Light Sport" to "Light Personal"...
@@LightAndSportyGuy There was an initial goal to create a category that would make smaller GA aircraft easier to certificate, to increase more competition and bring in new frames. An example is Pipstrel - Textron bought them and now says it'll be at least 2025 before Part 23 cert is ready. The goal of industry standards consensus was to knock that down significantly.
But of course, that opens markets to competition. Ironically, Textron was probably one of the old guard that disappeared the effort. They use Part 23 as a huge barrier to entry in the USA. One of the reasons most planes sold today are still using 1960s designs.
@@FamilyManMoving This proposal does not go as far as a re-write of part 23 - but it does open things up quite a bit - for example, most 172s make it into the regulatory limits for stall speed / seats /etc. so a much wider range of aircraft could be designed under a consensus standard. But the whole thing falls short of a complete reform and somehow, I'm not surprised.
@@LightAndSportyGuy Thanks. I noticed the VS1 stall was set at the point where a number of 172/182 models won't make it, but some might. That is going to make the market for used planes more interesting.
Some of the newer frames - like a Diamond DA40 - make it easy. So the DA40 is now available to a light sport pilot, but some 172s won't.
Cirrus is nowhere near the limits. Neither are some new A/C like the Panthera. I keep using that as an example because it is totally new, proven and full of the types of tech and design the FAA claims they want...but won't streamline.
I smell a lot of backroom lobbying. But that's just another Tuesday in Washington.
@@LightAndSportyGuy Re-reading my comments it sounds like I was sucking sour grapes. I need to say I am really, really pleased they did this. I had dinner with a tech guy last night, and he said all the nerds at his little company (Microsoft) were crazy interested in getting into aviation.
The barriers to GA entry are high. The "juice" of an existing LSP cert is not worth the squeeze, and full GA is a lot of dedication. This new proposal makes it interesting.
So yeah, I don't want to whine about good things. The more people we get into GA, the better for us all.
Skymaster 1964 fixed gear
2:38 doesn't matter, irrelevant.