As you readers must know, I prefer to focus mainly on the airplanes, on light aircraft. It’s what interests me and I’ve learned it’s what interests you* as well. I captured more cool aircraft news on Day 3 and I will return to that tomorrow. Today’s topic is different.
Affordable aircraft are important to many readers. I get that completely and that’s why my Day 1 report focused on six aircraft that are very easy to own. Speedy aircraft are of also great interest. In general I like to say (modifying a view expressed by Apple Founder Steve Jobs) that — “It’s all about the airplanes.” Other high-traffic features of this website include the SLSA List, PlaneFinder 2.0, and our market statistics.
However, one non-aircraft topic always draws lots of readers. When I report major moves by FAA that can have an impact on your ability to fly, you sit up at your smartphone, tablet, or laptop and pay attention.
I personally find it absurd that we wait for FAA to make regulatory decisions and then create or modify aircraft to fit their prescriptions. It seems infinitely more logical to me that the market creates aircraft pilots want and only then should FAA pursue regulation as needed to ensure public safety. Yet in today’s government-driven world, pilots must remain aware of what the aviation agency will do.
FAA Pivots Hard
…making Good Changes
(in my humble opinion)
We were happy to have Zoom’s technology in 2020 so we could meet with coworkers, bosses, friends, and family online when we not allowed to congregate in person. I observed, though, that use of Zoom tapered off after the novelty became the familiar. No matter how well that tech company did their job, faces on a screen cannot fully replace in-person meetings. It’s just not the same.
The magic of airshows and their ability to deliver in-person meetings showed their value yesterday at AirVenture Oshkosh. The following relates the story as best I could piece it together. Be advised this is not the final word on the subject. In fact, it is so fresh that changes are probable.
Our friends in EAA’s Advocacy department, lead by Sean Elliot and aided by experienced staff held a special Mosaic meeting with FAA. In such a gathering at AirVenture 2021, EAA team members reportedly pushed back on Mosaic regulations, calling it “overly complex.” (I was not present at this meeting, so this report is second hand.)
In the meeting, key FAA officials were present and in a remarkable development (which I am surely oversimplifying here), FAA agreed and in the space of a single meeting, listen to what occurred.
Steve Dickson (facing camera) was sworn in as FAA administrator on August 12, 2019 after being confirmed for a five-year term by the U.S. Senate on July 24, 2019. Dickson recently retired from service as the senior vice president of Flight Operations for Delta Air Lines.
The whole idea introduced in May of 2020 (see this article) set up Light-Sport Aircraft as a subset of something brand new called Light Personal Aircraft. The former would get bigger and more capable but it was the latter that appeared ready to invite still-larger aircraft, perhaps with four seats, retractable gear, faster speeds, and other abilities.
Light Personal Aircraft has apparently been scrubbed — just like that, in a single meeting …but one involving key decision makers including the LSA industry’s good friend, Earl Lawrence. An engineer with a strong CV, Earl has risen quickly within FAA and today is the manager of aircraft certification. He has long preferred simpler solutions and reportedly concurred that Mosaic plans for LPA were overly complex.
LPA is history, barely a year after it was first invented by rule writers. (Surely, we will hear more definition about this in coming weeks, but the preceding statement looks accurate according to several persons.)
Another part of the Mosaic proposals to-date is a formula method referred to as Power Index. Quite a number of you have done the math and tried to determine if one or another airplane can fit.
Flight Design USA boss, Tom Peghiny (gesturing) explains Light-Sport Aircraft to the administrator and other staff as Dickson prepared to try sit in and experience the new F2.
Power Index is also “probably” history, before most of us ever understood precisely how it will work. It, too, was judged unnecessarily complex and many people more qualified in engineering than me would quickly agree. In addition, it seemed a complicated way to accomplish an objective that could be achieved by other means.
The proposed 200-horsepower cap is “probably” history as well. According to reports, several FAA people recognized that the amount of horsepower is not a key determinant to FAA sticking to its LSA mantra of “Safe, Simple, and Easy to Fly.”
My advocacy partner, Roy Beisswenger, who attended several FAA briefings, said, “The key phrases to come out of an FAA meeting was that LSA should be defined as “easy to fly” or “docile to fly” and then let the industry define exactly what that means.” He added, “Different weights and categories of aircraft would be allowed as endorsements.” Endorsements have already been used with good success for basic Sport Pilots to advance their privileges.
The ASTM F37 group that prepares standards for FAA to use in accepting (or not) new LSA aircraft has been furiously working to prepare for all the Mosaic changes so aircraft can demonstrate meeting the standards soon after the rule is final, allowing sales to pilots. As those volunteers do their work and as we hear more, I will report more as quickly as possible.
So, Mosaic enters a new state of development but I view all these changes as positive. Keeping regulations simpler will enhance the ability of developers and users/pilots to follow them so they can perform their function efficiently.
An annual safety presentation (among other topics) was given by LSA Program Manager, John Stoll. He gave attendees his background and he is a light aircraft enthusiast himself. He flies and builds the sort of aircraft readers of this website enjoy.
* Modern websites provide information I never dreamed of having in, let’s say, the 1990s. WordPress, the open source software that helps me build this website, provides a wealth of data about where visitors are going on the website and which stories generate the most looks and shares. This data resource helps me produce the right stories that earn your attention. However, unlike some social media giants or numerous government agencies, we do not collect any personal data and we don’t share any data with anyone …and we never will! To the best of our ability, we deeply respect your privacy and the rights to your own data.
Thanks for the updates Dan you did a great job summarizing the changes to the proposed changes. As to what constitutes “easy to fly” or “docile to fly”, I think that may prove to be problematic for some types of aircraft because opinions will differ. I agree with the other commenters that something like a Cessna 150/152 or 172 (or for that matter their Piper equivalents) are the definition of easy to fly and possessing docile flying characteristics. I’m sorry but try as I might to rationalize otherwise, a C172 for $150k is a far more capable aircraft for me than any 1320-lb 2-seat S-LSA regardless of whatever whiz-bang avionics the S-LSA may have (I want to do a lot of cross-country flying by myself or with one other person and carry a bunch of camping gear). Please don’t let the FAA lose sight of their mandate to promote GenAv along with safety. Thanks!
I really hope what is described here comes to fruition.
If the mantra is “Safe, Simple, and Easy to Fly”, then competent airplanes like the C152 and 172 should be allowed.
Many people, including myself, would argue that a C172 is much easier and safer to fly than a half ton bird with a max demonstrated crosswind of like 10 knots.
Many LSAs are a challenge to handle on even marginally windy days, even by an experienced PPL.
The 1320 lb weight limit is obscene in that forces a pilot to choose between fuel and safety features like BRS.
Dan,
Thanks for all your work on behalf of the light aircraft community; keeping us informed and educated is important. When I read about the initial FAA/ASTM proposals I wonder what world these folks live in. It seems they know nothing or very little about the area of aviation they are trying to regulate.
Joining the ASTM sounds like a good idea. Any input from the real world, no matter how small is a good thing.
As one other commentator wrote the FAA’s time line for issuing new standards/regulations is far too long for an industry that is at the leading edge of technology development. A good example is electric powered aircraft. I flew my first electric powered aircraft in 2005, the electric Tsunami was already forming. Did anyone in the FAA know that? I somehow doubt it. One wag said the FAA’s problem with electric aircraft is they don’t know what to do about the extension cords.
One subtopic not mentioned is how these revisions to LSA will impact Experimental aircraft that are not Amateur Built. I know of many, many factory built aircraft that do not meet LSA standards for speed, weight and prop controllability that are certificated as Experimental or Racing/Exhibition. There is no other category they can operate in; but they never get raced or exhibited. Technically they are not operating legally. The FAA has created this by not keeping in touch with how light aircraft are operated. This situation obviously still exists and I question the ability of the new administrator to make a positive impact on this. His good intentions have to move lifelong FAA bureaucrats that do not want to “rock the boat”. Good intentions from the top get lost in the bureaucracy below without forceful direction from on top.
For those who cannot get a medical, do not despair about gliders. Look at the “touring motorgliders, aka TMG” — HK-36 of Diamond, Aeromot Ximango, AMS Carat or Pipistrel Sinus, etc. These are all registered as gliders. I just finished a 1,264 mile XC in a TMG, TAS 115 knots, 3.4 gph with autopilot, ADS-B, Foreflight, and all that jazz. Beats the daylight out of a C-150 and many C-172s and a lot more fun to fly, plus they can soar. Expand your horizons.
Robert Mudd
Moriarty, NM
I have read that many think just removing the Medical would solve everything. Obviously that is over simplified, but simple often works. What is your opinion of removing any medical for anything other than commercial.
It does not matter what I think, but what FAA’s Legal Department thinks. They will write what they believe is appropriate but then we all have the opportunity to comment and FAA must read every single comment. That will be your opportunity to sound off and I would guess that timing is somewhere around AirVenture 2022.
Hi Dan! I love reading your updates since you are always careful to say what is real and what is still hoped for.
I have a question that I hope fits this topic: Can a Sport Pilot get an endorsement for night time VFR?
Thanx!
Andy
I reached out to Sport Pilot instructor expert, Paul Hamilton, who confirmed my response. He wrote…
“Can a Sport Pilot get an endorsement for night time VFR? • NO, per 61.315(c)(5) of the FARs.
All Sport Pilot endorsements are stated in Part 61, Subpart J Sport Pilots. No Night.”
What can I do to ensure that Sport Pilot rules expand to allow flying a Cessna 152 or 172? I would be willing to donate to an organization that will fight for inclusion of more aircraft for Sport Pilots. Are there any organizations that are pushing for this?
I believe all the organizations giving FAA input in on this are angling to include more aircraft to what a Sport Pilot may fly. What you can do about it is be ready to comment somewhere around AirVenture 2022 when the NPRM may be announced.
I’d like to see more movement on the certified aircraft. I’m doing a lot of work on my plane (with IA supervision) correcting things missed by other A&Ps over the years. Maybe more maintenance would be done if it was easier and less expensive. This is not rocket science. A lot of the “PMA” parts industry is highway robbery. Want some examples? No wonder a lot of planes just sit unused for years, leaving their engines ripe for an overhaul.
Also, I’m flying on old instrumentation that would cost an arm and a leg to update because it is “certified” and needs to be TSO’d. The STCs and NORSEE are a start, but should go MUCH further so older certified aircraft can enjoy the same modern situational awareness as experimentals.
On this website, “certified” aircraft are not part of our regular coverage. Every other magazine in aviation does that so we concentrate on areas where our expertise may be useful to readers.
The good news — although it is unrelated to LSA — is that those Part 23-certified aircraft will be switched over to industry consensus standards (as LSA use) at some point, and after that, it may be possible to upgrade things much more easily than under FAA’s prescriptive system.
As an 84-year-old private pilot knowing I would fail a medical, LSA is my only option.
So let’s not confuse LSA with endorsements as stepping stones, its salvation to some.
Well, there are also gliders, specifically motor-gliders, some of which have several advantages over LSA airplanes: My Pipistrel Virus SW was registered as an Glider in the Experimental category. I could fly it at night, I could fly it in IMC (I had put an Avidyne IFD 440 in it), I could fly more than 10,000 feet up, and I could exceed 140 knots (Vne was 12 knots) [<—a number is missing here] on about 4 gph. At lower speeds, fuel consumption dropped to the 3 gph range. And gliders do not require a medical… but you have to be able to certify certify that they do not know, or have reason to know, of any medical condition that would make them unable to operate a glider in a safe manner. I don't know why you KNOW you would fail a medical, but I note that this (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/app_process/general/operations/) FAA webpage states:
“Sport pilots may not use a current and valid U.S. driver’s license in lieu of a valid airman medical certificate if they know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make them unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.”
That quote has nothing to do with this guy’s comment. All he said was that he wouldn’t be able to pass a medical. That doesn’t mean that he has narcolepsy or seizures etc. The FAA’s list of meds and medical conditions that it considers to be disqualifiers needs to be greatly reduced because it is ridiculous. For instance, the FAA considers ADD medication‘s to be a disqualifier even though the military has no trouble issuing their pilots the same medication‘s to keep them awake and alert during long missions. What kind of logic is that? It’s OK for a F 22 pilot to take Adderall but it’s not OK for a guy that wants to fly a piper Cherokee??? That’s just one of many equally absurd disqualifiers. Furthermore, let’s not pretend that any model of powered glider is an acceptable alternative to a guy dad wants to put his wife and kid and his airplane with their luggage and Fly to the beach for the weekend, because it’s not and the implication that it is a good alternative is somewhat offensive, to be honest. The truth is that the majority of the sport pilots chose the sport pilot route because they felt they would not qualify for a medical And if that has not pose a problem in the LSA class why would it pose a problem with heavier aircraft such as a 172 or a bonanza or a mooney?? My opinion is that they should drop the medical requirement for the PPL completely.
Yes, a number is missing. Should read “162” knots.
And…
Yes, while he didn’t say why he would not be able to pass a medical…there are some conditions for which it probably won’t affect his ability to fly safely…. and some which might cause that to be in serious question (and which means he shouldn’t be piloting an aircraft (at least not without a qualified safety pilot).
It would [seem?] like any LSA limitations, e.g., speed, weight, night and maybe even JCR [??] can be overcome by special certifications. Am I understanding that correctly?
Your message was challenging to interpret but I believe you asked if endorsements (rather than “certifications”) might allow higher privileges. While we wait on the final version that will very likely change somewhat, yes, it appears this might be possible.
Dan, can you please give us more information about this meeting between the EAA and FAA ?
I did not attend the meeting but cross-checked what I heard from parties who were present. I have related what I would consider relevant information for readers of this website. Further detail becomes increasingly meaningless as directions continue to evolve. That’s a good thing in that they appear keen to give industry more duty in deciding things.
Thanks for taking the time to participate in the meeting – and write a firsthand report on it. As an absent LSA manufacturer to Oshkosh, I feel well represented by Dan & Roy. Thanks again.
PS – How did Dickson fit in the F2?
Thanks for your kind remarks. Airshows offer great contact opportunities such as these meetings and of course talking to airplane creators …just not enough hours in the day.
Administrator Dickson spent a surprising amount of time talking with Tom Peghiny and he sat in the aircraft for quite a few minutes, longer than I might’ve expected. I was told he asked a number of good questions, several of them related to safety; F2 is quite strong in this area (even has air bags).
Dan,
I agree with your assessment. These are good changes. The power index was too complicated, and limiting the horsepower to 200hp makes little sense from a safety point. In fact, proper power loading, instead of horsepower, is what is more likely to provide a margin of safety when climbing away from an obstacle.
If the goal of LSA is to make safe and easy to operate airplanes, it seems to me that the focus should be on parameters that would accomplish those goals. Ultimately, I think safety comes down to a few factors: airplanes with low stall and landing speeds, benign stall characteristics, difficult to spin but easy to recover from one, harmonized flight controls that provide good feedback about what the airplane is doing, and simple to operate controls that can’t confuse or overwhelm the pilot, or high airspeeds in which the plane can get ahead of the pilot.
Just as important to safety is quality training, and this is were I think endorsements can help. For example, there are already endorsement for using class B, C, and D airspace, as well as cruise speeds above 87 knots. There is no reason even higher airspeeds, say, over the current 120 knots LSA limit can’t also require an endorsement, or that night flight can’t require an endorsement.
All in all, I think the FAA dropping power index, light personal aircraft, and horsepower maximums is a good start so that the focus can return to safe and easy aviation, while at the same time making LSA more broadly acceptable to the pilot population at large (e.g. bigger planes for us heftier pilots, and faster planes for those who really want our planes to be nice cross-country cruisers).
Dan, your understanding is we may be able to fly a 4 seater but with just one other person. Wasn’t that the original EAA/AOPA proposal? …180 HP? Are we going back to that?
Clearly, this entire matter is evolving.
The good news from AirVenture 2021 is that some of the burdensome ideas (Light Personal Aircraft) got tossed, so in that sense it’s good this is still fluid. I’m sure FAA has considered several proposals including those from EAA, AOPA, GAMA, and of course LAMA. LAMA presented white papers for each change the organization sought for its members. I’m sure others did something similar. All that is available to FAA‘s rule writers.
Just get ready to comment when the time comes.
Are those whitepapers available to read anywhere?
They were written specifically for FAA for this purpose, so no, they have not been published elsewhere.
Dan, thank you so much for all you do for those of us who love aviation. The changes to Mosaic all sound promising. I’m glad SP allows me to fly without a medical. I do hope the changes include 152s and 172s. Regardless, I’ll find something to fly. Best wishes and keep up the great work on our behalf!
Thanks for your kind words, David.
Dan wrote: “I personally find it absurd that we wait for FAA to make regulatory decisions and then create or modify aircraft to fit their prescriptions. It seems infinitely more logical to me that the market creates aircraft pilots want and only then should FAA pursue regulation as needed to ensure public safety. Yet in today’s government-driven world, pilots must remain aware of what the aviation agency will do.”
At Airventure 2021 I spoke with the owner of Aeromomentum at his engine display booth. He said Aeromomentum will NOT seek any ASTM approval of any of their engines because ASTM rules are absurd: “written by Rotax,” “worse than FAR33.” As a former ASTM member I agree with Aeromomentum and I can cite examples why industry engine standards prevent new startups like me and Aero Momentum.
Bill Berson
I enthusiastically support alternative opinions, but as a longtime ASTM member myself, I can say that you and Mark can each join ASTM ($75/year) and each of you gets one vote, as Rotax gets one vote, and as all of FAA gets one vote per ballot. That said, I certainly respect your opinions.
Correct. We each get one vote but the establishment has the majority. Same with EAA, any member can vote at the EAA Annual Meeting.
But only 5000 of the 250,000 members vote because the rest know that EAA holds the 245,000 majority vote proxy and always will. Voting is no solution.
> He added, “Different weights and categories of aircraft would be allowed as endorsements.” Endorsements have already been used with good success for basic Sport Pilots to advance their privileges.
Does this mean that things that were once LPA-only like four seats and retractable landing gear are now probably going to be allowed for a Sport Pilot through endorsements? Did you get any information on what “different weights and categories of aircraft” means for someone without a 3rd class medical but with a sport certificate?
Since some of this news just broke this week; it is premature to guess the details you are seeking. However, the concept of endorsements has already been used throughout the period of LSA, and it appears FAA will expand it. My understanding is that a Sport Pilot will be allowed to fly a four-seat airplane but only with one other person joining them. Points like that may show how they will administrate this, but again, this is not done yet. Everyone should manage their expectations.
Hi Dan,
Thanks again for taking the time to write about the new regulations. It seems silly to allow a Sport Pilot to fly a 4 seater and only use 2 seats. Did they specifically say that or are you guessing based off the past? If they did say it, do you think they will to allow additional check offs so we can actually use all 4 seats?
The main FAA mantra following the revelations at Oshkosh is that an LSA must be “easy to fly,” or “docile to fly.” What does that mean? FAA will have industry decide what those phrases mean and how an aircraft will meet them.
However, what you are asking concerns pilot privileges and that is a different division than the people deciding about the aircraft. We simply will not know the final answers until they release the NPRM, which I estimate will be at Oshkosh 2022.
I’ve been a private pilot for nearly 55 years, but most of the last twenty years after retiring, I’ve been flying aircraft allowed to be flown by Sport Pilots. That is, until BasicMed, after which, I bought a half share in an RV-8A. This kind of rational change, based on no-medical experience with LSA pilots, was a long time coming but a huge benefit to many older pilots.
Patience is a virtue, one that may be difficult to acquire, but is worth doing. This apparent setback, will likely lead to a better, more rational set of regulations, I hope. I hope. I hope.
The only that would be better is to eliminate the third class medical altogether for private pilots.
It defies logic that after a significant medical event there are two choices. Fly LSA with no medical or spend megabucks in an attempt to get a Special Issuance (SI) and either fail and never fly anything except Part 103 or gliders or pass and fly “regular” airplanes.
This is really getting more screwy. Fly all you want if the increased capability like Cerokees and 172s become really “LSA” or fly nothing at at all except gliders and 103s if you don’t get an SI.
And don’t tell me BasicMed fixed this because you have to have a Class III / SI after a major medical event to get BasicMed. OTOH, if you get BasicMed, and then have an event you can go right on flying as if nothing happened if you and your family doctor s agree.
So why do you need an SI anymore since under BasicMed, you don’t need one?
The whole “pilot bill of rights 2” thing that became BasicMed was supposed to be a drivers license medical (for up to 6000 lbs MTOW, up to 6 people, up to 250 kts, up to 18,000 MSL, simple as that) but the FAA of course gutted that.
Less is more? Starting over is good?
I wouldn’t call it starting over. But when changes result in the industry maintaining more control, yes, I’d say that’s good.
That sorta depends on whether or not the industry (which is basically the manufacturers) wants to contend with a fleet of more affordable Piper Cherokees, C150’s, or C172’s etc. and my guess is that they do not.
Dan, I love your work! As a pilot who can’t check off a box on his class three medical or BasicMed. Ride or Die I’m probably LSA for the remainder of my life.
I appreciate everything you have done on the LSAs and my behalf. I’ve lobbied my congressmen and senators to allow the 172s (and other basic flight school trainers) under LSA and I pray that this new “docile to fly” thoughts would include them.
I just want to fly something that I can occasionally travel in that will cost under six figures to purchase. I want something robust enough to keep up with freeway traffic, and a large enough payload capacity so I can bring a change of clothes while having more than 2 liters of fuel in the tanks. If we can find a way to put back some of the LSA’s stability in the process I’ll be in heaven. I’m 52 and I don’t want to sit on the bench for 10 years while I wait for my class 3 again.
Thanks Dan!
While you are at Osh – can you please ask more manufacturers for hand controls for their planes? it takes VERY little for them to put one in given how many designs exist. It is frustrating as a wheelchair pilot to only have foreign manufacturers pay attention to that and not a single US company. Vashon showed interest but has been almost a year and not much progress.
I agree it does seem to be something only non-U.S. manufactures supply, however, they are still available here in America. Certainly, I would be happy to suggest to other manufacturers that they consider this.
As discussed, LSA pilots expand their privileges through endorsements. For us “Step Down” pilots all endorsements earned through PPSEL carry over…
Except night flight. I wish night flight would be allowed in LS. Any chance of that?
I have not heard a discussion about night operations, but I would say anything is possible through the endorsement process. In about one year from now, I would guess, be prepared to respond to the NPRM with your comments.
The answer for MOSAIC is simple. Ditch 3rd class requirement for non-commercial piston singles. Allow an owner maintenance category (Canada has already proved this works). And create a simple path forward for Sport Pilots to get more training towards a Private if they would like to move up into larger more capable aircraft .
Thanks to the Sport Pilot regulation in the USA, no medical is required (so long as a pilot has never been denied a medical). The endorsement process will also create a path forward, we hope.
If they change the definition of a LSA, will a Sport Pilot be able to fly the newly defined version of a LSA?
FAA will probably leave this to industry (specifically, to the ASTM and the F37 committee that wrote the standards which LSA have been meeting for 15 years). However it is my present-day expectation that, yes, a Sport Pilot will be able to fly the new definition of LSA and that will include some extra capabilities. What are those capabilities and exactly how does all this work? Will have to wait for more information.
First, great reporting.
Now onto what a lot of us see: there is so much focus on weight, speed, gear, props and other stuff but nothing about pilots.
Example: you have a set of twins that both lead basically the same life. They decide they want to learn to fly so, after some research, twin A decides a PPL is for him. He has kids and wants to travel. Twin B says he is single and just wants to fly for fun for the most part and take a passenger but doesn’t want to deal with the medical and the extra cost for the PPL so he chooses the Sport route. Twin A goes in for his medical and is denied for a reason. He is grounded! Or doomed to a life of flying Part 103! Twin B who would’ve been grounded as well because remember they led exactly the same life so Twin A and B both took a medication or whatever reason that grounded twin A but instead twin B is flying to breakfast with twin A’s wife and if the seating capacity goes up he will be taking his kids as well all the while twin A is lagging behind, stopping for fuel in his Part 103.
You see it’s always about the plane and how can we get more and more but never about the pilot or better yet very good pilots grounded when there are marginal pilots legally flying. I agree not to mess with the Part 103 rule but it was already messed with when the training exemption were removed and a new Sport Pilot certificate was pushed as a way to carry a passenger in a “fat ultralight.” I know the stock answer to this scenario I saw where you answered this question already that the lawyers wouldn’t let it through. I know it takes liability away from the FAA because twin B didn’t report it and twin A did. In reality they just discriminated against Twin A and that’s the half-witted thinking by the FAA and those pushing bigger, faster, retracting gear, and in-flight adjustable props. This isn’t about getting new pilots at all it’s about making someone more money.
Great reporting on a burst dam and getting to the gist of it!
I just want to be able to fly a 172 or 150 with a Sport Pilot certificate. There’s no logical reason I can’t. Currently my only option is to pay an instructor or take another PPL with me when I want to go flying.
The restrictions on a medical certificate severely limit and/or deny people who see a physiologist or take certain medications to stay healthy.
I got that sense from your excellent article. Government rulemaking follows something called the Administrative Procedures Act. Some agencies (including the FAA on occasion) invoke some provisions of that law to be less than transparent. What the FAA is doing with the much-discussed potential changes is commendable in that there appears to be a lot of dialog with the aviation community.
Thanks for the report, but this is all so confusing. I’m glad I’m not in the business of designing, manufacturing and/or selling any airplane, but especially any aircraft that might fit in or around this space.
It’s hard to disagree but this is steps in what many insiders think is the right direction.
Holding a Private Pilot License for many years I suddenly find myself on the sunset side of a class III physical. Since the FAA thinks there is a high probability I can keel over any moment I am limited to Part 103 Ultralights. In exploring that option I find the limitations overly complex. While I can no longer legally fly friends and family I see no logical reason for the FAA to limit Part 103 pilots to the speed and aircraft weight requirements to name a few. Why not just say the Part 103 pilot can simply not take passengers, must be the sole occupant of any aircraft and dispense of the other superfluous Part 103 regulation.
Your point is well taken that aircraft manufacturers of all designs follow the regulation requirements when it should be the opposite.
The only problem with your otherwise reasonable comments are that any change to Part 103 opens the door to massive change to Part 103. Those of us who have lived with this simplest-of-all-aviation regulation for 40 years want zero change to it because anything new will threaten its amazing privileges.
Think about it… an aircraft you can fly with no pilot license (or medical or N-number) in 2021!?
If your last medical was issued past 2006 and expired but not been revoked then you can use BasicMed to fly which gives you access to 6000 MTOW, 250 kts, 18,000 MSL, and 6 people. And even if the FAA thinks you can keel over any moment you can still do this as long as your most recent medical was not revoked or denied.
My last medical was June 8 2006, Am I disqualified?
The key thing to determine is… Was your medical ever denied? If not, you’re good.
I got my Med in ’06 and logged about 10 hours when my wife was diagnosed with Cancer. I haven’t flown or had a medical since. Now, she is cancer free and we want to get back to flying, but we keep running into language that holds us up and dashes our hopes. Sport Pilot is our ticket to the air, but interpreting the bible is easier than the FAA regs sometimes. No, I have not been denied, but I haven’t tried either, does that matter?
The good (great!) news is that if you have not been denied, then you may fly a LSA or Sport Pilot eligible kit with a driver’s license in lieu of am aviation medical. Don’t go ask for another aviation medical,
So in one swoop, every idea by Mosaic has been torpedoed. And that is a good thing because it’s simpler? That seems like saying “hey, the prof torpedoed your entire dissertation but at least you can start over and find the correct answer now”. Can you expand on the positive aspects of this new information? The LSA limitations are so ridiculous and seemingly arbitrary it just astounds. These are aircraft designed to attract low time pilots; aircraft which can have low weight/inertia and high drag making them more dangerous in certain engine out scenarios. Adding some weight and power to these crafts seems like it would make them safer. I’m not seeing the positive aspect of this news.
If you have not been denied a medical you can fly any LSA. If you been denied, Part 103 is your only options. However, no one knowledgeable wants to ask FAA to alter 103 even in the slightest; the results will please almost no one.
I’m not following you. How is having the entire argument for LPA, power index, and a 200 horsepower cap become “history” a good thing for LSA?
LSA suffers from aircraft that are too restricted to be useful for missions many pilots want. The restrictions on Sport Pilot exacerbate the problem. The addition of just 500 pounds to gross weight and a 150-knot max speed would create planes that could serve most missions. The addition of endorsements for Sport Pilot that allow for IFR/IMC would make sense if safety is really an issue for the FAA. Right now it appears that Sport Pilot did little more than allow older pilots a way to sidestep 3rd class medical issues and keep flying. LSA planes have failed to be much cheaper, are limited in mission capabilities, and combined with the limitations of Sport Pilot appear to miss every goal of the FAA. “Easy to Fly” is a trash metric on which to base a whole tier of aviation. Or am I totally wrong and missing something?
Probably every single person views this entire exercise somewhat differently. Each is entitled to their own view, of course.
What I find good about the changes I reported is that industry will be given the opportunity to to define things previously defined by FAA. That may not make initially better; these are just other humans making decisions. However they can be updated and changed far more rapidly and are more likely to reflect what pilots one bureaucracy can ever do. In those ways I think these changes are indeed beneficial.
Of course, being “given the opportunity to define things,” means industry must do the defining. Most of the people doing this work do so on a voluntary basis. You could be part of this if you feel qualified. So can anyone else. (ASTM membership cost $75 and includes a full set of the latest standards.) Every individual joining the committee is given one vote the same as every other entity. This work will not suit everyone, of course, but those with interest and skills or experience are most welcome.
Not just a denial; your last application for a medical must have resulted in an issuance of a certificate that was not revoked or suspended. I was deferred in 1993. I could spend a small fortune to have the tests done and overcome the 1991 kidney stone, but now that I’m 30 years older the doctors will find more stuff. I can’t fly LSA using my Private Pilot License and a driver’s license for a medical because of the deferral. Do you know how many people have a driver’s license and are in much worse physical condition than I am? So, I have 3 choices: (1) Spend a small fortune on tests and scans to be able to get a class 3, (2) fly Part 103 or (3) fly a glider and or motorglider.
I really feel discriminated against by the position of the FAA when I’m held to a higher medical standard than a Sport Pilot just because I hold a PPL and can’t take advantage of the driver’s license rules because of the deferral. It’s a “Catch 22” and only people in my situation care!
I don’t think that answers anything I said. Can you expand on how the defeat of these ideas from Mosaic is a good thing? I mean that honestly. I don’t see the upside.
I don’t mean to oversimplify, but what FAA is saying is that industry will decide more of these things. I believe that is a net positive, although it does put more burden on industry players.
I re-read the article and best I can discern, this is your biggest statement.
“The key phrases to come out of an FAA meeting was that LSA should be defined as “easy to fly” or “docile to fly” and then let the industry define exactly what that means.” He added, “Different weights and categories of aircraft would be allowed as endorsements.”
If I am reading the implied meaning correctly, LSA limits like 1320 weight and 2 seat may be going away in favor of planes designed as “easy to fly” and an endorsement system would cover training for them?
So much of the FAA guide seems absurdly arbitrary I don’t know how you even deal with them.
Amid all these changes, one thing remains the same: industry is being given more duty in how this is achieved, and in the long run that may be for the best. FAA’s decision cycle is simply too long for an evolving industry.
As to the endorsements, what a pilot can do and what the airplane is capable of are two distinct approval processes. A Sport Pilot may be allowed to fly a four-seat aircraft but with only one other occupant beside him or herself. An endorsement may allow you to fly that heavyset airplane. All statements are mere speculation at this time but this is where it’s headed with the decision of what is “easy to fly“ or “docile to fly” being left up to industry. If you have something to contribute to that effort, join ASTM and help get it done. By and large these are volunteers doing that work.
Dan;
One correction: If you have been denied a medical, you can get a glider rating and fly gliders and then get a self-launch endorsement and continue to fly motor gliders. There are some beautiful and fast motor gliders available.
Right you are although most motor gliders are fairly pricey (because they are precision built in small numbers). Some LSA can qualify, for example, the Pipistrel Sinus. Used motorgliders can lower the cost of entry.
Plus… you might learn something about soaring flight, which I consider one of the greatest thrills in aviation. I find nothing more gratifying than finding and catching a good thermal, and riding it up thousands of feet based on my skill (and the glider’s performance).
It almost sounds as though we are back to square one concerning the allowances of what Light Sport Aircraft should be. I find it interesting that regulators feel light sport aircraft are more docile than heavier aircraft. I guess they have never flown in a light sport aircraft in windy conditions. I, myself, find that piloting a heaver aircraft feels much more stable and thereby easier to fly in windy conditions. Wouldn’t it make more sense, as you state, to make endorsements the key to what can be flown by light sport licensees? With enough training and endorsements you would qualify for a private pilot license upgrade.
It is significantly a matter of personal perspective, but many find these changes to be better even if they may be moving back toward where we started. Yes, light aircraft are more sensitive to wind conditions but that doesn’t mean they’re flight characteristics are less docile
This is astoundingly reasonable… and factual, as it relates to LSAs in variable winds. Trying to fly my 650-pound SLSA in variable winds is a constant battle. I’m a hell of a lot better at cross-wind correction because I have to be in my SLSA. I’ve flown 172s a lot before my SLSA and they feel like a tank in the air compared to my light, low-wing SLSA.
I think the endorsements system brought in with Sport Pilot was a great idea and, as you say, one that should be infinitely expandable. If it were expandable up to Private Pilot, and if Sport Pilot were usable on more widely-available training airplanes (some LSAs are great training airplanes, but there aren’t many around), then Sport Pilot could have much bigger impact. Students would be “real pilots” much earlier in their training, and as they bumped into the limitations of the basic SP rating it would provide motivation for each incremental step in the training up to Private, and provide a series of reinforcements and a sense of continuing accomplishment along the way. Maybe it would not get people up to the Private standard as fast as just going for Private in one shot, but I’d guess it might do a lot for retention. And, of course, it should continue all the way to Instrument Rating, with that rating also being broken down into a series of endorsements. In Europe, for example, there is an Enroute IFR that does not allow for flying instrument approaches; one could also imagine a Terminal IFR rating that allows for instrument departures and approaches but not (tiring) enroute IFR; and/or one could imagine an Autopilot Required Instrument rating…
Thanks Dan!!
What ?!! A bunch of people with common sense are now working at the FAA. How’d they slip through the system ? 😉
(Great report Dan and Roy) !