Mosaic…What's In It For You? 0923

Mosaic is FAA's proposed regulation for Light-Sport Aircraft, kits that Sport Pilots may fly, and more. Mosaic is a daunting 318-page regulatory proposal and YOU NEED TO COMMENT-! This video was recorded during a 45-minute presentation given at the Midwest LSA Expo in early September 2023. (The comment window closes on October 23, 2023.) *** A lengthy listener comment section is interpreted on a website to make it more easily consumed. Thanks for watching! -Dan

[@wellington2420]

I just want to fly uninhibited from Indiana to Florida. Non stop if possible. In my own plane. I believe pipistrel sinus can do that. But I haven't started training yet. I'm very new at this !! Flying is my dream. So if I come in a little late under dusk I want to be ok.

[@foesfly3047]

IMO Dan’s MOSAIC Update presentations have been excellent from the very beginning. I have watched each of them, multiple times. There is no way to improve on how he does it.

[@DanJohnsonAffordableAviation]

Very kind of you. I'm glad you found them of value.

[@michaelcohen3564]

Dan, you are the best. You have always been the go-to expert on all things MOSAIC the past couple years. Thank you so much for all the exhausting work and FAA interaction you have done on all our behalf.

[@billjacobs386]

Amen to that!!

[@JMAv8Tor]

Thanks for helping this whole industry!

[@DougBow96]

Thanks Dan 👍💪

[@galactictomato1434]

Thanks for the video. This clears up a lot of the confusion I had.

[@MishMashMoto]

Well done Sir!

[@aztecwarrior1421]

When , when will it take effect!

[@FJ-gk3jb]

I am a ppg pilot interested in getting a sport pilot certificate. Thank you for everything you do for aviation! I just shared a link to the video in my ppg pilot chat group. Hopefully they will watch and comment to the FAA. I am so happy that gyros are going to be included! I think gyro's will gain significant popularity in this country thanks to you and MOSAIC. Any idea on what types of "arial work" could be done? I think your suggestion of search and rescue (or al least search) is a great point for PPCs. You said you'll continue writing for several months, what after that? The aviation community needs you, no one else does what you do. Thank you for clarifying this complicated proposal. Im going to the FAA to comment now.

[@Grouser]

Hello Dan, thanks for investing so much time of your time into the new MOSAIC. There's a lot to take in and your deep dive really helps. On another note, the thumbnail for this video shows a small 2-seat flying with the canopy open. Which plane is this? Thanks

[@DanJohnsonAffordableAviation]

The open canopy view is of a Tecnam Sierra, which could open its canopy up to a defined speed. Looks like fun, doesn't it?

[@adamgreen2111]

Hi Dan, great video, thanks! I know we are currently still in the extended comment period, but do you have a guess as to when the MOSAIC final rules may become effective? Thanks!

[@kevinhermansen5991]

Hi Dan, I have been interested in getting my pilots license for some time and since I was 4 years old I have been interested in flying. Unfortunately, I never seem to have the time nor the funds to do so. I have seen you many times on the sun and fun videos and enjoy your information on LSA aircraft. I have always wondered what aircraft would be good for me to use for flight training and I have been looking into a sport pilot license rather than acquiring a PPL. I have figured that my mission for acquiring a pilot license is strictly for recreation only. I don't need to have any more than that because I like simple no frills aircraft. I'm not into all of the new glass cockpits and electronic technologies that aircraft are coming with now days. I'm more into simple, easy to fly aircraft with simple operating functions. The only issue is that I have is finding an aircraft that has a pretty substantial useful load with fuel. I'm 6'8" tall and 250 lbs so trying to find something I can fit in is pretty slim. I enjoy this video and many videos you have done. Keep up the good work and keep the information coming. I appreciate it and getting the knowledge is very helpful to me for doing my research on going forward with my training.

[@pcexpress911]

Did this pass? Is there an link for the final version?

[@crunch6947]

is the final rules done? Dan will you have a new video with the new rules that are 100% a go? Another question is there a list of all aircraft that meet the new mosaic rules?

[@DanJohnsonAffordableAviation]

No the rule is not done. The window for public comments IS closed (late January 2024) but FAA says they require 16 months to finish the job, so second quarter 2025. Lots of people will help explain the final regulation.

[@ANGabe84]

Dan, I saw the RV10 owner talking about MOSAIC and applying to him with his low stall speed. RV10 have engines over 200hp and requiring high performance endorsements. Can a sport pilot get a high performance endorsement? I’m new to the sport pilot world, I hold higher licenses, but if I get a RV10/14 that meet requirements of mosaic rules, didn’t know if I could legally train my brother to be a sport pilot as a CFI/CFII with those having over 200hp. I know the process for normal PPL/CSEL folks, never really looked into sport

[@rogerpha1398]

If sport pilot licences covers 152-182, that a huge consideration to get me to fly. the ONLY thing drawing me towards motor glider is >10000ft. true cross country needs that higher attitude limits. im leaning towards motorglider but will wait to see what final MOSIAC is before I decide which route.

[@dwhall256]

What is the reasoning behind the 54-knot stall speed applying to "clean" (no-flaps) configuration? It seems if a plane can be designed with flaps (or other feature) that give it a slower stall speed, that should be the measure.

[@DanJohnsonAffordableAviation]

It was not about the slowest an airplane can be safely operated. It was about limiting the weight/size of a mLSA and at that goal, it excels.

[@thewaterengine]

They identified a general weight they wanted (3k) for safety purposes and that dictated the speed by reviewing what is the typical V1 for 3k GA planes.

[@jrbailey3208]

@@thewaterengine The FAA, like all Alphabet Fed Agencies, is ALL about Control, and little to nothing about 'safety': the level and scope of 'contradictions' in existing and proposed regs will prove my point every time.

[@DanFrederiksen]

The spirit of LSA has to be a light plane so you can't mess up too much. And IFR is too restrictive for any actual travel so rather than push limits, I propose a new PPL-GPS that with clear synthetic vision and ADS-B enables IFR flying for everyone, provided the plane has the instruments. You can still fly an old cessna, just not IFR. With the use of sims and lower cost planes such a certificate can be made cost effective like a light sport license. So you could sweep the table and say here's a brand new license that covers everything and makes the burden less for student pilots. A driver's license allows you to drive a Bugatti at high speed even if you are mentally infirm but that doesn't mean you should. You could technically fly an SR71 but maybe don't. Commercial flying requires a few more checks but same basic license. You could argue for driver's license 'medical' for non commercial. And maybe some faculty assessment by the instructor. Runway to runway autopilot could really provide a lot of 'medical' safety as a separate issue and is technologically 'easy' today. If LSA is to be retained I would advise against 3000lbs. A modest 4 seat allowance but retaining a weight limit has been quite beneficial to aviation. You could argue it's the only source of improvements in piston prop GA. Europe's setup with RG and no speed limit I think works well. A Risen 915 to me does not seem like a dangerous aircraft despite being able to fly 400km/h. And if we are to retain LSA I think we could enable IFR with same the large glass GPS approach. VFR is simply much too restrictive and ends up being a jeopardy. Cut out the old navigation and simplify with modern tech. I think we could lift the ceiling beyond 9500feet as well. Knowing that you need oxygen above 9500 is no more complex than knowing you aren't allowed to go above 9500 because of oxygen. The limit could be 15k just so airliners are reasonably confident that a medical clown won't be joining them at FL400. Regarding health check of the plane, I wonder if it would not be quite possible to have the plane check itself. Starting with the engine. A 1$ CPU can be made to listen to the engine and spot even the tiniest deviation from normal operation. Same could be done for brakes and structural vibration. Then maybe an annual checklist can be performed by the owner for non commercial flying. Under legal responsibility. For certain planes. If a plane is too complex, say under a unified PPL-GPS regime, then it may require certified checks. whereas a composite Rotax plane might be simple enough. That could also have a weight limit separate from the license. The two need not necessarily be identical. What planes you can fly and what planes you can check. Overall I would say sweep the table and unify to "PPL-GPS" enabling IFR and ensuring cost reductions to get the license. Sims and LSA trainers. The same cost effective environment that train LSA could still train PPL-GPS. Part 103 for the lawless can still be retained :) Flying is not that difficult. The main lesson should be that a plane is first of all a glider and stall is not your friend. Meteorology can be similarly boiled down. A cold front can be bad, try to stay clear of icing and lightning. With icing go down or even up. Weather data about icing is probably many times more useful than any meteorology theory. Microbursts is a thing, maybe steer clear of tornados. Within an LSA regime you could require some climb and glide minimums. Because those two decide if the impossible turn isn't. A Bonanza for instance is a very dangerous plane unable to return in an engine out situation. Whereas a Risen 915 is a rocket that feathers down. The danger difference cannot be overstated. And a Risen is faster than a Bonanza. Overall you could also make the observation that life is short. So how about getting a few good men with the intelligence and judgment to hammer out the rules in an afternoon instead of a distracted non committal committee that is eternal. Things are left for 40 years that could be fixed in a day. The difference in outcomes is stark. Doing the right thing matters. And I think a good law can be succinct. A lot can be said on a single page.

[@kavemanthewoodbutcher]

As an aspiring ultralight pilot, im torn on part 103. I agree that a revision would end up a dumpster fire, but i would like a bit more weight and fuel. All that aside, there's a lot of interesting aircraft under part 103.

[@jrbailey3208]

Johnson and his LSA Mfg friends betray us Part 103 people at every turn: they are Lowlanders who believe 'one size fits all', ignoring those of us living in Midland and especially High Elevation locales. Max Weight should be 465 lbs and Max Power should be 100 hp (trying taking off at elevations of 5,000 ft and up, which is normal where I live, and see what happens to Take Off distances, Useful Loads, Useful Power, and Fuel Consumption, etc.). The Revised Part 103 I suggest could be the same 1.5 pages it is today; Johnson uses 'expansion of docs' as a SCARE TACTIC every chance he gets. I view him as an evil person bent monetary personal gain at the expense of us folks in the Midlands and High Elevation locales. Cheers from the Oil Patch in Central WY (4,700 elevation, ie, by Wyoming Standards, I live in the 'Midland' elevation)

[@manifestgtr]

Sport pilot IFR?! That completely blew my mind… My brain won’t allow me to believe that might become a thing…IFR is a huge step *beyond* the normal PPL/VFR operations. If it was VMC IFR, I could compute that (that would likely represent a major safety increase above all else) but IMC is whole other ballgame. Don’t get me wrong…that would make me ecstatic beyond words. I just can’t allow myself to hope for such a monumental leap in the world of sport aviation

[@aztecwarrior1421]

Part 103 needs to be updated with increased weight .

[@A.J.1656]

I''m an ATP rated pilot with a 1st Class Medical so I'm more curious about the airplane side of things. Does this mean many current experimental home built airplanes like a Sling High Wing or Vans RV10 that exceed the old LSA limitations can now be built and sold by the manufacturer as an LSA?

[@DanJohnsonAffordableAviation]

Yes, if the manufacturer can meet the parameters and can prove such by complying with all ASTM standards active after Mosaic is released, most specifically the 54 knot clean stall (unless this gets amended upward).

[@A.J.1656]

@@DanJohnsonAffordableAviation Thanks for the reply. After reading the section on the proposed stall speeds and the reasoning of reduced kinetic energy in the landing phase of flight, I think it's fair to suggest that keep the speed at 54kts, but apply it to VSO as the aircraft would be configured for landing. The published specs for the Sling High Wing were off by a knot in the clean configuration and Vans doesn't specify VS1 or VSO, but I suspect they are using VSO.

[@thewaterengine]

I think the V1 is used because part 23 aircraft have a max V1.

[@jarrettlabate5595]

I sure wish stall speed was a little bit higher

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

Thanks for this comprehensive overview of Mosaic! I for one am mostly happy with it but would like jets because if it fits in the standard why not, Driver's lisnce only as an LSA is just about as deadly as a car if not less so. Edit: Never mind about the jets I think you can given the parta were cirtifed.

[@DanJohnsonAffordableAviation]

I'm not sure why you want jets but I see nothing to prohibit them.

[@mauriceevans6546]

It will be hard to get jets because of the stall speed. The sonex jet has a high stall speed and not mosaic compliant

[@thewaterengine]

Done. NPRM removes propulsion type limitations.

[@mauriceevans6546]

@thewaterengine you have to get a type rating for a jet and unless the FAA carves out an exception, that will be reserved for PPL with medical

[@GeneralSirDouglasMcA]

One question is for aircraft renters, will FBO’s be willing or able to rent their aircraft to sport pilots? Will the FBO’s insurance cover those pilots?

[@carlpennington4425]

There are FBO's that already do this. I see no reason that it would change.

[@DanJohnsonAffordableAviation]

Those are worthy questions but not affected by Mosaic. Those are business or insurance questions.

[@HolladayAviation]

Insurance companies dictate what pilots do a lot more than FAA in many situations.

[@HolladayAviation]

Dan, do you really think it’s a wise idea to allow sport pilots - who are not required to have any instrument training currently or under this proposal - to fly at night, or in aircraft that are capable of IFR flight (like a Cessna 172)? Also, even though many LSA’s have fancy “glass cockpit” displays, do they necessarily have the built-in redundancy that is essential to IFR flight?

[@DanJohnsonAffordableAviation]

Anyone wanting to enter the IFR system will need an IFR rating, meaning they have training and have passed tests and will need a suitably equipped aircraft. The real nit to pick here is whether a pilot can do IFR with driver license medical.

[@HolladayAviation]

@@DanJohnsonAffordableAviation correct me if I’m wrong, Dan, but I do not recall reading anything in the NPR M suggesting that a sport pilot could train for and apply for an instrument rating on his or her sport pilot certificate. In your video however, you alluded to some sort of “IFR light“ rating. Can you give me a page number reference in the NPRM where that is mentioned, or is this just a possible amendment you have heard through the grapevine?

[@HolladayAviation]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3zFo6qqbLGsqNUsi=8gcCn8fx1JS7pzLb

[@DanJohnsonAffordableAviation]

@@HolladayAviation, I believe you are confusing the airplane with the pilot. For the airplane side, regarding an ASTM standard for IFR, they were formerly trying for something called IMC-Light. That was not completed. *** On the other side, a pilot will still require an IFR rating and IFR currency. The question that remains is if someone exercising Sport Pilot privileges but having previously earned an IFR rating could exercise those skills using a driver license medical. Is that clearer?

[@mauriceevans6546]

The NPRM does not suggest an IFR rating for sport. It is hoped that the ASTM committee will come up with rules concerning IFR in sport planes. The FAA will then use that information to decide if sport pilots should be allowed to get an IFR rating. Private Pilot's have to have the some training for night flight. FAA is just saying that with training, a sport pilot will be able to fly at night.

[@silverlightaviation]

I think FAA needs to simply allow single engine trikes (WSC), powered parachutes as well as single engine gyroplanes all up to 2 seats (600 kg or 65 kg with floats) to go be managed (certification, continued airworthiness, ASTM standards) completely under an organization like PRA or EAA. They have very little clue what they are doing, and they have very little resources to evaluate and check and even less resources dedicated to examiners or instructors. All they should do is audit the org records and performance once a year and ask for improvements from the evaluation. They need to stick with airplanes and helicopters because that is what they like and that is where they put resources in. It is pretty clear. Manufacturers still can use ASTM standards but these machines should not come under FAA because its like asking the blind to guard a house.

[@DanJohnsonAffordableAviation]

I completely agree, Abid. That was my "bigger picture" solution. You are right that FAA knows too little about these aircraft to properly regulate them.

[@2012saiful]

Air Ambulance .Light for Asia Specific Regions 🌿✅Bangladesh 🇧🇩🌿🌿

[@nice2care]

23:22 What airplane is this?

[@djal1030]

When MOSAIC is going in effect?

[@chrisf8584]

From what I've read they have extending the comment timeline on Mosaic till June or July. If they don't extend it again, towards the end of 2024 MOSAIC would go into effect. Take that with a grain of salt.

[@homertalk]

We need 100 knot stall speeds

[@silverlightaviation]

LOL and a sport pilot cert for flying a Cirrus jet too :)

[@bradrobinhancock8491]

Despite your objections, I'd like to see the start ball rolling on updating the archaic Part 103 rules! Let ASTM have the lead for standards and keep it nearly a subchapter length. I'm not asking for much. How about 70 KIA allowed speed? Why not 10 gallons of fuel? Hey, how about another 50 lbs. (to accommodate the extra fuel, larger engine)? I would be willing to entertain a concession or two - written test, sure, why not? Driver license as a form of medical clearance? OK by me. Mandate that a small, portable hand-held transceiver be on board? Yep, got one. I have my eye on the Merlin Lite, but when you look deeper, a few expanded rules would make the Merlin PSA fit right into Part 103. The Merlin Lite also has safety options like strobes and other lights available at extra cost - but they might put you out of Part 103 weight limits. Notice that I'm not asking for two seats, night flying privileges or 13,000' MSL limits. I just don't want to stare down and see cars and trucks passing underneath me on the highways here in Texas.

[@DanJohnsonAffordableAviation]

If such a request was petitioned the result would very likely be 318 pages - OK, maybe "only" 150-200 pages - with many new requirements, all of which will increase the cost of making Part 103 aircraft. You may do what you like but be aware of the repercussions.

[@bradrobinhancock8491]

@@DanJohnsonAffordableAviation Well, like you said, there are sections where the FAA is purposely clueless. Since they've ignored Part 103 for so long, what are the chances you'd be ramp checked if you decided to re-option your "vehicle"? Nobody at any of the municipal FBOs I've been to ever remember seeing a ramp check. Still, it would be nice with one-line changes where a new value for things like: 14CFR103 Subpart A, 103.1 (e) (1) weighs less than *304* pounds empty weight (one-line 254) (2) has a fuel capacity not exceeding *10* U.S. gallons (one-line 5) (3) is not capable of more than *70* knots (one-line 55) It's not that difficult to expand the existing limits. Those of us interested in seeing these changes aren't asking for an interpretation either. Where do I see an issue? Lobbying from the LSA manufacturers. expanding the Part 103 rules would make owning an UL very appealing, and *affordable*. The LSA rules were supposed to make it affordable for Joe Blue Collar like me to get into GA. How many LSA offerings are there for under $125K right now? Having an ultralight that is capable of transporting one person on a 3 to 4 hour cross country flight at a reasonable pace would be very attractive alternative to the LSA options out there. Those items will also make flight safer for UL pilots. When you're on the downwind at 50 kts., what is everyone else doing? Stacking up. Sure, by AC-99-66C, 12.3.2, we're supposed to be in the pattern at 500' AGL (or 500' below TPA). And yes, the UL has to yield ROW. But what if you're on final approach, at 40 knots in a high-wing UL and that Piper Cherokee Six (low-wing) is approaching with a straight-in final, higher than you, and at 80 knots (overtaking). It sure would be nice to be able to fly at 60 to 70 knots on the downwind, and well into the final. Same thing with fuel - if you've got 10 gallons, you don't have to worry about not being able to get MoGas or 94UL at some FBO in a small community. A very large part of my job is technical (procedure) writing. It's not difficult to update limitations. Not hard at all. Of course, when the government get involved...

[@kavemanthewoodbutcher]

​@@bradrobinhancock8491I'm with you whole hog! I agree with everything you said, right down to being enamored with the Merlin Lite. That said, my biggest issue is the forest I'm surrounded by. As an arborist, I know a few things about trees, and personally I'd like a bit of extra weight allowance so I can put some material between my butt and the woods. Just a "ballistic blanket" could mitigate impalement into a broken bone. I'm not planning to crash, but things happen and the dadgumed trees are what worry me. Anywho, your proposed updates make great sense to me all around, even your "concessions".

[@bradrobinhancock8491]

@@kavemanthewoodbutcher I like the Merlin Lite for many reasons, but what set it just slightly above the Hummel Ultra Cruiser is the tricycle gear. Yeah, I know - real men fly taildraggers. I haven't ground looped (yet), but there always seems to be a crosswind on the new 01/19 at KGDJ. The other attractive feature of the Merline Lite is that it's available as a turn-key purchase. And the electric start with electrical system to power my tablet with EFB is nice to have too. ETA - -my wife really, really wants me to finish flight training and buy a 172 instead. She likes the high-wing over the Cherokee I trained in for a short while. She loves GA travel.

[@jrbailey3208]

BETRAYAL once again by Dan Johnson against Part 103 pilots! There is NO reason why the Weight Restriction should not be INCREASE to 465 lbs, AND power plants up to 100 hp! Lowland Elitists like Johnson and his LSA avaricious brethren have NO problem endangering the lives of Midland and High Elevation pilots (and those who want to be Part 103 Pilots) by IGNORING High Elevation Physics: 'one size' does NOT 'fit all'! Johnson and his ilk continue to treat Midland and High Elevation folks like a bunch of Red Headed Step Children: we should tow his illicit lines in supporting what HE and his LSA ilk want, call/comment/contribute money to all the LSA advocacy groups and Mfgs, call politicians/NGO's for support, but neither Johnson nor his LSA ilk will ever support Part 103 improvements: he LIES that the 1 page would turn into 300 pages: all the FAA has to do is to increase Max Weight and Max Power so that is MINIMIZES danger to Midland and High Elevation pilots, so that we have an EVEN Physics Flying Field! Johnson and his 'friends' have once again thrown Part 103 pilots to the ravenous wolves, and he will continue to so do. He has betrayed us again and he will CONTINUE to betray us! Cheers from the Oil Patch in Central WY (elevation 4700 ft)