Dan. Thank you for the informative video. I have been a Sport pilot nearly since it’s inception.I have flown all over the U.S. and have accumulated about 800 hours. I didn’t know if I should laugh or cry when you talked about FAA Legal not likeingthe drivers license medical. I chose light sport because it was a quick path to a pilots license, not because of a medical issue. When Basic Med was being discussed, I knew pilots who did not get their medical renewed because they KNEW they would fail. Some had very serious problems ( think major heart attack). However as long as they had passed their FAA medical within the past 10 YEARS they were good to go with basic med as long as their lifelong m.d. would sign off (as all did). I am in much better health than those guys, yet they have much higher privileges. All of the hand wringing over the so called “drivers license medical” makes no sense. The FAA needs to start using logic and common sense in their decision making. Look at the sport pilot stats. How many incidents were health related? Further using the lack of a “medical” to restrict privileges like retractable gear, night flying,and constant speed props makes no sense at all. Now that I have finished my rant, by joining ASTM, would we have any input on privileges or is it strictly the manufacturing standards of the airplanes. If you made it to the end, thank you.
Good lecture. I can see why you wouldn't want to touch 103, and no major reason to, one thing I would suggest is laxing the top speed. Keeping the weight and stall speed but look the other way if the plane is good enough to go faster. Also I would put out a couple of really good reference designs because it seems obvious to me that with an aerodynamic composite body you can have a very fully capable aircraft within 103, one that doesn't need florida weather and one that goes a remarkable distance on little fuel. It can even have autopilot which can be a safety thing for lesser mental work load and in the case of confusion. As for light sport, I'm not immediately a fan of allowing very heavy aircraft, sort of undermines the very concept that you can't do too much damage and it undermines the incentive to do good aircraft instead of awful tractors like 172. I think 4 seats or a cargo version could be an interesting extension but I would keep the pressure on the weight. As europe has shown, you can make very capable planes within existing weight limits, we really have no major problems with weight requirements. And indeed if it allowed pressurization and jet engines that could really move the needle without ever touching the weight limits. So frankly, the notion of 3600lbs is an awful americanism. I would take IFR a million times before asking for higher weight than 600kg for 2 seats. You could make an 8 seater twin jet within 3600lbs. The L stands for light, not light airliner. And if the speed limits remains, what are we talking about, that slow and that heavy? like a caravan style slow bus. Is that really light sport. I would say keep the 600kg for 2 seats, plus 20kg for parachute, plus for floats, plus 250kg for 2 extra seats and same for a cargo version. This would enable 4 seats without violating the light part too much and without sacrificing the productive incentive to build good efficient planes. I might even offer an additional weight option if it meets long range criteria, say if you can make it able to cross the atlantic or go to hawaii, over 4000km range, you are allowed an additional 100kg, say 950kg total. That way it's not just dumb bloat, then it inspires excellence. Or maybe take that back, simply say that the 850kg of an LSA 4/cargo can freely be used for fuel, provided it's a sensible design for carrying that much fuel. Can't just be an aquarium slushing in the back. Or maybe offer the 100kg extra as a price if you can do a certain range with 4 people in it. So it's a 4 seater long range. I completely get the contrast between someone very capable that gets stuff done fast and capable like a mike patey vs a bureaucrat that's touch averse and thinks 10 years for a cup of coffee is fast. As we've seen with 100LL, suddenly things can move if encouraged. Would the FAA be open to a dynamic where external forces, maybe ASTM, offers up a smart concise polished proposal that frees FAA from any work that they could then more casually allow? because even more than 100LL this certainly feels like something a few good men could get done in an afternoon. If there are some conducive elements in FAA that can approve things already polished, good proposals might pass fast. It's much easier to recognize something sensible than to have to come up with it all yourself with the courage to take responsibility for the choices. So how about 600kg for 2 seats, +20kg for parachute and +45kg floats, +250kg for +2 seats or equiv cargo room and 100kg bonus if it can fly 2 adults and 2 kids (250kg) 4000km in nominal conditions. That range might be difficult but that's the incentive. And allow retractable gear, no top speed limit, only stall requirement, allow above 10k feet with oxygen or pressurization, allow pressurization and agnostic on propulsion, including small twin jets or even twin pistons, just as long as these systems are simply done. Must be nice clean designs, can't be an airliner style mess of hydraulic lines and a ton of cockpit controls. Single throttle. Keeping the spirit of light via the weight limits yet not putting limits on how good aircrafts they can be within those weight limits. Other than keeping the stall speed to avoid difficult to control speed monsters. Battery planes can get the 100kg bonus, just off the top of my head. Not sure it's really necessary but doesn't seem like a major bureaucratic or engineering mistake to give them 100kg. By the rules I might encourage long skinny wings as a means to perform well like the U2 or gliders, for instance for battery planes, that need to be efficient, rather than indulge a ton of weigh. I have a fair bit of insight into electric propulsion and I think you can do much with just the 600kg and certainly if a cargo 850kg is easily approved for battery operation. Less demands on how much cargo it can really carry. Since batteries are luggage :) Also allow factory built experimentals asap. It makes no sense that first time builders are safer than factory and keeping the experimental label keeps it from being reckless. Factory built is also a natural step towards full certification through evidence of safety. Say your fleet has 100k hours of flight time, FAA can go over the design and if it is sensible and conforms to some material standards and suppliers, it can be fully certified. And there could be a PPL-GPS that enables IFR without all the legacy navigation system. A unified modern PPL that of course included flying through clouds because we have so much better instrumentation today. Nice clear synthetic vision displays and full ADS-B. It's just not that difficult to fly instruments and should not be a lifelong journey to achieve. Just don't fly into icing storms, it's not that complicated. For those with the intellectual abstraction able to fly by computer display, it should be easy entrance. And 8 year old kids can do that. MS flight sim is instrument flying. It's all synthetic vision in case you hadn't realized. Just much better done than the poor state of aviation glass today. Similarly the LSPL should be GPS/IFR. Flying VFR is much too restrictive and inherently dangerous for longer trips because weather can't be predicted with certainty in every detail. Flying in visibility could be encouraged but we have the instruments, light clouds shouldn't be prisons.
I have wanted to learn to fly since I was a little kid. I did a discovery flight about a year ago, and it confirmed that it was something I would love to take up. What has stopped me from going for PPL? The medical. Not going to go into specifics, but from what I've read of other people's experiences with really similar circumstances, I probably could get special issuance if I go through the process. The fear there is that I won't, and that would be that for forever. So what's stopping me from an SPL? Nothing to rent within a reasonable drive that I'd be allowed to fly. I'm hoping these regulation updates have neither of these obstacles, and if they don't, I'll seriously consider starting my training which seems to be the whole point of MOSAIC. Otherwise, I suppose at some point I'll just have to bite the bullet and shoot my shot with the special issuance.
I'm really happy to hear about that stall speed update, its slightly higher then what they have in Europe for their "LSA" like catagory. I just hope we aren't stuck with fixed gear, fixed props, and the upper speed limit. I get a limit on stall speed, that makes sense, but I really hope we don't have to deal with an upper speed limit, let us go like Europe, please FAA!
Thanks Dan I’ve been waiting for this video and somehow missed it. Hopefully they will announce at Air Venture 23. FAA will just blame missing their deadline on Covid.
Great video discussing the subject and thanks for representing us(People looking who sport may be the only way to fly) so well! Which for me I wonder why single seaters are not allowed as it would allow for more space effencnt and cheaper aircraft I think while being fun for those who can fly solo and don't want a passenger or empty seat or even cargo space. Could retraclbe landing gear be added as an endorsement? As personally as a virtal pilot get up after take off and gear down before landing is just natural for me to do. But I do get it isn't easy for most but to me it is easier then night flying or IFR or even having a passager or a non center seat. Edit: Also I know this is an ask but jets if they match the MOsaic standards in every way?
Your enthusiasm is infectious...and not like a coof kind of way. In Canada, we have an Owner Maintenance Category...which essentially allows an owner of some older aircraft (Taylorcraft, Cessnas, Pipers, and a whole bunch of others) to decertify their aircraft, allowing them to perform maintenance on their own aircraft. Unfortunately, it is illegal for these aircraft to fly in the US. Is there an Owner Maintenance Category in the works in the US?
@@DanJohnsonAffordableAviation It's a rare occasion where a government program actually works as well as advertised. The list of eligible aircraft keeps growing and the more aircraft still in the air...the better.
Are you aware of any planned changes to other special airworthiness certificates? I really wish the FAA would reconsider the primary non-commercial category that the EAA proposed many years ago. It seems that a lot of old aircraft could be _safer_ if the FAA simply allowed non-commercial operators to install new experimental avionics.
One question I had while listening was "Is there any sense that the expansion of this rule is being used as a way to rope in most common quickbuild kit aircraft towards being factory built?" We see more and more kits that are in many ways very complete and high level, and in many cases being finished with the "buider's" presence and "involvement" either at the factory or at a completion center. Where typically the owners are doing a very bare minimum of the repeat work needed to legally qualify it as an E-AB. And while it seems FAA has warmed to this concept lately, I see the potential in this MOSAIC and expansion of ASTM for certification as a way for FAA to instead of allowingtl the continued erosion of E-AB, to push those who really just want to buy a complete aircraft, and companies who really want to sell a complete aircraft, into no longer having to hang on the 51% rule and various workarounds. For the easy example Vans, has had some success with the RV-12, but I would imagine they would love to supply versions of their entire RV line as factory complete S-LSA if given the chance. This would I think in a lot of ways turn a number of prominent kit mfgs into being mostly bona-fide aircraft mfgs, that may also supply their aircraft in kit form, vs the other way around as it is today.
Indeed, more provisions are expected to accelerate professional build centers; I did not touch on this as I heard nothing new about it at Oshkosh. FAA *likes* the idea of professionally-supervised building as the resultant aircraft may be better built. Van's already has an in-house enterprise that fully builds RV-12s to factory completion (although many of these may end up as ELSA so the owner can do more and can make changes).
I'm new to all this but having fun learning. General question about a comment I heard you say about how there are some part 103 ready to fly aircraft for under $20k. What I've seen as far as ready to fly ultralights have been above that number. Could you point me in the right direction for more on those please? Thanks and keep up the great work 👍
My Part 13 List shows all of them (bydanjohnson.com/part-103-ultralight-list/). One of the most popular is the Aerolite 103. It remains under $20,000 RTF.
Thanks dan for the update. I have a few questions sence the rules are changing should I just go ahead and get my sport pilots license to have more log time to be able to get future indorsments. I was going to buy a 103 merlin but it seems like it may be better to go and get the sport license and buy a 2 seat merlin sport instead of getting a 103, I was going to learn on the 103 and then just go ahead and get my traing for a regular pilots license. Thanks so much, daniel barnett
There are a bunch of very capable and experienced pilots who can't qualify for a medical - not because of cancer, or heart conditions, or other serious issues, but because of the FAA's myriad of other crazy restrictions.
With the separation of Mosaic from UAS, doesn't that remove the urgency for a MOSAIC resolution? I was under the impression that the timing and pressure from Congress was based on UAS being defined.
You make a valid point, and recently (December 2022), EAA cautioned against undue expectations (a rather vexing comment). Who knows what pressure to act FAA feels? The administrator post remains unclear; the man in the video is temporary by his own admission.
Do you know if anyone in the FAA is working to make USA Sport Pilot acceptable to ICAO countries? It'd be nice for a Sport Pilot to fly into Canada or Mexico.
When FAA agreed to their original deadlines no one anticipated the corona virus pandemic lockdown that basically took a year and a half out of the original plan
