Posted: 7/23/2025 11:30:15 AM EDT
|
https://www.flyingmag.com/faa-finalizes-major-overhaul-of-light-sport-aircraft-rules/ The FAA has finalized its long-awaited Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification (MOSAIC) rule, implementing broad changes to the light sport aircraft (LSA) category and sport pilot privileges. Signed on July 18 and unveiled at EAA AirVenture on Tuesday in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, the rule marks the most sweeping update to this segment of general aviation since 2004, the agency said.  Under MOSAIC, the FAA is removing the existing weight limit for LSAs and replacing it with performance-based criteria, allowing for faster, heavier, and more capable designs. Aircraft with up to four seats, retractable landing gear, constant-speed propellers, and alternative propulsion systems such as electric power will now be eligible for certification under the LSA category. Expanded Privileges for Sport Pilots The rule also expands what sport pilots can fly and how they can operate. With proper training and endorsements, sport pilots will be allowed to fly at night, operate more complex aircraft, and make use of advanced systems previously limited to higher certificate levels. The two-person occupancy limit remains, but eligible aircraft now include a broader range of configurations, including helicopters and powered-lift. For the first time, the FAA will also permit limited commercial activities under the LSA framework, including infrastructure inspection, aerial photography, and agricultural observation. These missions were previously off-limits to LSAs, even if the aircraft were technically capable. “This landmark rule aims to increase the availability of safe, modern, and affordable aircraft for recreational aviation, flight training, and certain aerial work,” said FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford in a news release. “It enables industry to meet the growing demand for more versatile aircraft with higher performance capabilities while maintaining high standards of safety.” The FAA said MOSAIC is designed to encourage wider adoption of factory-built LSAs by offering more capability and flexibility while maintaining a high level of safety. According to the agency, these aircraft will now serve as a more attractive alternative to experimental amateur-built models, which have historically seen higher accident rates. The final rule reflects changes made in response to over 1,300 public comments submitted after the proposal was issued in July 2023. Revisions include higher allowable stall speeds for LSA and sport pilots and a shift to voluntary compliance with FAA noise standards for LSA manufacturers. Changes related to pilot privileges and maintenance certification will take effect 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. Aircraft certification changes will go into effect after one year. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
|
This is great. Two things to note. FBOs that rent aircraft may still require PPL. Very few schools offer sport pilot flight training anymore. Hopefully this will change. |
"According to Argonne National Laboratory, it takes 100 pounds of battery in an EV to go a distance achieved by only one pound of gasoline in an ICE vehicle"
|
Originally Posted By _DR: This is great. Two things to note. FBOs that rent aircraft may still require PPL. Very schools offer sport pilot flight training anymore. Hopefully this will change. IMO, even if you only want to fly under sport pilot rules, you should still go ahead and get a PPL. It's not that much more training, but it's good training to have. I don't know how insurance rates compare, but it might even pay for itself eventually. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
Joined:
Jun 2023
Posts:
307
EE: 0% (0)
WA, USA
| More performance without a medical? Sweet. But who can afford a new airframe of any type? I need a broken-down C150 to type rate at light sport. Then I'll be excited. The Faa needs to allow people to reregister plane certificates as experimental or light sport as long as the performance and capacity are maintained. |
|
Originally Posted By pirate_CNC: More performance without a medical? Sweet. But who can afford a new airframe of any type? I need a broken-down C150 to type rate at light sport. Then I'll be excited. The Faa needs to allow people to reregister plane certificates as experimental or light sport as long as the performance and capacity are maintained. The registration isn't what designates the category. It's based in the type certificate. Certified planes that meet the requirements of light sport can be flown under light sport rules, regardless of their certification. Example: A Cessna 172 can now be flown by a light sport pilot. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
Joined:
Jun 2023
Posts:
308
EE: 0% (0)
WA, USA
|
Originally Posted By ske714: The registration isn't what designates the category. It's based in the type certificate. Certified planes that meet the requirements of light sport can be flown under light sport rules, regardless of their certification. Example: A Cessna 172 can now be flown by a light sport pilot. Is a Cesna 172 one of the most commonly-owned private planes in the USA? Appears so: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172 Looks like used prices for a 172 run from $50,000 to $300,000, with new ones about $400k. https://pilotpassion.com/how-much-does-a-cessna-172-skyhawk-cost/ 
|
|
Originally Posted By pirate_CNC: I see what your saying. So this basically accomplishes opening up old light aircraft to light sport pilots. I wonder what this will do to the small plane accident rate? The same thing it did when they created light sport - nothing. That's why they have now expanded it. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
|
Probably a dumb question, but how does it affect certificated pilots that don't have current medicals- but haven't been denied one. Can they still fly under light sport rules and would they be considered as having necessary endorsements already? |
<placeholder for something good in the future></placeholder>
|
Originally Posted By FB41: Probably a dumb question, but how does it affect certificated pilots that don't have current medicals- but haven't been denied one. Can they still fly under light sport rules and would they be considered as having necessary endorsements already? Go fly! No medical required. I'm not sure it even matters if you were denied. I don't think it does. That is a stipulation for basic med, not light sport. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
|
Originally Posted By Dominion21: Is a Cesna 172 one of the most commonly-owned private planes in the USA? Appears so: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172 Looks like used prices for a 172 run from $50,000 to $300,000, with new ones about $400k. https://pilotpassion.com/how-much-does-a-cessna-172-skyhawk-cost/ https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fatpflightschool.com%2Fimg%2Fbanner%2Fcessna-skyhawk-duo-on-runway.jpg&f=1&ipt=0cb2258236ec730a63eb071beb20338f79d084572b1f5db2640d18b8fe3c5db6 You can buy a Piper Tomahawk in the $30k range. |
"According to Argonne National Laboratory, it takes 100 pounds of battery in an EV to go a distance achieved by only one pound of gasoline in an ICE vehicle"
|
Originally Posted By ske714: Go fly! No medical required. I'm not sure it even matters if you were denied. I don't think it does. That is a stipulation for basic med, not light sport. Wait, what? I can get old and decrepit, lose my medical, sell my helicopter, then go out and buy a MOSAIC compliant, complex, and technically advanced, aircraft that goes 250KN and all I need is a driver's license? Seriously?  If that's really true then I no longer fear that day. I can keep flying, albeit with only one other person, and only VFR, and it's an airplane, but it'll be very nice, and very fast, airplane  That can't be true. Really? |
|
Originally Posted By aa777888-2: Wait, what? I can get old and decrepit, lose my medical, sell my helicopter, then go out and buy a MOSAIC compliant, complex, and technically advanced, aircraft that goes 250KN and all I need is a driver's license? Seriously? If that's really true then I no longer fear that day. I can keep flying, albeit with only one other person, and only VFR, and it's an airplane, but it'll be very nice, and very fast, airplane That can't be true. Really? Originally Posted By aa777888-2: Originally Posted By ske714: Go fly! No medical required. I'm not sure it even matters if you were denied. I don't think it does. That is a stipulation for basic med, not light sport. Wait, what? I can get old and decrepit, lose my medical, sell my helicopter, then go out and buy a MOSAIC compliant, complex, and technically advanced, aircraft that goes 250KN and all I need is a driver's license? Seriously? If that's really true then I no longer fear that day. I can keep flying, albeit with only one other person, and only VFR, and it's an airplane, but it'll be very nice, and very fast, airplane That can't be true. Really? I know, right? Actually, I just looked it up. Under the requirements for light sport, you have to have been found eligible for at least a third class (once) in order to fly with only your DL. If you get denied, you are no longer in the state of having been found eligible. Don't get denied. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
| Bummer. Too good to be true. On the other hand, if you wind up in a disqualifying situation then all you have to do is simply never attempt to get another medical, and you could skate until they take your driver's license away, something that almost never happens. |
|
Originally Posted By ske714: No, 4 seats, 2 souls. That part makes zero sense to me. I would like to know the reasoning. Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By swampfoxoutdoors: So 4 seaters and 4 passengers are ok now? No, 4 seats, 2 souls. That part makes zero sense to me. I would like to know the reasoning. Maybe they just wanted to open up cargo carrying ability |
BikerNut:
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
|
Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Maybe they just wanted to open up cargo carrying ability Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By swampfoxoutdoors: So 4 seaters and 4 passengers are ok now? No, 4 seats, 2 souls. That part makes zero sense to me. I would like to know the reasoning. Maybe they just wanted to open up cargo carrying ability But why does it matter whether you have one passenger or three? If they let you have 4 seats, why can't you put people in them? |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
|
Originally Posted By ske714: But why does it matter whether you have one passenger or three? If they let you have 4 seats, why can't you put people in them? Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By swampfoxoutdoors: So 4 seaters and 4 passengers are ok now? No, 4 seats, 2 souls. That part makes zero sense to me. I would like to know the reasoning. Maybe they just wanted to open up cargo carrying ability But why does it matter whether you have one passenger or three? If they let you have 4 seats, why can't you put people in them? I choose not to be the person that makes sense of gov positions 
|
BikerNut:
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
|
Originally Posted By ske714: But why does it matter whether you have one passenger or three? If they let you have 4 seats, why can't you put people in them? Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By swampfoxoutdoors: So 4 seaters and 4 passengers are ok now? No, 4 seats, 2 souls. That part makes zero sense to me. I would like to know the reasoning. Maybe they just wanted to open up cargo carrying ability But why does it matter whether you have one passenger or three? If they let you have 4 seats, why can't you put people in them? So when you go into a diabetic coma, you only kill yer wife, not yer whole family. |
I sell firearms produced by the finest child labor in the world, be it Filipino, Muslim, Mormon, Arizonan, or Texan.
|
Originally Posted By ske714: But why does it matter whether you have one passenger or three? If they let you have 4 seats, why can't you put people in them? Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By swampfoxoutdoors: So 4 seaters and 4 passengers are ok now? No, 4 seats, 2 souls. That part makes zero sense to me. I would like to know the reasoning. Maybe they just wanted to open up cargo carrying ability But why does it matter whether you have one passenger or three? If they let you have 4 seats, why can't you put people in them? It has to be to simply get more airplane types usable under the rules, like 172's and such. As in, they still don't want to allow any more than one passenger for sport pilots, but they know there needs to be more aircraft available. Allowing current four seat aircraft that qualify is an instant way to get more airplanes flying under these rules. |
|
Originally Posted By Rbass: It has to be to simply get more airplane types usable under the rules, like 172's and such. As in, they still don't want to allow any more than one passenger for sport pilots, but they know there needs to be more aircraft available. Allowing current four seat aircraft that qualify is an instant way to get more airplanes flying under these rules. That makes sense |
BikerNut:
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
Normal people like motorcycles. Real people like motorcycles.
People who don't like motorcycles are just... weird.
|
Originally Posted By Rbass: It has to be to simply get more airplane types usable under the rules, like 172's and such. As in, they still don't want to allow any more than one passenger for sport pilots, but they know there needs to be more aircraft available. Allowing current four seat aircraft that qualify is an instant way to get more airplanes flying under these rules. Originally Posted By Rbass: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By swampfoxoutdoors: So 4 seaters and 4 passengers are ok now? No, 4 seats, 2 souls. That part makes zero sense to me. I would like to know the reasoning. Maybe they just wanted to open up cargo carrying ability But why does it matter whether you have one passenger or three? If they let you have 4 seats, why can't you put people in them? It has to be to simply get more airplane types usable under the rules, like 172's and such. As in, they still don't want to allow any more than one passenger for sport pilots, but they know there needs to be more aircraft available. Allowing current four seat aircraft that qualify is an instant way to get more airplanes flying under these rules. But why? You haven't answered the question. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
|
Originally Posted By ske714: But why? You haven't answered the question. Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By Rbass: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By swampfoxoutdoors: So 4 seaters and 4 passengers are ok now? No, 4 seats, 2 souls. That part makes zero sense to me. I would like to know the reasoning. Maybe they just wanted to open up cargo carrying ability But why does it matter whether you have one passenger or three? If they let you have 4 seats, why can't you put people in them? It has to be to simply get more airplane types usable under the rules, like 172's and such. As in, they still don't want to allow any more than one passenger for sport pilots, but they know there needs to be more aircraft available. Allowing current four seat aircraft that qualify is an instant way to get more airplanes flying under these rules. But why? You haven't answered the question. He doesn't need to answer the question. FAA Sport pilot certificate rules have never allowed more than 1 passenger for sport pilot. They modified the rules, they didn't rewrite the entire part. They just removed the weight restriction, to complexity restriction and set max stall speeds to allow use of common GA aircraft. |
"According to Argonne National Laboratory, it takes 100 pounds of battery in an EV to go a distance achieved by only one pound of gasoline in an ICE vehicle"
|
Originally Posted By _DR: He doesn't need to answer the question. FAA Sport pilot certificate rules have never allowed more than 1 passenger for sport pilot. They modified the rules, they didn't rewrite the entire part. They just removed the weight restriction, to complexity restriction and set max stall speeds. Originally Posted By _DR: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By Rbass: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By swampfoxoutdoors: So 4 seaters and 4 passengers are ok now? No, 4 seats, 2 souls. That part makes zero sense to me. I would like to know the reasoning. Maybe they just wanted to open up cargo carrying ability But why does it matter whether you have one passenger or three? If they let you have 4 seats, why can't you put people in them? It has to be to simply get more airplane types usable under the rules, like 172's and such. As in, they still don't want to allow any more than one passenger for sport pilots, but they know there needs to be more aircraft available. Allowing current four seat aircraft that qualify is an instant way to get more airplanes flying under these rules. But why? You haven't answered the question. He doesn't need to answer the question. FAA Sport pilot certificate rules have never allowed more than 1 passenger for sport pilot. They modified the rules, they didn't rewrite the entire part. They just removed the weight restriction, to complexity restriction and set max stall speeds. Yes, they pretty much DID rewrite the entire part. Light sport never allowed complex or high performance, either. Now it does. Two people made sense when there was only two seats and a weight restriction. What additional skill is required to fly with four people in a plane vs. two? What additional training is required? "They never did allow it" is not the answer, because they changed almost everything else. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
|
Originally Posted By ske714: Yes, they pretty much DID rewrite the entire part. Light sport never allowed complex or high performance, either. Now it does. Two people made sense when there was only two seats and a weight restriction. What additional skill is required to fly with four people in a plane vs. two? What additional training is required? "They never did allow it" is not the answer, because they changed almost everything else. Maybe look at it this way. Whether your airplane has two seats or 10 seats, they don't want sport pilots to risk more than one passenger life, or deal with the distraction level of multiple passengers. That is regardless of whatever airplane you are flying. The rule applying to what type of airplanes qualify is to give all the sport pilots (and their 1 passenger) more options, and allow the program to continue. Without that it would probably die due to a severe lack of qualified airplanes in the fleet, and the costs of small numbers true light sport planes compared to tried and true GA planes that are everywhere already. You need to separate these two different parts of the new rules in your head, they are for completely different purposes. |
|
Originally Posted By Rbass: Maybe look at it this way. Whether your airplane has two seats or 10 seats, they don't want sport pilots to risk more than one passenger life, or deal with the distraction level of multiple passengers. That is regardless of whatever airplane you are flying. The rule applying to what type of airplanes qualify is to give all the sport pilots (and their 1 passenger) more options, and allow the program to continue. Without that it would probably die due to a severe lack of qualified airplanes in the fleet, and the costs of small numbers true light sport planes compared to tried and true GA planes that are everywhere already. You need to separate these two different parts of the new rules in your head, they are for completely different purposes. It's not about risking lives, or sport pilot wouldn't exist, and certainly wouldn't have been expanded. Two is not an acceptable number of lives to risk, where four is not. That's just silly. Sport pilot exists and was expanded because it has been proven that it does not increase the risk to pilot and passenger. I think it's most likely for the sake of the medical examiners. They lobbied hard against sport pilot because it cost them a big chunk of their business. Allowing more that two would have taken another big chunk. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
|
Originally Posted By ske714: It's not about risking lives, or sport pilot wouldn't exist, and certainly wouldn't have been expanded. Two is not an acceptable number of lives to risk, where four is not. That's just silly. Sport pilot exists and was expanded because it has been proven that it does not increase the risk to pilot and passenger. I think it's most likely for the sake of the medical examiners. They lobbied hard against sport pilot because it cost them a big chunk of their business. Allowing more that two would have taken another big chunk. Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By Rbass: Maybe look at it this way. Whether your airplane has two seats or 10 seats, they don't want sport pilots to risk more than one passenger life, or deal with the distraction level of multiple passengers. That is regardless of whatever airplane you are flying. The rule applying to what type of airplanes qualify is to give all the sport pilots (and their 1 passenger) more options, and allow the program to continue. Without that it would probably die due to a severe lack of qualified airplanes in the fleet, and the costs of small numbers true light sport planes compared to tried and true GA planes that are everywhere already. You need to separate these two different parts of the new rules in your head, they are for completely different purposes. It's not about risking lives, or sport pilot wouldn't exist, and certainly wouldn't have been expanded. Two is not an acceptable number of lives to risk, where four is not. That's just silly. Sport pilot exists and was expanded because it has been proven that it does not increase the risk to pilot and passenger. I think it's most likely for the sake of the medical examiners. They lobbied hard against sport pilot because it cost them a big chunk of their business. Allowing more that two would have taken another big chunk. Read that bold part too. The FAA doesn't trust you to fly more than one pax. They do trust you to fly higher performance airplanes. Why? whoTF knows, its the FAA. Also AME's probably make more profit off of one patients insurance than they would for 5 years worth of all their FAA medicals given. Med certs mean very little to a doctors bottom line. 
|
|
Originally Posted By ske714: Yes, they pretty much DID rewrite the entire part. Light sport never allowed complex or high performance, either. Now it does. Two people made sense when there was only two seats and a weight restriction. What additional skill is required to fly with four people in a plane vs. two? What additional training is required? "They never did allow it" is not the answer, because they changed almost everything else. Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By _DR: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By Rbass: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By swampfoxoutdoors: So 4 seaters and 4 passengers are ok now? No, 4 seats, 2 souls. That part makes zero sense to me. I would like to know the reasoning. Maybe they just wanted to open up cargo carrying ability But why does it matter whether you have one passenger or three? If they let you have 4 seats, why can't you put people in them? It has to be to simply get more airplane types usable under the rules, like 172's and such. As in, they still don't want to allow any more than one passenger for sport pilots, but they know there needs to be more aircraft available. Allowing current four seat aircraft that qualify is an instant way to get more airplanes flying under these rules. But why? You haven't answered the question. He doesn't need to answer the question. FAA Sport pilot certificate rules have never allowed more than 1 passenger for sport pilot. They modified the rules, they didn't rewrite the entire part. They just removed the weight restriction, to complexity restriction and set max stall speeds. Yes, they pretty much DID rewrite the entire part. Light sport never allowed complex or high performance, either. Now it does. Two people made sense when there was only two seats and a weight restriction. What additional skill is required to fly with four people in a plane vs. two? What additional training is required? "They never did allow it" is not the answer, because they changed almost everything else. I see your point, but the amount of passengers allowed did not change. But yes many things were changed, so perhaps it could be considered a rewrite. In any case, imo, it's a positive development for the less wealthy who want to aviate. |
"According to Argonne National Laboratory, it takes 100 pounds of battery in an EV to go a distance achieved by only one pound of gasoline in an ICE vehicle"
|
Originally Posted By _DR: I see your point, but the amount of passengers allowed did not change. But yes many things were changed, so perhaps it could be considered a rewrite. In any case, imo, it's a positive development for the less wealthy who want to aviate. Originally Posted By _DR: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By _DR: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By Rbass: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By swampfoxoutdoors: So 4 seaters and 4 passengers are ok now? No, 4 seats, 2 souls. That part makes zero sense to me. I would like to know the reasoning. Maybe they just wanted to open up cargo carrying ability But why does it matter whether you have one passenger or three? If they let you have 4 seats, why can't you put people in them? It has to be to simply get more airplane types usable under the rules, like 172's and such. As in, they still don't want to allow any more than one passenger for sport pilots, but they know there needs to be more aircraft available. Allowing current four seat aircraft that qualify is an instant way to get more airplanes flying under these rules. But why? You haven't answered the question. He doesn't need to answer the question. FAA Sport pilot certificate rules have never allowed more than 1 passenger for sport pilot. They modified the rules, they didn't rewrite the entire part. They just removed the weight restriction, to complexity restriction and set max stall speeds. Yes, they pretty much DID rewrite the entire part. Light sport never allowed complex or high performance, either. Now it does. Two people made sense when there was only two seats and a weight restriction. What additional skill is required to fly with four people in a plane vs. two? What additional training is required? "They never did allow it" is not the answer, because they changed almost everything else. I see your point, but the amount of passengers allowed did not change. But yes many things were changed, so perhaps it could be considered a rewrite. In any case, imo, it's a positive development for the less wealthy who want to aviate. It's hugely positive for everyone. I've been taking advantage of SP rules for years in my Champ with two seats. I didn't mean to derail my own thread. I just know that the reason is something "political" rather than having to do with safety of flight, and I'm curious what it is. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
|
Originally Posted By ske714: It's hugely positive for everyone. I've been taking advantage of SP rules for years in my Champ with two seats. I didn't mean to derail my own thread. I just know that the reason is something "political" rather than having to do with safety of flight, and I'm curious what it is. It is a huge positive for everyone, but I'm kinda irked that certificated Private Pilots or higher can't fly more than pax. I suppose it's because of sport pilot rules, rather than certificate, but this is gonna get me back in the air, so I'm gonna just shut up and enjoy it. |
<placeholder for something good in the future></placeholder>
|
Originally Posted By FB41: It is a huge positive for everyone, but I'm kinda irked that certificated Private Pilots or higher can't fly more than pax. I suppose it's because of sport pilot rules, rather than certificate, but this is gonna get me back in the air, so I'm gonna just shut up and enjoy it. Originally Posted By FB41: Originally Posted By ske714: It's hugely positive for everyone. I've been taking advantage of SP rules for years in my Champ with two seats. I didn't mean to derail my own thread. I just know that the reason is something "political" rather than having to do with safety of flight, and I'm curious what it is. It is a huge positive for everyone, but I'm kinda irked that certificated Private Pilots or higher can't fly more than pax. I suppose it's because of sport pilot rules, rather than certificate, but this is gonna get me back in the air, so I'm gonna just shut up and enjoy it. Bingo. And congratulations. Welcome back. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
|
Originally Posted By MHIDPA: So, will planes have to be certified for SP, or will it just be "it meets the criteria"? If they have to be certified does the FAA just start issuing them or do individual aircraft owners/manufacturers have to submit them to be certified? They just become eligible to be flown under SP rules. No paperwork required. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
|
Originally Posted By ske714: They just become eligible to be flown under SP rules. No paperwork required. Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By MHIDPA: So, will planes have to be certified for SP, or will it just be "it meets the criteria"? If they have to be certified does the FAA just start issuing them or do individual aircraft owners/manufacturers have to submit them to be certified? They just become eligible to be flown under SP rules. No paperwork required. So if I understand correctly, if a sport pilot wants to buy and fly say, a Piper Apache twin, he could do so, as long as he earns the correct things? That's pretty bad ass. |
"According to Argonne National Laboratory, it takes 100 pounds of battery in an EV to go a distance achieved by only one pound of gasoline in an ICE vehicle"
|
Originally Posted By _DR: So if I understand correctly, if a sport pilot wants to buy and fly say, a Piper Apache twin, he could do so, as long as he earns the correct things? That's pretty bad ass. Originally Posted By _DR: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By MHIDPA: So, will planes have to be certified for SP, or will it just be "it meets the criteria"? If they have to be certified does the FAA just start issuing them or do individual aircraft owners/manufacturers have to submit them to be certified? They just become eligible to be flown under SP rules. No paperwork required. So if I understand correctly, if a sport pilot wants to buy and fly say, a Piper Apache twin, he could do so, as long as he earns the correct things? That's pretty bad ass. Don't think so. A Cessna 337, yes. Differential thrust w/ engine out, no. Unless something changed from the original proposal. |
I sell firearms produced by the finest child labor in the world, be it Filipino, Muslim, Mormon, Arizonan, or Texan.
|
Originally Posted By backbencher: Don't think so. A Cessna 337, yes. Differential thrust w/ engine out, no. Unless something changed from the original proposal. Originally Posted By backbencher: Originally Posted By _DR: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By MHIDPA: So, will planes have to be certified for SP, or will it just be "it meets the criteria"? If they have to be certified does the FAA just start issuing them or do individual aircraft owners/manufacturers have to submit them to be certified? They just become eligible to be flown under SP rules. No paperwork required. So if I understand correctly, if a sport pilot wants to buy and fly say, a Piper Apache twin, he could do so, as long as he earns the correct things? That's pretty bad ass. Don't think so. A Cessna 337, yes. Differential thrust w/ engine out, no. Unless something changed from the original proposal. There is nothing that precludes a twin, as long as the clean stall speed is 59 knots or less. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
|
Originally Posted By ske714: There is nothing that precludes a twin, as long as the clean stall speed is 59 knots or less. Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By backbencher: Originally Posted By _DR: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By MHIDPA: So, will planes have to be certified for SP, or will it just be "it meets the criteria"? If they have to be certified does the FAA just start issuing them or do individual aircraft owners/manufacturers have to submit them to be certified? They just become eligible to be flown under SP rules. No paperwork required. So if I understand correctly, if a sport pilot wants to buy and fly say, a Piper Apache twin, he could do so, as long as he earns the correct things? That's pretty bad ass. Don't think so. A Cessna 337, yes. Differential thrust w/ engine out, no. Unless something changed from the original proposal. There is nothing that precludes a twin, as long as the clean stall speed is 59 knots or less. They dropped the differential thrust restriction on engine out? |
I sell firearms produced by the finest child labor in the world, be it Filipino, Muslim, Mormon, Arizonan, or Texan.
|
Originally Posted By ske714: There is nothing that precludes a twin, as long as the clean stall speed is 59 knots or less. Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By backbencher: Originally Posted By _DR: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By MHIDPA: So, will planes have to be certified for SP, or will it just be "it meets the criteria"? If they have to be certified does the FAA just start issuing them or do individual aircraft owners/manufacturers have to submit them to be certified? They just become eligible to be flown under SP rules. No paperwork required. So if I understand correctly, if a sport pilot wants to buy and fly say, a Piper Apache twin, he could do so, as long as he earns the correct things? That's pretty bad ass. Don't think so. A Cessna 337, yes. Differential thrust w/ engine out, no. Unless something changed from the original proposal. There is nothing that precludes a twin, as long as the clean stall speed is 59 knots or less. For the PA-23 Apache twin the POH states 59mph (51kts) at standard gross weight with flaps extended , but doesn't state clean stall speed. Piper Apache PA-23 POH  |
"According to Argonne National Laboratory, it takes 100 pounds of battery in an EV to go a distance achieved by only one pound of gasoline in an ICE vehicle"
|
Originally Posted By backbencher: They dropped the differential thrust restriction on engine out? Originally Posted By backbencher: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By backbencher: Originally Posted By _DR: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By MHIDPA: So, will planes have to be certified for SP, or will it just be "it meets the criteria"? If they have to be certified does the FAA just start issuing them or do individual aircraft owners/manufacturers have to submit them to be certified? They just become eligible to be flown under SP rules. No paperwork required. So if I understand correctly, if a sport pilot wants to buy and fly say, a Piper Apache twin, he could do so, as long as he earns the correct things? That's pretty bad ass. Don't think so. A Cessna 337, yes. Differential thrust w/ engine out, no. Unless something changed from the original proposal. There is nothing that precludes a twin, as long as the clean stall speed is 59 knots or less. They dropped the differential thrust restriction on engine out? There was no asymmetric thrust stipulation in LS rules. LS was specifically limited to single engine aircraft. That limitation has been removed. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
|
Originally Posted By _DR: For the PA-23 Apache twin the POH states 59mph (51kts) at standard gross weight with flaps extended , but doesn't state clean stall speed. Piper Apache PA-23 POH https://i.postimg.cc/pXLq6qNT/Screenshot-20250725-062506.png Originally Posted By _DR: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By backbencher: Originally Posted By _DR: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By MHIDPA: So, will planes have to be certified for SP, or will it just be "it meets the criteria"? If they have to be certified does the FAA just start issuing them or do individual aircraft owners/manufacturers have to submit them to be certified? They just become eligible to be flown under SP rules. No paperwork required. So if I understand correctly, if a sport pilot wants to buy and fly say, a Piper Apache twin, he could do so, as long as he earns the correct things? That's pretty bad ass. Don't think so. A Cessna 337, yes. Differential thrust w/ engine out, no. Unless something changed from the original proposal. There is nothing that precludes a twin, as long as the clean stall speed is 59 knots or less. For the PA-23 Apache twin the POH states 59mph (51kts) at standard gross weight with flaps extended , but doesn't state clean stall speed. Piper Apache PA-23 POH https://i.postimg.cc/pXLq6qNT/Screenshot-20250725-062506.png From AI The clean stall speed of a Piper Apache (PA-23) is 63 knots (72 mph). This applies to the PA-23-235 model. For the earlier PA-23-150 model, the clean stall speed is 56 knots. Older Apache GTG. Also, older Cessna 310's qualify. If you want a new twin, Tecnam P2006T. The 59 kts limit is for legacy aircraft. Aircraft can be certified as light sport with a clean stall speed under 61 kts. I'm not sure what that involves, and according to what I've read, that won't start happening for a year. I'm not sure that applies to legacy aircraft, or if it's for future production. I'm pretty sure that's for new aircraft, unless it's intended as a way for manufacturers to prove and certify that their planes meet some other criteria and are good as LS. I haven't seen anything about that. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
|
Originally Posted By MHIDPA: So 172s are going to get even more expensive? One would think so, but LS didn't have much of an impact on qualified legacy aircraft the last time around, and there were a lot fewer planes that qualified. It may be that the number of planes on the market is greater than the number of pilots that come back to flying, so it doesn't make any difference. The number of pilots that quit flying only because they knew they couldn't pass a medical is probably pretty small. I also wouldn't expect too many people to take up flying now, just because they only need 20 hours training to fly a 172. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
|
Probably FBOs still won't rent Skyhawks and PA-28s to non PPL certificated pilots, even though FAA will now allow it. I hope I'm wrong. |
"According to Argonne National Laboratory, it takes 100 pounds of battery in an EV to go a distance achieved by only one pound of gasoline in an ICE vehicle"
|
Originally Posted By _DR: Probably FBOs still won't rent Skyhawks and PA-28s to non PPL certificated pilots, even though FAA will now allow it. I hope I'm wrong. Most FBO's are bring-your-own-insurance, as far as I know. They're not going to turn away business, as long as they have insurance. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
|
Originally Posted By ske714: Most FBO's are bring-your-own-insurance, as far as I know. They're not going to turn away business, as long as they have insurance. Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By _DR: Probably FBOs still won't rent Skyhawks and PA-28s to non PPL certificated pilots, even though FAA will now allow it. I hope I'm wrong. Most FBO's are bring-your-own-insurance, as far as I know. They're not going to turn away business, as long as they have insurance. That will be a good thing then. |
"According to Argonne National Laboratory, it takes 100 pounds of battery in an EV to go a distance achieved by only one pound of gasoline in an ICE vehicle"
|
Originally Posted By ske714: It's hugely positive for everyone. I've been taking advantage of SP rules for years in my Champ with two seats. I didn't mean to derail my own thread. I just know that the reason is something "political" rather than having to do with safety of flight, and I'm curious what it is. Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By _DR: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By _DR: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By Rbass: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By swampfoxoutdoors: So 4 seaters and 4 passengers are ok now? No, 4 seats, 2 souls. That part makes zero sense to me. I would like to know the reasoning. Maybe they just wanted to open up cargo carrying ability But why does it matter whether you have one passenger or three? If they let you have 4 seats, why can't you put people in them? It has to be to simply get more airplane types usable under the rules, like 172's and such. As in, they still don't want to allow any more than one passenger for sport pilots, but they know there needs to be more aircraft available. Allowing current four seat aircraft that qualify is an instant way to get more airplanes flying under these rules. But why? You haven't answered the question. He doesn't need to answer the question. FAA Sport pilot certificate rules have never allowed more than 1 passenger for sport pilot. They modified the rules, they didn't rewrite the entire part. They just removed the weight restriction, to complexity restriction and set max stall speeds. Yes, they pretty much DID rewrite the entire part. Light sport never allowed complex or high performance, either. Now it does. Two people made sense when there was only two seats and a weight restriction. What additional skill is required to fly with four people in a plane vs. two? What additional training is required? "They never did allow it" is not the answer, because they changed almost everything else. I see your point, but the amount of passengers allowed did not change. But yes many things were changed, so perhaps it could be considered a rewrite. In any case, imo, it's a positive development for the less wealthy who want to aviate. It's hugely positive for everyone. I've been taking advantage of SP rules for years in my Champ with two seats. I didn't mean to derail my own thread. I just know that the reason is something "political" rather than having to do with safety of flight, and I'm curious what it is. Thanks for the info & input. I’m not a pilot. And I’m not defending not attacking the new rules; just trying to understand them. Could maybe the “2 passenger max” rule be there to thwart commercial activity / giving passengers a ride for $$ under the table? Again, just wondering. |
|
Originally Posted By Dominion21: Thanks for the info & input. I’m not a pilot. And I’m not defending not attacking the new rules; just trying to understand them. Could maybe the “2 passenger max” rule be there to thwart commercial activity / giving passengers a ride for $$ under the table? Again, just wondering. Originally Posted By Dominion21: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By _DR: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By _DR: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By Rbass: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By ALASKANFIRE: Originally Posted By ske714: Originally Posted By swampfoxoutdoors: So 4 seaters and 4 passengers are ok now? No, 4 seats, 2 souls. That part makes zero sense to me. I would like to know the reasoning. Maybe they just wanted to open up cargo carrying ability But why does it matter whether you have one passenger or three? If they let you have 4 seats, why can't you put people in them? It has to be to simply get more airplane types usable under the rules, like 172's and such. As in, they still don't want to allow any more than one passenger for sport pilots, but they know there needs to be more aircraft available. Allowing current four seat aircraft that qualify is an instant way to get more airplanes flying under these rules. But why? You haven't answered the question. He doesn't need to answer the question. FAA Sport pilot certificate rules have never allowed more than 1 passenger for sport pilot. They modified the rules, they didn't rewrite the entire part. They just removed the weight restriction, to complexity restriction and set max stall speeds. Yes, they pretty much DID rewrite the entire part. Light sport never allowed complex or high performance, either. Now it does. Two people made sense when there was only two seats and a weight restriction. What additional skill is required to fly with four people in a plane vs. two? What additional training is required? "They never did allow it" is not the answer, because they changed almost everything else. I see your point, but the amount of passengers allowed did not change. But yes many things were changed, so perhaps it could be considered a rewrite. In any case, imo, it's a positive development for the less wealthy who want to aviate. It's hugely positive for everyone. I've been taking advantage of SP rules for years in my Champ with two seats. I didn't mean to derail my own thread. I just know that the reason is something "political" rather than having to do with safety of flight, and I'm curious what it is. Thanks for the info & input. I’m not a pilot. And I’m not defending not attacking the new rules; just trying to understand them. Could maybe the “2 passenger max” rule be there to thwart commercial activity / giving passengers a ride for $$ under the table? Again, just wondering. You already need a commercial rating to do that. The FAA doesn't really try to police that sort of thing. Most pilots value their certificates too much to do stuff like that. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?
|
Originally Posted By Dominion21: Thanks for the info & input. I’m not a pilot. And I’m not defending not attacking the new rules; just trying to understand them. Could maybe the “2 passenger max” rule be there to thwart commercial activity / giving passengers a ride for $$ under the table? Again, just wondering. Most of the people who fly under sport pilot are the old guys who can't get medicals anymore. So they are trying to limit the damage to the Old Guy + 1 instead of the Old Guy + 3. The old guy at OSH with the ATP who asked for vectors into OSH and subsequently departed from a taxiway are the examples people will point to for the rules like daytime only and only a single passenger. There are pilots that fly like this everyday that no one hears about but try to kill us in the pattern each week. They want to limit how many people that old guy may ultimately kill in their airplane. |
|
Originally Posted By stillerfan: Most of the people who fly under sport pilot are the old guys who can't get medicals anymore. So they are trying to limit the damage to the Old Guy + 1 instead of the Old Guy + 3. The old guy at OSH with the ATP who asked for vectors into OSH and subsequently departed from a taxiway are the examples people will point to for the rules like daytime only and only a single passenger. There are pilots that fly like this everyday that no one hears about but try to kill us in the pattern each week. They want to limit how many people that old guy may ultimately kill in their airplane. Originally Posted By stillerfan: Originally Posted By Dominion21: Thanks for the info & input. I’m not a pilot. And I’m not defending not attacking the new rules; just trying to understand them. Could maybe the “2 passenger max” rule be there to thwart commercial activity / giving passengers a ride for $$ under the table? Again, just wondering. Most of the people who fly under sport pilot are the old guys who can't get medicals anymore. So they are trying to limit the damage to the Old Guy + 1 instead of the Old Guy + 3. The old guy at OSH with the ATP who asked for vectors into OSH and subsequently departed from a taxiway are the examples people will point to for the rules like daytime only and only a single passenger. There are pilots that fly like this everyday that no one hears about but try to kill us in the pattern each week. They want to limit how many people that old guy may ultimately kill in their airplane. I don't agree at all. It's well proven and documented that LS has not and will not result in more accidents. If it did, it simply would not exist. Nobody anywhere ever made a decision that two people dying is okay, but four is too many. That's just silly. Daytime-only makes perfect sense because flying at night is much more difficult with much higher risk, and requires specific training that sport pilots do not have. There are real flight safety reasons. Having people in the back seat adds no additional risk to safety. |
9 lives - 9 pellets... Coincidence?