One issue that I haven't seen discussed much is the pathway from SPL -> PPL. The current rules make ZERO sense. You should just need a medical, night flight endorsement and a checkride if you're already an SPL holder.
@@JoeCnNd That will never happen due to opposition from powerful special interests. BasicMed was originally supposed to give us driver's license medical in lieu of 3rd class. The airline pilot's union and aviation medical examiners came out strong against it. Trial lawyers and the insurance industry also strongly oppose changes to medical certification.
Thank you very much and this directly impacts me as a student pilot pursuing a Sport Pilot certificate. I was so hindered by Light Sport plane availability in my state and surrounding states.
Why not just get rid of the class 3 medical for PPL and just call it a day? Add class 3 for instrument/multi engine add Class 1 for anything making money. I appreciate the changes but we don't need to reinvent the wheel
@@masterthee Could you let your medical expire and then fly sport with just a drivers license? Or do they start the process you're stuck until they say yah or no?
I'm 54. My closest LSA school is 3.5 hrs one way. With these new "rules" there is going to be a game chance. Now I can finish my training in a 172, and the closest GA training school is just 20 minutes away. I don't see myself doing any night or IFR flights, but it is good to have some hours in case. It is better to be safe than sorry.
Exactly. I'm 49 and in the same position. There are no LSA flight schools anywhere near me. I'd need to relocate to train. This is a real game changer for me.
Cannot agree more! I’m 100% with you. I’m 45 and no LSA training anywhere near. I don’t want to fly at night or IFR. I just want to fly in perfect weather and enjoy it.
@@mattfields2033 I'd guess that most PPL's are the same. You could get your PPL and do the same thing, no one is forcing you to fly at night or IFR. Can't fly IFR without and IFR rating anyway.
Having been a CFI since the '70s, and an airline pilot since the mid '80s and this is the best news I have heard from the Feds... They developed an image of the bad guys, and the Mosaic plan has the opportunity to change that perception if it's executed properly. Well done, EAA!
MOSIAC (modernization of special airworthiness certification) I’m hoping the changes will make it easier to operate and maintain vintage aircraft and keep them from dying on the vine.
@@wareairaviationservicesllc4933 I think the feds and producers of LSA would just as well it died on the vine. Those of us as vintage enthusiasts failed to ensure vintage type certificates were modernized.
@@Lt_Tragg and yet there is a Vintage division IN EAA and they didn't fight for us. I reached out directly for the past two years and they never responded Vintage EAA should have fought for us too
@@wareairaviationservicesllc4933 wow. No kidding! I intend to reach out to one of the directors at MAAC I know personally and see what he says or their excuse.
i can't wait for MOSAIC... i just got my sport checkride and the fact i can now use a 4 place plane (when it comes online) is a game changer, im contemplating not "upgrading" to a full private now and just holding off for sure... the only thing i wish is that they would allow one more pax and that way i can take my missus and my kid and not have to pick between the two :D cus you know we all know how that one works lol
Great conversation, I may be too old to take advantage of any of this but I sure enjoy hearing that younger generations have great things to look forward to.
Bring the cost of airplanes down?, never happen. When LSA was first proposed, manufacturer's claimed you'll be able to buy a brand new LSA for around 40 grand instead of an old 40 year old airplane. When LSA finally passed, LSA prices started at about double that and continued to climb. Today, you have many LSA's in the 250-400 grand range, sure, you have a few cheaper ones, but they lack the options that most buyers wanted and demanded. Now, your talking more robust airframe, more safety features etc., that is only going to drive prices up. Don't bullshit people with lower cost, didn't happen then, won't happen now and they know it.
I wonder what they consider "affordable" Cessna 172's new are around 500k, vans RV's can be around 300K, My Zenith I am building right now is at about 100K, the avionics and engine are the single biggest cost.
Best news out of the FAA since Basic Med. I would like to see aircraft manufacturers focus on Basic Med compatible aircraft and less on the current LSA. This may end up being a good compromise. I would really like to see a kit or manufactured aircraft capable of carrying 6 FULL SIZED adults + full fuel + cargo. Seeing as a PA-28-235 (which I currently fly) has a useful load of 1400 lbs and max gross of 2900 lbs, I think a 6 pax aircraft with 2800 useful load and gross weight under 6000 lbs should be feasible.
Great Presentation.. *Please Please guys,* have something forward as a suggestion in support of MOSIAC, without having to read all 300 pages of it. I'm on page 80, and there needs to be a concise and well planned response to the Feds during the NPRM period.
1. Weight from 1320lbs to 3000lbs 2. Speed from 120knots to 250knots 3. Retractable gear 4. Constant speed prop 5. Turbine engines 6. 45 knots to 54knots 7. Night flight 8. Helicopters 9. Air work for hire
@mikeryan6277 the proposal states 3000lbs. It may vary, but that is the number, although not set in stone, the faa suggest the weight may be with a 54 knot stall speed. Just like there are very few aircraft that can get up to 250knots with a 54 knots stall speed.
I agree that we want to have comments that are more or less unified. However, individual comments are important. As someone who wrote, interpreted and enforced regs for 12 years there are two very important things to keep in mind: 1) While the FAA will be under no obligation to agree with the commenters or incorporate changes based on those comments, very large numbers (tens of thousand s or better yet hundreds of thousands) of similar comments suggesting similar revisions to the proposed rule will make it much harder for the FAA to ignore those comments. 2) Copy and paste comments don’t carry nearly as much weight as individually written comments. Yea, comments by aviation organizations are important, but so are large numbers of comments from pilots and aircraft owners making well reasoned arguments about what a change makes sense are vital to show broad support and consensus for a change. Please take the time to submit comments in your own words, and to give specific examples.
@@ulbuilder ok -- works wonderfully for students practicing stall recoveries and those doing deep stall phase I testing (that both EAA and Vans specifies to be done at altitudes in excess of 3000 and 5000 ft AGL)
Excellent episode Dan and Christy. MOSAIC is really intriguing. It would be great to have access to newer, more advanced aircraft for training, all with a lower cost. Thank you for having these two gentlemen on to really break down the proposed rule and how it will affect us. Keep up the excellent work. Safe skies my friends 🇺🇸🛩️
The MOSAIC proposed changes open up the topic of aircraft insurance coverage for some of the higher performance aircraft being flown by a sport pilot. That insurance coverage may need to increase rental rates, not decrease them.
I am an ATP rated pilot, but I'm excited to see how this translates to opening up the market for more obtainable modern aircraft. I'd love to have a quick efficient light plane that I could zip around in.
Could you please dedicate a video to discussing the FAA's latest medical views on diabetes, color vision and medication stances as well as any changes to medical classes and standards and what impact MOSAIC will have on them?
The purpose of the new rule was to help facilitate the transition of aircraft from Europe and Brazil, who just changed their sport rules. This proposal puts Europe in the dark ages in terms of microliites and light sport rules.
This will be great. There are three big problems that are critical to the future survival of light GA that are not being addressed: 1.the available pool of legacy aircraft are being destroyed at a rate of 10 to 20 per month. 2. The cost of fuel is increasingly prohibited every year 3. Insurance and financing costs have increased dramatically, if you can get it . What are the aviation organizations doing to address this Also- as you mentioned - impossible to get an a and p or IA
Here UK we need this. My Tomahawk and other light aircraft subject to annual C o A. Cost equivalent is $4000 up. C of A used to be every 3 years. These yearly costs are killing flight training.
We need 61kt stall makes a safer aircraft in wind and we need 14,000 feet msl and more altitude above a mountain. I fly my c150 with o320 at 12500/13500 or up to 14000 ifr.
As aLSA pilot i feel a rule should be made that allows a Sports Pilot to fly with a max of 3 Plus 1 persons ( the pilot). I proposed that after initial training a SP could fly with 1 passengers, after 100 hour he/ she can fly with 2 passengers up to 3 passengers.
4:40 in and you still haven’t explained MOSIAC. Always start your interview with a definition of what it is then go into your explanations and caveats . This is a rookie interview.
Great conversation guys 182’s and bonanza aircraft are gas guzzlers. I’m more interested in the more efficient vans and other bp equipped aircraft like risen etc. Problem is they are a bit faster and stall a bit faster. I’d like to see the stall speed changed to include all available wing configurations / flaps.
let us not forget that we are "not there yet". The FAA has a history of screwing things up that were "elegant in there simplicity". Yes, I'm talking about Basic Med. Even though it has helped many people, it falls light years short of the game changer it was intended to be. This time lets get it right.
So as an enthusiast, my target is sport pilot certification. If I had gotten the cert, I would not be able to fly too many aircraft. With this, if the planets align and I win the lottery, I could get my cert and rent a 172 to fly to DC to visit family. Until then, it will always be a dream.❤
I don’t think it does effect you unless in the future you want to fly as a spot pilot under relaxed medical requirements associated with your drivers license vs Class III or Basic med.
@@farmdwg no, the opposite, it will raise costs for everybody. In theory, it will increase the cost because the shadow inventory of driver license holders who currently only are interested in flying because of the performance of a 4 seater spam can AND NOT the glorified kites of current LSA, will now in theory enter the market and compete for access to the spam cans. Whereas their inability to attain a class III medical kept them out of the market for said spam cans before. My opinion is that the claim is exaggerated in the first place. Meaning, the degree to which there is some insane shadow inventory of people who can't hold a class III or (basicMed by class-III expiration proxy) waiting to enter the existing non-LSA market, is simply not true. There is zero mechanism under which spam cans become cheaper to acquire as a result of mosaic. The mechanisms would only be economy driven, but none of it would have to do with relaxation of LSA rules. Only the LSAs nobody wanted to fly in the first place will lower in price as a result of the expansion of the LSA category. But that is what we call a MOOT point.
Most happy with this development. Now just wish the altitude rule just lined up with PP VFR rules, even if on an endorsement basis. In the mountain west it makes cross country easier certain times of the year. The thermal induced turbulence is just too much in a Skylane, imaging flying something half the weight. Adding a couple thousand feet can make a difference.
Crazy. I own @ 2007. Jabiru. I can do the annual on it . Work on it.. it’s got a full glass panel auto pilot Hence it’s complex…. But my 1947. Luscombe I can’t do the annual on it …. It can be flown in the light sport category.. it doesn’t have a radio. Not required. It’s a much simpler than my jab ….
There seems to be confusion on the stall speed limit. Is it Vso or Vsi? I've seen summaries that identified Vsi. It makes a big difference, but an puzzled at shy Vsi, when Vso seems more logical.
Dumb question but as a private pilot should I also be getting excited about MOSAIC? Will it have a broader impact beyond expanding the airplanes that sport pilots can fly? Edit: okay lol right as I submitted the comment at 24:00 he mentions benefits for private pilots in terms of bringing airplane costs down but not clear how/why? If anything I’d expect it to further increase the price of “legacy” aircraft like 172s/182s and for new planes … well new planes will always be expensive and if now LSAs can be more capable than I’d expect the increased capabilities to come at an increased cost.
The only way this makes GA more affordable is if experimental manufacturers ramp up production to these new limitations and lower their prices. Otherwise, this only massively increases the demand side of the equation and leaves supply where it is at. Also, I really don’t understand the draw of a sport pilot certificate (other than being slightly cheaper than a PPL, but you’re flying anyway, so not sure I see a downside there). Not intended as a criticism, I really do not understand. With basic med available for PPL, and with a sport pilot certificate probably being nearly just as hard and expensive as a PPL, why even get one? And now, it seems that in general flying as a sport pilot will be nearly indistinguishable from flying as a ppl with basic med. Maybe I am missing something?
7:30 thats sucks. From what i read they were including that just with training. If someone needs to get their medical theyre just gonna go for their private. The aopa worded it youd just need to get endorsement, which i figured was just to make sure current sport pilots dont just think they can fly at night without being trained.
So, you own a cessna 172, certified aircraft, you can now fly over 10,000 ft. If this passes the same 172 is considered light sport and will then be limited to flights only under 10,000 ft? Or will it be able to be flown over 10,000ft so long as the pilot still has a minimum private license with 3rd class or Basic Med.?
Why a 10,000 ft limit? As a light sport pilot I’m required to fly VFR. As a VFR pilot, I’m supposed to fly even thousands plus 500 on a westerly heading. So my westerly altitude limit is effectively 8,500. Dumb. This makes cross country through the mountain states dangerous.
Why 54 knots I'm wondering? Just make it like an even 60 clean? How about after so many hours more pax allowed? Why not fly night & ifr on a sport pilot with proper training & rating. It might be a good saftey factor if you run inadvertantly into imc or get stuck on top. whats the difference if you have a medical or not? So they can say see told you! like no pilots with a medical never have had a medical issue! And then they'll be able to find your wreck easier in nice weather in the daytime? Lol
Would a holder of a Private Pilots license certificate be able to operate a light sport aircraft without the light sport pilot restrictions? These are areas of confusion I've heard about.
Your restriction would be your pilot certificate. If you have a four seater LSA, and fly with a sport pilot certificate, then you could take only one passenger. If you fly that same 4-seater LSA with a PPL, you can fly with 3 other passengers.
I am a complete newcomer to aviation. I have a simple question that maybe the new mosaic changes will address. Can I build my own aircraft, like a KR2S, and put digital displays in it and use it for IFR flight training?
So... If I have an LSA now - I can jump in a 182 (with fixed prop and gear) and carry 41 person with only 20 hrs training... This washes out the need for PPL (I understand there will be "add ons" such as night, complex, etc.). I think this will make a fantastic justification of the the parachute option on the Cirrus "standard issue" for all LSA. (average hours for PPL is 70 hours training and
No-- it means if a 182 qualified as a Light sport, you could fly it, but you'd still have the restrictions of your Sport Certificate-- you might have 4 seats, but you can only have two people aboard.
@@carygrant8796 Then why put a unrealistic number out there? Ditto goes for PPL claiming "only 40 hrs" (where as people take on AVERAGE 70. That would be like me telling you I can build you a house in 1 year and taking 2 years (and charging you double of what I quoted).
@@TakingOff I guess we will have to wait for the ink to dry on this proposal. (typo above, 182 might be a bit tight carrying 41 people - meant 1 person).
I have always wanted to get my license and looked into LSA but was told I am too large to fly those small aircraft. I cant afford a private pilot nor can I get a medical certificate because of my color blindness but I can get an LSA. This new rule would allow me to use a bigger LSA class aircraft that I can fit in and get flight training.
Will a person holding a Repairman Light Sport Aircraft Certificate be able to do a condition inspection on an EAB aircraft that meets the qualifications for a light sport airplane?
categorically no. Only if it's an E-LSA that was certified at build completion as E-LSA and not EAB (common case is the RV-12, where you could go either way). An airplane that was given an AW certificate under EAB cannot be inspected by an LSA repairman holder, even under expanded performance rules for LSA. Remember, all the rule change is addressing who can operate what performance bracket. The maintenance piece for factory built (commonly referred to as certified spam cans) or EAB airplanes does not change.
Pilots *will* want to make public comments on this rule. The 54 knot maximum Vs1 flaps up speed is a bit arbitrary. For example, the semi tapered wing PA-28s like the PA-28-151 (50 kts) and PA-28-181 (51 kt Vs1) will qualify, while the PA-28-140 (Vs1 of 56 kts) will not. Similarly the Cessna 182 will qualify (Vs1 of 54 kts) but the essentially similar and if anything easier to fly PA-28-235 will not (Vs1 of 56kts).
Well folks, it's been 2 weeks since this segment aired. EAA has had multiple opportunities to engage its members on subjects concerning MOSAIC, but what we're seeing is a silencing behavior as evidenced from this episode of Taking Off. EAA does NOT want the public communicating concerns to the FAA, and they do NOT want general discussions which would bring concerns to light and possibly compromise MOSAIC from moving forward. But why? Is this how you advocate on behalf of your members? Is this what building support looks like? Trust us? This bill needs to be SLAMMED through... but why? Why is it so risky to discuss and debate this with members in the next 90 days? Why is EAA collecting input into a black hole instead of sending that input to the FAA directly? Surely the FAA can interpret misunderstandings and clarify the MOSAIC pitch... if EAA won't. Unless there are real risks built into MOSAIC they don't want to be discussed publicly? This is wrong. This is not advocacy or representation, and we ought to seriously ask EAA why they're trying to gaslight everyone into keeping hush hush about mosaic for 90 days until we publicize our questions and debate the possible negative outcomes that could take over. I think playing devils advocate in a public setting isn't the worst thing in the world. Tell me about the risks you're so afraid of coming to light. Tell me what you think might stall this legislation. I have a few thoughts as to what those might be. But why are we trying to cover them up? People are going to really be reeling if this plays out in the wrong way. EAA will have to answer to everything negative that could come from MOSAIC, however little or however large the outcomes might be. These might be apparent immediately, or some of these issues might materialize over the next decade or two. What's the elephant in the room here? That EAA plans on "fixing" the gaps as a follow-up bill once it poses a public threat? Perfect is the enemy of good enough, so slam it through? Lack of transparency and discussion is pretty amazing. I'd like to see EAA scheduling weekly webinars to discuss and debate the concerns during this comment period to get things right. Until now, the biggest change to aviation seems to have been designed behind closed doors with a select few vendors and titles? That's not how these changes should work. What they're doing is that they're collecting all of the members thoughts and comments in a black hole, sitting on those comments, and then trying to wisk MOSAIC through without debate. I'm sure glad EAA knows everything. Are they trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the FAA, or pull the wool over the eyes of the EAA members? The question is... who do they think poses the most risk? Something sounds like it's going to get a lot more expensive. I don't see any path to reducing the cost of flying in this bill, unless it includes buying a new quarter million dollar LSA from one of these vendors. Unfortunately, I'm still lacking any understanding of how MOSAIC will impact GA "most significant impact to GA in decades" as stated in closing arguments here. If you're flying GA part 23 certified aircraft, under MOSAIC, it might become harder and harder to maintain, more expensive to find parts, and less common than just buying a new LSA certified under MOSAIC. Basically, part 23 airplanes will end up in the junk yard, so buy new LSAs! Is that the pitch? These are SOME of the questions we need to discuss as an industry. If EAA was serving its members properly, we'd have weekly webinars to debate these concerns with the FAA publicly. Instead, we get this nonsense. This is not advocacy. They know what's missing. What's missing is applying the MOSAIC principles to the entire GA part 23 fleet day 1. That's what missing. That'll never happen. So just say so. Things are going to get expensive very quickly now.
@hpijeep your cruise speed is just above light sport speeds anyway. Not much difference between light sport except for mixture and prop. Cfi has to sign off before sport can fly that
It wouldn't. Everyone is conflating pilot certificate restrictions and aircraft certification restrictions. Both are covered in this document. The 182 will continue to have a standard airworthiness certificate and will not be certificated as a Light Sport Aircraft, which is a special airworthiness certificate class, just like experimental or restricted. Based on the proposed rules, a 182 could be flown by someone operating under sport pilot certificate restrictions, but that does not change how the aircraft is certificated.
@MatthewEverett people really need to read the proposal. You r correct. I also believe that when light sport aircraft r cleared for IFR, then provisions will be made for light sport pilots to obtain a IFR RATING.
Very disappointed that MOSAIC failed to assist Vintage CAR3 aircraft. Our aircraft are being orphaned by no factory support, Old STCs that are no longer supported, No one will invest in new STCs and more. VARGA/AC23-27 doesn't allow enough room to install new safer parts being designed in the market place today. Let's Face it, a 1946 Stinson 108 is NOT going to be used for Commercial operations, and if it ever was a separate inspection would be required for say Part 135 or something. Our aging vintage aircraft need a new certification class that allows owners to install newer safer parts, like tailwheels, gear, engines, props, exhaust more like experimental. It's just PLANE unfair that experimental can bolt any DANG thing they want onto their aircraft and fly in the same NAS as CAR3 but CAR3 can not make any of the same modifications. some certified aircraft do not need certified avionics or TSO's equipment because those standards didn't exist. So no the LSA pilots will have better opportunities but vintage will not. Im very disappointed, but I will add comments to the NPRM and HOPE that the FAA reconsiders Vintage being included.
@@onethousandtwonortheast8848 I added my thoughts to the Comments of the NPRM, however I am now trying to get the Type Club presidents to align on this and submit signatures. I also want EAA Vintage to be involved, that is the reason Im in EAA anyway, VINTAGE!
I was more impressed when Mosaic was modeled after the canadian plan (lightening the restrictions on GA to be more like it was in the 70-80s. (allowing non certified equiptment, an A&P doing the annual, (with the restriction once you go Mosaic - the plane could never be used commercial (training or for hire).
So the baking tin pterodactyl with 1940's engine and the Ford Anglia yokes as well as the bicycle gear trim wheel is now LSA? Cessna was dying as it should, now this life line? it could be worse, you could be in a 310, about to die as you probably will. The non-certified innovation will never be overtaken.
Why not just eliminate the Class 3 Medical? A grossly overweight grandpa that hasn’t seen a doctor in a decade or gotten a DUI recently, can legally drive a 26,000# moving truck or a van full of children heading south on a narrow road with an 18-wheeler heading north in the adjacent lane during a snowstorm. How is this less of a risk to others than a 70 year-old retired airline pilot that had a heart attack 3 years ago flying a 172 with 2 friends?
All GA needs now is a company that wants to build cheap aircraft by the thousands. If you look at the models available today there is nothing that has been designed as a trainer. Somebody needs to get in their computer and whip one up because there is a lot of money to be made.
Why would MOSAIC change the certification of an existing normal category airplane and turn it into an LSA after MOSAIC? I thought LSA and Experimental are basically self certified and not FAA certified like Normal or Utility category airplanes? IMHO, Sport pilots will continue to be limited to only flying LSA aircraft with SPL limits and PPL holders will benefit from more capable LSA aircraft.
You have LSA aircraft and aircraft that can be flown by a sport pilot, these are not necessarily the same thing. Sport pilots are not limited to flying Light Sport Aircraft, they are limited to flying aircraft that meet certain criteria. I can and do fly my Experimental Amateur Built, EAB, aircraft with my sport pilot license.
@Saml01 a sport pilot will be able to fly ANY aircraft that falls within the 54 knot stall speed with retractable gear, constant speed prop, four seats and max speed of 250knots
@ulbuilder a sport pilot will be able to fly ANY aircraft that falls under the 54knt stall speed, four seats, constant speed prop, retractable gear and 250knots limit. Old and new aircraft. This rule is for light sport pilots. Private pilot can already fly these aircraft. So the shark aircraft is a tandem seat aircraft with a cruise speed close to 200mph. Retractable gear and constant speed prop. This was off limits to sport as it did not qualify, now it will and can be sold as LSA instead of experimental
There are some (misunderstood) medications which have nothing to do flying, which preclude getting past the medical. Perhaps they'll bring AME's into the 21st century someday, but until then, we are stuck at SPL
Useless! I can't afford a decent plane anyway. 100 to 400k for an airplane??? Just giving up and going ultralight! Min training, cheap hourly, and brand new under 30k! Not FAA fault. Greed is at fault!
Get rid of basic med date it kick me out of flying last 10 years there's no light sport aircraft in 100 miles for rent. The new rule will help but 2 years away and the way insurance is getting don't look good for us new retired guy's
Sorry. I couldn't make it past the first five minutes. One of your "authorities" said that a Cessna 150 isn't robust enough for flight training - so right away he's an idiot. Then he proceeded to talk about avionics - not aircraft. The rule is about aircraft. And I don't want to listen to the EAA tell me how THEY made this happen all by themselves. That guy was talking like the EAA was the rule making authority not the FAA. Give me a break. I clicked on this to find out what was included in the new proposed rule - not to hear big shots pat themselves on the back. I'd been going to read the full thing anyhow, but I'd hoped Taking Off might make it easy for me. So sorry to see that wasn't the case. Maybe next time
1.Weight from 1320lbs to 3000lbs 2. Speed from 120knots to 250knots 3. Constant speed prop 4. Retractable gear 5. Four seat aircrafts 6. Possible Night flight 7. Turbine engines 8. Helicopters 9. Ariel work
@@peteranderson037 Didn't want to have to watch those guys break their arms patting themselves on the back. This is 2023 - five minutes is being generous.
@@r4raced4doom2I agree some more weight would allow stronger airframes and such. But I've heard it said to leave well enough alone, as in don't open that can of worms they say, it'll ruin 103 they say. The FAA will come with a whole bunch of rules then they say. :(
Seems to me the private pilots with all kinds of time are dying more the sport pilots. The FAA knows this and that is why the changes are being proposed. They said the same thing when sport first came out and 20 years later, the statistics just don't bear that out.
As a Private Pilot, I was wondering about the same thing. Having someone who aspires to nothing more than a Sport Pilot Cert hopping in a Bonanza or Mooney sounds like a disaster-in-the-making. Why not just let everyone fly 747s with a drivers license? There has to be a line in the sand.
@houstonfirefox neither the bonanza nor the mooney would qualify under the new rule. A sport pilot will have to receive training from a CFI just as a PP would to fly the new aircraft and receive an endorsement. This rule has been researched and ran through every FAA committee and based on the stick that they consistently have up their butt, there is very little likelihood that much will change from the proposal and final rule next year.
Explain to me the difference between an incapacitated pilot in a 3000 pound aircraft and an incapacitated pilot in a 12,000 pound aircraft. They’re both flying missiles regardless. This is more ridiculousness.
Medical, medical, medical. FAA’s view of ADHD, mild depression, etc., and the medications that counter these issues, is set in the Stone Age.
They need to just eliminate med class 3 and make that light sport. I'd like to be able to get my instrument.
Yes medical issues are still in the Stone Age
One issue that I haven't seen discussed much is the pathway from SPL -> PPL. The current rules make ZERO sense. You should just need a medical, night flight endorsement and a checkride if you're already an SPL holder.
@@JoeCnNd That will never happen due to opposition from powerful special interests. BasicMed was originally supposed to give us driver's license medical in lieu of 3rd class. The airline pilot's union and aviation medical examiners came out strong against it. Trial lawyers and the insurance industry also strongly oppose changes to medical certification.
Thank you very much and this directly impacts me as a student pilot pursuing a Sport Pilot certificate. I was so hindered by Light Sport plane availability in my state and surrounding states.
As a current sport pilot student, and future airplane owner. This is exciting to hear, and watch move forward.
Why not just get rid of the class 3 medical for PPL and just call it a day? Add class 3 for instrument/multi engine add Class 1 for anything making money. I appreciate the changes but we don't need to reinvent the wheel
Type 1 diabetic….9months now they’ve been reviewing me. Such a pain. I’m healthier than most people I know.
Type 2 and I’m in the same boat. Started the process in March.
@@masterthee Could you let your medical expire and then fly sport with just a drivers license? Or do they start the process you're stuck until they say yah or no?
I'm 54. My closest LSA school is 3.5 hrs one way. With these new "rules" there is going to be a game chance. Now I can finish my training in a 172, and the closest GA training school is just 20 minutes away. I don't see myself doing any night or IFR flights, but it is good to have some hours in case. It is better to be safe than sorry.
Exactly. I'm 49 and in the same position. There are no LSA flight schools anywhere near me. I'd need to relocate to train. This is a real game changer for me.
Got my PPL at 60, but I can pass a class 3 medical.
Cannot agree more! I’m 100% with you. I’m 45 and no LSA training anywhere near. I don’t want to fly at night or IFR. I just want to fly in perfect weather and enjoy it.
@@mattfields2033 I'd guess that most PPL's are the same. You could get your PPL and do the same thing, no one is forcing you to fly at night or IFR. Can't fly IFR without and IFR rating anyway.
Wow! I thought I was the only one, currently I have to drive 1 hour to drive 1 hour for my lessons. I am 68 years old and hold a ppl, but no medical.
Having been a CFI since the '70s, and an airline pilot since the mid '80s and this is the best news I have heard from the Feds... They developed an image of the bad guys, and the Mosaic plan has the opportunity to change that perception if it's executed properly. Well done, EAA!
FAA's been making a lot of good changes lately.
Except remoteID but I digress...
MOSIAC (modernization of special airworthiness certification) I’m hoping the changes will make it easier to operate and maintain vintage aircraft and keep them from dying on the vine.
Amen, vintage was left behind and orphaned again!
@@wareairaviationservicesllc4933 I think the feds and producers of LSA would just as well it died on the vine. Those of us as vintage enthusiasts failed to ensure vintage type certificates were modernized.
@@Lt_Tragg and yet there is a Vintage division IN EAA and they didn't fight for us.
I reached out directly for the past two years and they never responded
Vintage EAA should have fought for us too
@@wareairaviationservicesllc4933 wow. No kidding! I intend to reach out to one of the directors at MAAC I know personally and see what he says or their excuse.
i can't wait for MOSAIC... i just got my sport checkride and the fact i can now use a 4 place plane (when it comes online) is a game changer, im contemplating not "upgrading" to a full private now and just holding off for sure... the only thing i wish is that they would allow one more pax and that way i can take my missus and my kid and not have to pick between the two :D cus you know we all know how that one works lol
i can barely hear the planes nor wind. that’s awesome. keep the oshkosh videos coming. thanks
Great conversation, I may be too old to take advantage of any of this but I sure enjoy hearing that younger generations have great things to look forward to.
Bring the cost of airplanes down?, never happen. When LSA was first proposed, manufacturer's claimed you'll be able to buy a brand new LSA for around 40 grand instead of an old 40 year old airplane. When LSA finally passed, LSA prices started at about double that and continued to climb.
Today, you have many LSA's in the 250-400 grand range, sure, you have a few cheaper ones, but they lack the options that most buyers wanted and demanded.
Now, your talking more robust airframe, more safety features etc., that is only going to drive prices up. Don't bullshit people with lower cost, didn't happen then, won't happen now and they know it.
Very interested in light sport, and any changes that will usher in a greater deal of modern safety and accessibility will be most appreciated.
Thank You EAA and FAA
Good job FAA!!! Your finally doing something right and working in conjunction with the EAA more.
I'm just going to go along with the herd on this one. YAY MOSAIC!!!
Great info, and yes, I'm definitely interested in learning more about MOSAIC.
I wonder what they consider "affordable" Cessna 172's new are around 500k, vans RV's can be around 300K, My Zenith I am building right now is at about 100K, the avionics and engine are the single biggest cost.
Exactly, when the LSA category was created, they said LSA's would be affordable. That didn't happen.
Best news out of the FAA since Basic Med. I would like to see aircraft manufacturers focus on Basic Med compatible aircraft and less on the current LSA. This may end up being a good compromise. I would really like to see a kit or manufactured aircraft capable of carrying 6 FULL SIZED adults + full fuel + cargo. Seeing as a PA-28-235 (which I currently fly) has a useful load of 1400 lbs and max gross of 2900 lbs, I think a 6 pax aircraft with 2800 useful load and gross weight under 6000 lbs should be feasible.
Great Presentation.. *Please Please guys,* have something forward as a suggestion in support of MOSIAC, without having to read all 300 pages of it. I'm on page 80, and there needs to be a concise and well planned response to the Feds during the NPRM period.
Great interview guys!
1. Weight from 1320lbs to 3000lbs
2. Speed from 120knots to 250knots
3. Retractable gear
4. Constant speed prop
5. Turbine engines
6. 45 knots to 54knots
7. Night flight
8. Helicopters
9. Air work for hire
There is no weight restriction of 3000 lbs
@mikeryan6277 the proposal states 3000lbs. It may vary, but that is the number, although not set in stone, the faa suggest the weight may be with a 54 knot stall speed. Just like there are very few aircraft that can get up to 250knots with a 54 knots stall speed.
@@mikeryan6277 I read up to 1850
@squeakersc063 the proposal states under maximum take off weight, that a stall speed of 54 knots would keep the max take off weight to around 3000lbs.
@@mauriceevans6546 Ah, I didn't keep reading. I looked at the bullet points in the first couple of sections.
Thumbs up for the topic 😊
I agree that we want to have comments that are more or less unified. However, individual comments are important. As someone who wrote, interpreted and enforced regs for 12 years there are two very important things to keep in mind:
1) While the FAA will be under no obligation to agree with the commenters or incorporate changes based on those comments, very large numbers (tens of thousand s or better yet hundreds of thousands) of similar comments suggesting similar revisions to the proposed rule will make it much harder for the FAA to ignore those comments.
2) Copy and paste comments don’t carry nearly as much weight as individually written comments. Yea, comments by aviation organizations are important, but so are large numbers of comments from pilots and aircraft owners making well reasoned arguments about what a change makes sense are vital to show broad support and consensus for a change. Please take the time to submit comments in your own words, and to give specific examples.
This is very good news for GA, still in shock really.
We keep going in circles with Light Sport, Recreational, and Private Pilot.
That 10,000 MSL limit is ridiculous for people living in the Rockies (especially students at klxv)
I read it as 10,000 AGL
It's 10000MSL or 2000AGL, whichever is higher. So if you fly over a 10000MSL mountain you can fly up to 12000MSL.
@@ulbuilder ok -- works wonderfully for students practicing stall recoveries and those doing deep stall phase I testing (that both EAA and Vans specifies to be done at altitudes in excess of 3000 and 5000 ft AGL)
@@Lewthor yeah, no -- it's 10,000 MSL (4000 ft below cumulo granite in mid/southern Colorado)
10000 MSL/2000 AGL which ever is HIGHER
Above Ground Level includes the Rocky Mountains
Excellent episode Dan and Christy. MOSAIC is really intriguing. It would be great to have access to newer, more advanced aircraft for training, all with a lower cost. Thank you for having these two gentlemen on to really break down the proposed rule and how it will affect us. Keep up the excellent work. Safe skies my friends 🇺🇸🛩️
These can be wonderful changes for sport aviation
The MOSAIC proposed changes open up the topic of aircraft insurance coverage for some of the higher performance aircraft being flown by a sport pilot. That insurance coverage may need to increase rental rates, not decrease them.
Hell yeah! EAA working overtime for pilots!
I am an ATP rated pilot, but I'm excited to see how this translates to opening up the market for more obtainable modern aircraft. I'd love to have a quick efficient light plane that I could zip around in.
Could you please dedicate a video to discussing the FAA's latest medical views on diabetes, color vision and medication stances as well as any changes to medical classes and standards and what impact MOSAIC will have on them?
I’ll look into that.
Hello from Minnesota!! Really fantastic interview!!
Nice. My nephew got his sport lic about two years ago this is great news for them. I’m just surprised the FAA is on board.
The purpose of the new rule was to help facilitate the transition of aircraft from Europe and Brazil, who just changed their sport rules. This proposal puts Europe in the dark ages in terms of microliites and light sport rules.
@@mauriceevans6546it really does?
This will be great. There are three big problems that are critical to the future survival of light GA that are not being addressed:
1.the available pool of legacy
aircraft are being destroyed at a rate of 10 to 20 per month.
2. The cost of fuel is increasingly prohibited every year
3. Insurance and financing costs have increased dramatically, if you can get it .
What are the aviation organizations doing to address this
Also- as you mentioned - impossible to get an a and p or IA
Here UK we need this. My Tomahawk and other light aircraft subject to annual C o A. Cost equivalent is $4000 up. C of A used to be every 3 years. These yearly costs are killing flight training.
We need 61kt stall makes a safer aircraft in wind and we need 14,000 feet msl and more altitude above a mountain. I fly my c150 with o320 at 12500/13500 or up to 14000 ifr.
Do you foresee any updates for part 103 as result? would be great to allow a few pounds for more fuel and enclosing fuselage. up to 10gal ??
As aLSA pilot i feel a rule should be made that allows a Sports Pilot to fly with a max of 3 Plus 1 persons ( the pilot). I proposed that after initial training a SP could fly with 1 passengers, after 100 hour he/ she can fly with 2 passengers up to 3 passengers.
4:40 in and you still haven’t explained MOSIAC. Always start your interview with a definition of what it is then go into your explanations and caveats . This is a rookie interview.
Great conversation guys 182’s and bonanza aircraft are gas guzzlers. I’m more interested in the more efficient vans and other bp equipped aircraft like risen etc. Problem is they are a bit faster and stall a bit faster. I’d like to see the stall speed changed to include all available wing configurations / flaps.
My jabiru is ifr equipped…. Full glass …. It’s about time….
let us not forget that we are "not there yet". The FAA has a history of screwing things up that were "elegant in there simplicity". Yes, I'm talking about Basic Med. Even though it has helped many people, it falls light years short of the game changer it was intended to be. This time lets get it right.
Don't discount the role insurance companies will play in ruining everything.
What about using alternative non certified engines in certified aircraft to make it more affordable
The stall speed bring VS1 will exclude a ton of aircraft that should otherwise be included
So as an enthusiast, my target is sport pilot certification. If I had gotten the cert, I would not be able to fly too many aircraft. With this, if the planets align and I win the lottery, I could get my cert and rent a 172 to fly to DC to visit family. Until then, it will always be a dream.❤
👍✅ Lots of dreams come true Dave, go for it!
I donno, many of those EVTOLs look like death traps. Many with flight time only measurable in minutes.
Trying to understand how this will impact me. I've got my PPL cert and will be looking to buy in the future.
I don’t think it does effect you unless in the future you want to fly as a spot pilot under relaxed medical requirements associated with your drivers license vs Class III or Basic med.
It can effect the plane you can buy, fix and fly.
@@TakingOff trying to understand how it will lower the current prices of a c172 or c182 or will it?
@@farmdwg no, the opposite, it will raise costs for everybody. In theory, it will increase the cost because the shadow inventory of driver license holders who currently only are interested in flying because of the performance of a 4 seater spam can AND NOT the glorified kites of current LSA, will now in theory enter the market and compete for access to the spam cans. Whereas their inability to attain a class III medical kept them out of the market for said spam cans before.
My opinion is that the claim is exaggerated in the first place. Meaning, the degree to which there is some insane shadow inventory of people who can't hold a class III or (basicMed by class-III expiration proxy) waiting to enter the existing non-LSA market, is simply not true.
There is zero mechanism under which spam cans become cheaper to acquire as a result of mosaic. The mechanisms would only be economy driven, but none of it would have to do with relaxation of LSA rules. Only the LSAs nobody wanted to fly in the first place will lower in price as a result of the expansion of the LSA category. But that is what we call a MOOT point.
Most happy with this development. Now just wish the altitude rule just lined up with PP VFR rules, even if on an endorsement basis. In the mountain west it makes cross country easier certain times of the year. The thermal induced turbulence is just too much in a Skylane, imaging flying something half the weight. Adding a couple thousand feet can make a difference.
Yes, the altitude rules for LSA need to be adjusted and increased. Higher is safer, until you get into altitudes where you need oxygen.
Crazy. I own @ 2007. Jabiru. I can do the annual on it . Work on it.. it’s got a full glass panel auto pilot Hence it’s complex…. But my 1947. Luscombe I can’t do the annual on it …. It can be flown in the light sport category.. it doesn’t have a radio. Not required. It’s a much simpler than my jab ….
If it goes through, the EAA, Dan Johnson, and others deserve an applause. I am suspicious.
I believe the air-cam might fall In the new multi engine light sport rule.
If the tecnam P2006 multi engine was a few knots slower, it would qualify
These are great changes. But as we've seen previously, the insurance companies will throw a wet blanket over everything for a few years.
There seems to be confusion on the stall speed limit. Is it Vso or Vsi? I've seen summaries that identified Vsi. It makes a big difference, but an puzzled at shy Vsi, when Vso seems more logical.
Dumb question but as a private pilot should I also be getting excited about MOSAIC? Will it have a broader impact beyond expanding the airplanes that sport pilots can fly?
Edit: okay lol right as I submitted the comment at 24:00 he mentions benefits for private pilots in terms of bringing airplane costs down but not clear how/why? If anything I’d expect it to further increase the price of “legacy” aircraft like 172s/182s and for new planes … well new planes will always be expensive and if now LSAs can be more capable than I’d expect the increased capabilities to come at an increased cost.
The only way this makes GA more affordable is if experimental manufacturers ramp up production to these new limitations and lower their prices. Otherwise, this only massively increases the demand side of the equation and leaves supply where it is at.
Also, I really don’t understand the draw of a sport pilot certificate (other than being slightly cheaper than a PPL, but you’re flying anyway, so not sure I see a downside there). Not intended as a criticism, I really do not understand. With basic med available for PPL, and with a sport pilot certificate probably being nearly just as hard and expensive as a PPL, why even get one? And now, it seems that in general flying as a sport pilot will be nearly indistinguishable from flying as a ppl with basic med. Maybe I am missing something?
You can’t use basic med unless you had a class 3 medical. That leaves most college kids with sport pilot as the only straightforward path.
7:30 thats sucks. From what i read they were including that just with training. If someone needs to get their medical theyre just gonna go for their private. The aopa worded it youd just need to get endorsement, which i figured was just to make sure current sport pilots dont just think they can fly at night without being trained.
So, you own a cessna 172, certified aircraft, you can now fly over 10,000 ft. If this passes the same 172 is considered light sport and will then be limited to flights only under 10,000 ft? Or will it be able to be flown over 10,000ft so long as the pilot still has a
minimum private license with 3rd class or Basic Med.?
👍✅I would think the determining factor is your rating not the aircraft in this situation.
Only limited if you're a sport pilot
👍✅ Great interview about an interesting future.
I'll be happy if they make a 152 a LSA.
Why a 10,000 ft limit? As a light sport pilot I’m required to fly VFR. As a VFR pilot, I’m supposed to fly even thousands plus 500 on a westerly heading. So my westerly altitude limit is effectively 8,500. Dumb. This makes cross country through the mountain states dangerous.
Why 54 knots I'm wondering? Just make it like an even 60 clean? How about after so many hours more pax allowed? Why not fly night & ifr on a sport pilot with proper training & rating. It might be a good saftey factor if you run inadvertantly into imc or get stuck on top. whats the difference if you have a medical or not? So they can say see told you! like no pilots with a medical never have had a medical issue! And then they'll be able to find your wreck easier in nice weather in the daytime? Lol
Comment on it for the proposal
Great content…
Would a holder of a Private Pilots license certificate be able to operate a light sport aircraft without the light sport pilot restrictions? These are areas of confusion I've heard about.
Your restriction would be your pilot certificate. If you have a four seater LSA, and fly with a sport pilot certificate, then you could take only one passenger. If you fly that same 4-seater LSA with a PPL, you can fly with 3 other passengers.
I am a complete newcomer to aviation. I have a simple question that maybe the new mosaic changes will address. Can I build my own aircraft, like a KR2S, and put digital displays in it and use it for IFR flight training?
Possibly. That is on the table with MOSAIC.
So... If I have an LSA now - I can jump in a 182 (with fixed prop and gear) and carry 41 person with only 20 hrs training... This washes out the need for PPL (I understand there will be "add ons" such as night, complex, etc.). I think this will make a fantastic justification of the the parachute option on the Cirrus "standard issue" for all LSA. (average hours for PPL is 70 hours training and
No-- it means if a 182 qualified as a Light sport, you could fly it, but you'd still have the restrictions of your Sport Certificate-- you might have 4 seats, but you can only have two people aboard.
If you make it through your LSA checkride in only 20 hours starting from zero hours of training, you are a prodigy!
@@carygrant8796 Then why put a unrealistic number out there? Ditto goes for PPL claiming "only 40 hrs" (where as people take on AVERAGE 70. That would be like me telling you I can build you a house in 1 year and taking 2 years (and charging you double of what I quoted).
@@TakingOff I guess we will have to wait for the ink to dry on this proposal. (typo above, 182 might be a bit tight carrying 41 people - meant 1 person).
Dan millican: which model of FE sunglasses are you wearing? Lens type? Looks great..thanks
Luzon. With the mirrored jade mag shades. Use our code for 10% off!
I have always wanted to get my license and looked into LSA but was told I am too large to fly those small aircraft. I cant afford a private pilot nor can I get a medical certificate because of my color blindness but I can get an LSA. This new rule would allow me to use a bigger LSA class aircraft that I can fit in and get flight training.
Will a person holding a Repairman Light Sport Aircraft Certificate be able to do a condition inspection on an EAB aircraft that meets the qualifications for a light sport airplane?
categorically no. Only if it's an E-LSA that was certified at build completion as E-LSA and not EAB (common case is the RV-12, where you could go either way). An airplane that was given an AW certificate under EAB cannot be inspected by an LSA repairman holder, even under expanded performance rules for LSA. Remember, all the rule change is addressing who can operate what performance bracket. The maintenance piece for factory built (commonly referred to as certified spam cans) or EAB airplanes does not change.
Josh really has a way of getting into everyone’s videos huh? 😂
This will only drive cost up. Also I own a beech Musketeer which will be excluded because of the stall speed. Follow the money.
Pilots *will* want to make public comments on this rule. The 54 knot maximum Vs1 flaps up speed is a bit arbitrary. For example, the semi tapered wing PA-28s like the PA-28-151 (50 kts) and PA-28-181 (51 kt Vs1) will qualify, while the PA-28-140 (Vs1 of 56 kts) will not.
Similarly the Cessna 182 will qualify (Vs1 of 54 kts) but the essentially similar and if anything easier to fly PA-28-235 will not (Vs1 of 56kts).
Maybe its a manufactures advantage to have it set at 54. Follow the money and the word arbitrary doesn’t apply.
Well folks, it's been 2 weeks since this segment aired. EAA has had multiple opportunities to engage its members on subjects concerning MOSAIC, but what we're seeing is a silencing behavior as evidenced from this episode of Taking Off. EAA does NOT want the public communicating concerns to the FAA, and they do NOT want general discussions which would bring concerns to light and possibly compromise MOSAIC from moving forward. But why? Is this how you advocate on behalf of your members? Is this what building support looks like? Trust us?
This bill needs to be SLAMMED through... but why? Why is it so risky to discuss and debate this with members in the next 90 days? Why is EAA collecting input into a black hole instead of sending that input to the FAA directly? Surely the FAA can interpret misunderstandings and clarify the MOSAIC pitch... if EAA won't. Unless there are real risks built into MOSAIC they don't want to be discussed publicly?
This is wrong. This is not advocacy or representation, and we ought to seriously ask EAA why they're trying to gaslight everyone into keeping hush hush about mosaic for 90 days until we publicize our questions and debate the possible negative outcomes that could take over. I think playing devils advocate in a public setting isn't the worst thing in the world. Tell me about the risks you're so afraid of coming to light. Tell me what you think might stall this legislation. I have a few thoughts as to what those might be. But why are we trying to cover them up? People are going to really be reeling if this plays out in the wrong way. EAA will have to answer to everything negative that could come from MOSAIC, however little or however large the outcomes might be. These might be apparent immediately, or some of these issues might materialize over the next decade or two. What's the elephant in the room here? That EAA plans on "fixing" the gaps as a follow-up bill once it poses a public threat? Perfect is the enemy of good enough, so slam it through?
Lack of transparency and discussion is pretty amazing. I'd like to see EAA scheduling weekly webinars to discuss and debate the concerns during this comment period to get things right. Until now, the biggest change to aviation seems to have been designed behind closed doors with a select few vendors and titles? That's not how these changes should work.
What they're doing is that they're collecting all of the members thoughts and comments in a black hole, sitting on those comments, and then trying to wisk MOSAIC through without debate.
I'm sure glad EAA knows everything. Are they trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the FAA, or pull the wool over the eyes of the EAA members? The question is... who do they think poses the most risk?
Something sounds like it's going to get a lot more expensive. I don't see any path to reducing the cost of flying in this bill, unless it includes buying a new quarter million dollar LSA from one of these vendors. Unfortunately, I'm still lacking any understanding of how MOSAIC will impact GA "most significant impact to GA in decades" as stated in closing arguments here. If you're flying GA part 23 certified aircraft, under MOSAIC, it might become harder and harder to maintain, more expensive to find parts, and less common than just buying a new LSA certified under MOSAIC. Basically, part 23 airplanes will end up in the junk yard, so buy new LSAs! Is that the pitch? These are SOME of the questions we need to discuss as an industry.
If EAA was serving its members properly, we'd have weekly webinars to debate these concerns with the FAA publicly. Instead, we get this nonsense. This is not advocacy. They know what's missing. What's missing is applying the MOSAIC principles to the entire GA part 23 fleet day 1. That's what missing. That'll never happen. So just say so. Things are going to get expensive very quickly now.
The PA-28 140 has a clean stall speed of 56 kt and would not qualify LSA.
GA accident rates increase in 3…2…1
Great news for some of us who aren't willing, or able, to make it past the AME and can't get or keep our PPL
There is a problem if a Cessna 182 would fall under the Light Sport category.
As a 182 owner I’d like to hear your opinion. I am going to reserve my opinion until I hear every angle.
As a 182 owner I’d like to hear your opinion. I am going to reserve my opinion until I hear every angle.
@hpijeep your cruise speed is just above light sport speeds anyway. Not much difference between light sport except for mixture and prop. Cfi has to sign off before sport can fly that
It wouldn't. Everyone is conflating pilot certificate restrictions and aircraft certification restrictions. Both are covered in this document. The 182 will continue to have a standard airworthiness certificate and will not be certificated as a Light Sport Aircraft, which is a special airworthiness certificate class, just like experimental or restricted. Based on the proposed rules, a 182 could be flown by someone operating under sport pilot certificate restrictions, but that does not change how the aircraft is certificated.
@MatthewEverett people really need to read the proposal. You r correct. I also believe that when light sport aircraft r cleared for IFR, then provisions will be made for light sport pilots to obtain a IFR RATING.
Very disappointed that MOSAIC failed to assist Vintage CAR3 aircraft. Our aircraft are being orphaned by no factory support, Old STCs that are no longer supported, No one will invest in new STCs and more. VARGA/AC23-27 doesn't allow enough room to install new safer parts being designed in the market place today. Let's Face it, a 1946 Stinson 108 is NOT going to be used for Commercial operations, and if it ever was a separate inspection would be required for say Part 135 or something. Our aging vintage aircraft need a new certification class that allows owners to install newer safer parts, like tailwheels, gear, engines, props, exhaust more like experimental. It's just PLANE unfair that experimental can bolt any DANG thing they want onto their aircraft and fly in the same NAS as CAR3 but CAR3 can not make any of the same modifications. some certified aircraft do not need certified avionics or TSO's equipment because those standards didn't exist. So no the LSA pilots will have better opportunities but vintage will not. Im very disappointed, but I will add comments to the NPRM and HOPE that the FAA reconsiders Vintage being included.
I would write in and explain your points. Hopefully they will listen.
@@onethousandtwonortheast8848 I added my thoughts to the Comments of the NPRM, however I am now trying to get the Type Club presidents to align on this and submit signatures. I also want EAA Vintage to be involved, that is the reason Im in EAA anyway, VINTAGE!
@@abel4776 Yes, over 17,000 aircraft have converted to Experimental Exhibition with little impact as show by UA-cam'r Kyle Bushman
I was more impressed when Mosaic was modeled after the canadian plan (lightening the restrictions on GA to be more like it was in the 70-80s. (allowing non certified equiptment, an A&P doing the annual, (with the restriction once you go Mosaic - the plane could never be used commercial (training or for hire).
This would cut my commute by 50 miles to go fly. You cant find a light sport.
So the baking tin pterodactyl with 1940's engine and the Ford Anglia yokes as well as the bicycle gear trim wheel is now LSA? Cessna was dying as it should, now this life line? it could be worse, you could be in a 310, about to die as you probably will. The non-certified innovation will never be overtaken.
LSA Helicopters!
The RotorX Helicopter Kit! Rotorway has a new owner and new brand! / Experimental Aircraft Channel
ua-cam.com/video/Egxiw7kIqyY/v-deo.html
Why not just eliminate the Class 3 Medical?
A grossly overweight grandpa that hasn’t seen a doctor in a decade or gotten a DUI recently,
can legally drive a 26,000# moving truck or a van full of children heading south on a narrow road with an
18-wheeler heading north in the adjacent lane during a snowstorm.
How is this less of a risk to others than a 70 year-old retired airline pilot that had a heart attack 3 years
ago flying a 172 with 2 friends?
@@abel4776 what about them?
@@Fynnley525No disrespect, but what do you mean by your question?
@@backcountyrpilot I'm asking what the other person means by their question
All GA needs now is a company that wants to build cheap aircraft by the thousands. If you look at the models available today there is nothing that has been designed as a trainer. Somebody needs to get in their computer and whip one up because there is a lot of money to be made.
Definition of $ 😊
Why would MOSAIC change the certification of an existing normal category airplane and turn it into an LSA after MOSAIC? I thought LSA and Experimental are basically self certified and not FAA certified like Normal or Utility category airplanes?
IMHO, Sport pilots will continue to be limited to only flying LSA aircraft with SPL limits and PPL holders will benefit from more capable LSA aircraft.
You have LSA aircraft and aircraft that can be flown by a sport pilot, these are not necessarily the same thing. Sport pilots are not limited to flying Light Sport Aircraft, they are limited to flying aircraft that meet certain criteria. I can and do fly my Experimental Amateur Built, EAB, aircraft with my sport pilot license.
@@ulbuilderSo you agree with me then. You will be unable to fly the post MOSAIC aircraft. I didn't know SPL covered E-AB.
@Saml01 a sport pilot will be able to fly ANY aircraft that falls within the 54 knot stall speed with retractable gear, constant speed prop, four seats and max speed of 250knots
@ulbuilder a sport pilot will be able to fly ANY aircraft that falls under the 54knt stall speed, four seats, constant speed prop, retractable gear and 250knots limit. Old and new aircraft. This rule is for light sport pilots. Private pilot can already fly these aircraft. So the shark aircraft is a tandem seat aircraft with a cruise speed close to 200mph. Retractable gear and constant speed prop. This was off limits to sport as it did not qualify, now it will and can be sold as LSA instead of experimental
@@mauriceevans6546And this is excellent news.
"The Federal Aviation Administration, or N.A.M.B.L.A. , has announced a proposed change..."
This HAD to happen. GA needs as many new pilots as possible to keep the industry going.
Sport Pilot doesn't make sense - neither did Recreational Pilot, why not just go for Private Pilot and not have the restrictions?
Under Sport Pilot you can fly with a drivers license as your medical certificate.
@@peteranderson037also allows a private pilot to fly under light sport rules after his/her medical expires
Also possibly less expensive endeavor for a new pilot getting into aviation. Cost over 10k generally right now for someone to obtain their PPL.
Cost
There are some (misunderstood) medications which have nothing to do flying, which preclude getting past the medical. Perhaps they'll bring AME's into the 21st century someday, but until then, we are stuck at SPL
Who wins the voucher for a fresh haircut?
This is just more of the f a a coffeehouse crab. They just have to make it look like they're doing something when they're really not.
If this proposed rule happens, then they would actually be doing something.
@@TakingOff Have you dealt with them for fifty years... I think not..
First
Useless! I can't afford a decent plane anyway. 100 to 400k for an airplane??? Just giving up and going ultralight! Min training, cheap hourly, and brand new under 30k! Not FAA fault. Greed is at fault!
Don't hold your mikes in front of your mouths, hold them below...
At a noisy field, they probably instinctively adjusted to the way they are holder their mics. Are those Rode mics super-cardiod?
Get rid of basic med date it kick me out of flying last 10 years there's no light sport aircraft in 100 miles for rent. The new rule will help but 2 years away and the way insurance is getting don't look good for us new retired guy's
New rule expected to become law by end of next year. FAA states 16 months from NPRM
Sorry. I couldn't make it past the first five minutes. One of your "authorities" said that a Cessna 150 isn't robust enough for flight training - so right away he's an idiot. Then he proceeded to talk about avionics - not aircraft. The rule is about aircraft. And I don't want to listen to the EAA tell me how THEY made this happen all by themselves. That guy was talking like the EAA was the rule making authority not the FAA. Give me a break.
I clicked on this to find out what was included in the new proposed rule - not to hear big shots pat themselves on the back. I'd been going to read the full thing anyhow, but I'd hoped Taking Off might make it easy for me. So sorry to see that wasn't the case. Maybe next time
You should have listened longer than just five minutes, bud.
1.Weight from 1320lbs to 3000lbs
2. Speed from 120knots to 250knots
3. Constant speed prop
4. Retractable gear
5. Four seat aircrafts
6. Possible Night flight
7. Turbine engines
8. Helicopters
9. Ariel work
@@peteranderson037 Didn't want to have to watch those guys break their arms patting themselves on the back. This is 2023 - five minutes is being generous.
@@redowlranchairfield5994 No time to listen, but plenty of time to leave a few snarky comments. You're right, this is 2023.
@@redowlranchairfield5994 Not to mention getting info from some guy who is way overweight to fly in the first place. Hope that guy never flys alone.
Get to the point.
I really feel this is going to kill some people. A low time pilot has no business buying a complex, high performance aircraft.
That being said. Part 103 needs to be upped from its 254lb empty to 500lbs.
That's the whole point. This evil administration needs an excuse to end GA totally and this will do it..
@@r4raced4doom2I agree some more weight would allow stronger airframes and such. But I've heard it said to leave well enough alone, as in don't open that can of worms they say, it'll ruin 103 they say. The FAA will come with a whole bunch of rules then they say. :(
Yeah! That might help the 20 to 30 deaths of month of mainly private pilots and higher rated pilots.
GA has way too many accidents the way it is. Opening up the rules is only going to put inexperienced pilots into bigger/faster AC. Not a good thing.
Seems to me the private pilots with all kinds of time are dying more the sport pilots. The FAA knows this and that is why the changes are being proposed. They said the same thing when sport first came out and 20 years later, the statistics just don't bear that out.
As a Private Pilot, I was wondering about the same thing. Having someone who aspires to nothing more than a Sport Pilot Cert hopping in a Bonanza or Mooney sounds like a disaster-in-the-making. Why not just let everyone fly 747s with a drivers license? There has to be a line in the sand.
@houstonfirefox neither the bonanza nor the mooney would qualify under the new rule. A sport pilot will have to receive training from a CFI just as a PP would to fly the new aircraft and receive an endorsement. This rule has been researched and ran through every FAA committee and based on the stick that they consistently have up their butt, there is very little likelihood that much will change from the proposal and final rule next year.
Explain to me the difference between an incapacitated pilot in a 3000 pound aircraft and an incapacitated pilot in a 12,000 pound aircraft. They’re both flying missiles regardless. This is more ridiculousness.