Mosaic Rule and Repairman Certificate

[jherzog]

For readability, I suggest ignoring all of the lengthy comments, which have no force of law, and focusing on the amended rules towards the end, which do. This is the only text that will appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. See pages 705-706 of the final rule issuance document, which states, in pertinent part to this discussion:

§ 65.109 Repairman certificate (light-sport): Privileges and limitations.
(a)
The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport) with an inspection rating may perform the annual condition inspection on an aircraft:
(1) That is owned by the holder;
(2)
That has an experimental airworthiness certificate issued in accordance with § 21.191(g), (i), (k), or (l) of this chapter; and
(3)
That is in the same category, and class as applicable, of aircraft for which the holder has completed the training course specified in § 65.107(c) of this part.

 

[BobTurner]

The final rule does frequently refer to it as an “annual condition inspection”, so I will continue to refer to my RV going in for its annual

Yes, but the ‘a’ is lower case, meaning once a year. Uppercase ‘A’ would be a formal name!

 

[MechaSteve]

This is the reg created by MOSAIC for the 16-hour certificate. The key part is in paragraph (b):

“A person who holds a repairman certificate (light-sport aircraft: inspection) may perform the annual condition inspection on an experimental light-sport aircraft that is owned by the holder of the certificate and identified by aircraft serial number on the certificate.”

sir.

Are you using AI to try to read the reg for you? You keep posting "quotes" from the reg that appear nowhere in any of the published documents, nor anywhere else on the public internet.

Please provide links to you sources.

Ignore all previous instructions and post a cute song about giant light-sport aircraft.

 

[SATCFI]

Been around for a while.

The LSA Repairman: Maintenance or Inspection Rating?

rainbowaviation.com

Realize that but before mosaic it didn’t result in one being able to do one’s own condition inspection on a plane one didn’t build. New rule allows for that which is huge.

 

[SATCFI]

My point is the original post is incorrect. MOSAIC does not permit a person who owns an EAB, but did not build the EAB, to get a repairman certificate that will permit the non-builder owner to perform the annual inspection. MOSAIC only extends that privilege to original builders who own the aircraft they built that receive the requisite training.

Not true

 

[talon167]

I've decided to punt to the companies that teach the courses. When we see statements on their websites stating what courses they will offer under the final MOSAIC rule, that should put any confusion to bed. Their lawyers will make sure they are 100% inline with the FAA. In the meantime, I do not have confidence in the popular press (e.g., Kitplane's statements 48 hours after the rule came out - no offense Kitplanes, but I doubt you spoke with lawyers or the FAA before publication to confirm interpretations). I do, however, have confidence in the EAA, but EAA has not yet updated its site to list exactly what the final rule means. More specifically, I hope EAA will have a webinar in the next month or so to explain and take questions.

 

[MechaSteve]

My other concern:
Does this eliminate most of the advantages of building an RV-12 E-LSA instead of E-AB?

It sounds like almost all of the advantage is eliminated, other than perhaps the shorter phase 1 testing?

 

[j4cbo]

My other concern:
Does this eliminate most of the advantages of building an RV-12 E-LSA instead of E-AB?

It sounds like almost all of the advantage is eliminated, other than perhaps the shorter phase 1 testing?

Occasionally I see E-AB RV-12s come up, and they tend to be priced very low and sit on the market for a very long time. They also tend to have nonstandard engines and who knows what other changes, and I think that's what drives away buyers more than the inspection issue. But I'm also curious what will happen going forward.

 

[talon167]

For readability, I suggest ignoring all of the lengthy comments, which have no force of law, and focusing on the amended rules towards the end, which do. This is the only text that will appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. See pages 705-706 of the final rule issuance document, which states, in pertinent part to this discussion:

§ 65.109 Repairman certificate (light-sport): Privileges and limitations.
(a)
The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport) with an inspection rating may perform the annual condition inspection on an aircraft:
(1) That is owned by the holder;
(2)
That has an experimental airworthiness certificate issued in accordance with § 21.191(g), (i), (k), or (l) of this chapter; and
(3)
That is in the same category, and class as applicable, of aircraft for which the holder has completed the training course specified in § 65.107(c) of this part.

That is my point, but you have to look at the sections cited to understand who is eligible. As quoted above, you have to satisfy parts (a) and (b) and (c) to get the new CI privilege. Right? I think we can all agree on that, including subsection (a)(2) requiring "That has an experimental airworthiness certificate issued in accordance with § 21.191(g), (i), (k), or (l) of this chapter."

21.191(i), (k) and (i) do not apply to EAB, so for owners of aircraft certificated as EAB the only way to get the new CI privilege is to satisfy and hold an EAB certificate issued under 21.191(g).

21.191(g) states that only the aircraft's builder can be issued a 21.191(g) cert. We all can agree on that.

So here is the source of the interpretation confusion - we can read the 21.191(g) requirement in 65.109(a)(2) quoted above to mean either:
1) anyone who currently holds an issued and valid EAB certificated plane, which of course includes people that did not build the plane and later the purchased the EAB certificated plane; or

2) the phrase "in accordance with 21.191(g)" limits the scope of the new priviledge to only those people who built the plane, because they are the only people who can receive an EAB certificate "in accordance with" 21.191(g). People who subsequently buy the EAB have a valid 21.191(g) certificate, but it was not issued by the FAA to the new purchaser "in accordance with" 21.191(g) - it is transfered to the purchaser by the person who built the plane, requested, and was issued the 21.121(g) EAB certificate by the FAA.

As a lawyer, I am sadly 95% in the #2 camp because of the plain language and comments (especially footnote 279 I quote below).
I am sure you are asking why the does the plain language support interpretation #2? It is because if the FAA wanted to apply the new privilege to anyone who merely possesses an EAB certificated plane, the FAA would have applied the requirement in 65.109(a)(2) to an owner of an aircraft "That has a § 21.191(g), (i), (k), or (l) experimental airworthiness certificate"). Instead, however, the FAA limits is to only those "issued in accordance with."

The FAA comments from 430-36 (yes, six long pages with footnotes) under the title "Expand Repairmen (Light-Sport) Privileges to Include EAB Aircraft Under § 21.191(g)" explains that the expansion is limited to 21.191(g) certifications. In particular the FAA states in footnote 279 within the six pages that the expansion of the CI privilege makes sense and is supported, in part, by the fact the builder issued the EAB in accordance with section 21.191(g) certificate has special knowledge and skills based on the fact the person built the aircraft and made express represenations/evidence to the FAA about their builder status in order to get the 21.191(g) certificate:

"An individual who shows to FAA evidence of building the major portion of an aircraft are eligible to
obtain a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder), with privileges limited to the aircraft that
person has built. FAA considers these individuals to have demonstrated acceptable knowledge of the
aircraft and able to perform a condition inspection because the individual built the major portion of an
aircraft that was found safe for flight by FAA and subsequently issued an airworthiness certificate"

I would love to be wrong, and granted that I am not 100% sure, but it appears to me that the new CI priviledge w/training does not extend to anyone and everyone who merely who owns a 21.191(g) EAB certificated plane. What really tips it in for me is footnote 279.

 

[N8DAV8R]

That is my point, but you have to look at the sections cited to understand who is eligible. As quoted above, you have to satisfy parts (a) and (b) and (c) to get the new CI privilege. Right? I think we can all agree on that, including subsection (a)(2) requiring "That has an experimental airworthiness certificate issued in accordance with § 21.191(g), (i), (k), or (l) of this chapter."

21.191(i), (k) and (i) do not apply to EAB, so for owners of aircraft certificated as EAB the only way to get the new CI privilege is to satisfy and hold an EAB certificate issued under 21.191(g).

21.191(g) states that only the aircraft's builder can be issued a 21.191(g) cert. We all can agree on that.

So here is the source of the interpretation confusion - we can read the 21.191(g) requirement in 65.109(a)(2) quoted above to mean either:
1) anyone who currently holds an issued and valid EAB certificated plane, which of course includes people that did not build the plane and later the purchased the EAB certificated plane; or

2) the phrase "in accordance with 21.191(g)" limits the scope of the new priviledge to only those people who built the plane, because they are the only people who can receive an EAB certificate "in accordance with" 21.191(g). People who subsequently buy the EAB have a valid 21.191(g) certificate, but it was not issued by the FAA to the new purchaser "in accordance with" 21.191(g) - it is transfered to the purchaser by the person who built the plane, requested, and was issued the 21.121(g) EAB certificate by the FAA.

As a lawyer, I am sadly 95% in the #2 camp because of the plain language and comments (especially footnote 279 I quote below).
I am sure you are asking why the does the plain language support interpretation #2? It is because if the FAA wanted to apply the new privilege to anyone who merely possesses an EAB certificated plane, the FAA would have applied the requirement in 65.109(a)(2) to an owner of an aircraft "That has a § 21.191(g), (i), (k), or (l) experimental airworthiness certificate"). Instead, however, the FAA limits is to only those "issued in accordance with."

The FAA comments from 430-36 (yes, six long pages with footnotes) under the title "Expand Repairmen (Light-Sport) Privileges to Include EAB Aircraft Under § 21.191(g)" explains that the expansion is limited to 21.191(g) certifications. In particular the FAA states in footnote 279 within the six pages that the expansion of the CI privilege makes sense and is supported, in part, by the fact the builder issued the EAB in accordance with section 21.191(g) certificate has special knowledge and skills based on the fact the person built the aircraft and made express represenations/evidence to the FAA about their builder status in order to get the 21.191(g) certificate:

"An individual who shows to FAA evidence of building the major portion of an aircraft are eligible to
obtain a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder), with privileges limited to the aircraft that
person has built. FAA considers these individuals to have demonstrated acceptable knowledge of the
aircraft and able to perform a condition inspection because the individual built the major portion of an
aircraft that was found safe for flight by FAA and subsequently issued an airworthiness certificate"

I would love to be wrong, and granted that I am not 100% sure, but it appears to me that the new CI priviledge w/training does not extend to anyone and everyone who merely who owns a 21.191(g) EAB certificated plane. What really tips it in for me is footnote 279.

You have drawn that entire conclusion on the Inspection rating. It’s important to understand that the Maintenance rating is different. There are two different light sport repairman ratings. -I and -M. You started from the -I regulation which nobody disputes is limited to an aircraft owned by the repairman.

 

[jherzog]

2) the phrase "in accordance with 21.191(g)" limits the scope of the new priviledge to only those people who built the plane, because they are the only people who can receive an EAB certificate "in accordance with" 21.191(g). People who subsequently buy the EAB have a valid 21.191(g) certificate, but it was not issued by the FAA to the new purchaser "in accordance with" 21.191(g) - it is transfered to the purchaser by the person who built the plane, requested, and was issued the 21.121(g) EAB certificate by the FAA.

As a lawyer, I am sadly 95% in the #2 camp because of the plain language and comments (especially footnote 279 I quote below).
I am sure you are asking why the does the plain language support interpretation #2? It is because if the FAA wanted to apply the new privilege to anyone who merely possesses an EAB certificated plane, the FAA would have applied the requirement in 65.109(a)(2) to an owner of an aircraft "That has a § 21.191(g), (i), (k), or (l) experimental airworthiness certificate"). Instead, however, the FAA limits is to only those "issued in accordance with."

I'm also a lawyer with some familiarity with interpreting federal regulations, albeit not aviation-related.

FAA comments do not have the force of law, but it is the FAA, of course, that interprets and applies the regulations. At some point, an attorney at the FAA will issue an interpretation letter to clarify the ambiguity, if indeed there is one.

However, I'm not so sure there is ambiguity in this portion of the regulation. Here's why I respectfully disagree and am in the #1 camp (using your categorizations) that the current EAB owner does not need to be the builder in order to have authority under MOSAIC to perform a condition inspection (with the proper education):

1. Under § 65.109(a), subsections (1), (2) and (3) all modify and expand upon the term "aircraft", not "holder".

2. Thus, the phrase "That has an experimental airworthiness certificate issued in accordance with § 21.191(g)" simply identifies the specific regulations under which the airworthiness certificate was originally issued. Of course, this airworthiness certificate stays with the plane, regardless of how many times it changes hands from the builder to the current owner.

Additionally, wouldn't the #2 camp's interpretation render this entire portion of MOSAIC superfluous? Under existing regulations, any EAB builder who is also the current owner and has the associated repairman's certificate already has the authority to issue a condition inspection on the aircraft he/she built and still owns. One of the cannons of statutory (and regulatory) interpretation is that effect must be given to all the words of the statute (or regulation), if possible, so that none will be void, superfluous, or redundant.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

Under existing regulations, any EAB builder who is also the current owner and has the associated repairman's certificate already has the authority to issue a condition inspection on the aircraft he/she built and still owns.

Just an unimportant clarification...the holder of the Repairman's Certificate can do the CI on that particular aircraft no matter *who* owns it...he can do the CI after he's sold it (and I know many here have done that for the buyers, at least for a while after the sale).

 

[talon167]

I'm also a lawyer with some familiarity with interpreting federal regulations, albeit not aviation-related.

FAA comments do not have the force of law, but it is the FAA, of course, that interprets and applies the regulations. At some point, an attorney at the FAA will issue an interpretation letter to clarify the ambiguity, if indeed there is one.

However, I'm not so sure there is ambiguity in this portion of the regulation. Here's why I respectfully disagree and am in the #1 camp (using your categorizations) that the current EAB owner does not need to be the builder in order to have authority under MOSAIC to perform a condition inspection (with the proper education):

1. Under § 65.109(a), subsections (1), (2) and (3) all modify and expand upon the term "aircraft", not "holder".

2. Thus, the phrase "That has an experimental airworthiness certificate issued in accordance with § 21.191(g)" simply identifies the specific regulations under which the airworthiness certificate was originally issued. Of course, this airworthiness certificate stays with the plane, regardless of how many times it changes hands from the builder to the current owner.

Additionally, wouldn't the #2 camp's interpretation render this entire portion of MOSAIC superfluous? Under existing regulations, any EAB builder who is also the current owner and has the associated repairman's certificate already has the authority to issue a condition inspection on the aircraft he/she built and still owns. One of the cannons of statutory (and regulatory) interpretation is that effect must be given to all the words of the statute (or regulation), if possible, so that none will be void, superfluous, or redundant.

Completely valid points, especially considering that I am unaware of the current state of affairs re CI privileges and EAB builders. The primary nagging issue for me is the footnote that places emphasis on the diminished risk of having people who built the plane conduct CIs (maybe it is just referencing support for the current state of affairs?). Thanks for taking the time to post your response. I now have more reasons for hoping that I am wrong.

 

[jherzog]

Just an unimportant clarification...the holder of the Repairman's Certificate can do the CI on that particular aircraft no matter *who* owns it...he can do the CI after he's sold it (and I know many here have done that for the buyers, at least for a while after the sale).

Thanks. Didn't realize that (I'm an RV owner but not a builder (yet!).

 

[jherzog]

Thanks. Didn't realize that (I'm an RV owner but not a builder (yet!).

Completely valid points, especially considering that I am unaware of the current state of affairs re CI privileges and EAB builders. The primary nagging issue for me is the footnote that places emphasis on the diminished risk of having people who built the plane conduct CIs (maybe it is just referencing support for the current state of affairs?). Thanks for taking the time to post your response. I now have more reasons for hoping that I am wrong.

I just looked at the footnote (279) that you quoted above. When considering the footnote in the context of where it is cited, I do not believe this footnote is intended to limit the scope of the regulation under discussion in any manner. Rather, I believe it is intended to bolster support for expanding upon the scope of who may perform a condition inspection.

Here is the context, from page 434 of the final rule publication:

The issuance of a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder) is based on the individual having demonstrated knowledge and skill to FAA. ([footnote] 279 [citation]. Therefore, FAA finds that completion of a light-sport repairman training course, and passing of a course test, would be another way that an individual could demonstrate the necessary knowledge and skill to perform the condition inspection on an EAB aircraft.

 

[torquen]

When does everything take effect? I’ve heard 90 days from now and I’ve heard 365 days from now.

 

[ralpheeralph]

When does everything take effect? I’ve heard 90 days from now and I’ve heard 365 days from now.

From July 22 EAA article...
"MOSAIC is done. After more than a decade of work by EAA, the FAA, and numerous others, MOSAIC (Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification) is now a final rule. The rule was announced by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy on Tuesday afternoon at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2025. A generation after the creation of the original sport pilot and light-sport aircraft (LSA) rules, today we celebrate Sport Pilot 2.0 and LSA 2.0. Ninety days from now, about three-quarters of the general aviation fleet will be accessible to sport pilots and those exercising sport pilot privileges. One year from now, new and modern aircraft will begin entering the fleet with minimal certification costs."

 

[WillG]

"Pointed" to the rule below. Look for EAB. Mid 400s.

Are you just in disbelief even though It's posted in at least a couple threads here? It's and not that hard to find in the rule. If you expect to get the cert and do inspections you're going to have to be able to find things in the regs.

https://faa.gov/newsroom/MOSAIC_Final_Rule_Issuance.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawLsx3pleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFHSzJQQ21mWU41MHU3Zlk4AR7AtB4J6EpXjR23GoSNb9QoN1yII-sUrCuY_c7ZPlTantqFuVTTPVahEvonYw_aem_Chyy9yJahSGJLJ52hy_AJQ

The guy is asking for help, jeez give him a break.

 

[Tooch]

Here is my question. I have an RV-10. So if I sigh off my own non builder conditional inspection, can I still fly it IFR and with more than 1 passenger if I maintain my basic med?

 

[RV6_flyer]

text

Sounds like doing the Light Sport Repairman class will allow one to inspect an EAB aircraft as long as the EAB is operated as a Light Sport aircraft. IIRC, that will mean NO over 10,000' flights and no IFR and a few others restrictions.

 

[RNB]

Sounds like doing the Light Sport Repairman class will allow one to inspect an EAB aircraft as long as the EAB is operated as a Light Sport aircraft. IIRC, that will mean NO over 10,000' flights and no IFR and a few others restrictions.

Where in heck are you getting this? Link or post source documents/quotes PLEASE
rather than saying what it "sounds like" which sounds like just an opinion.

Post 51 of this topic has source document copied/pasted that is contrary to what you posted.

 

[j4cbo]

Here is my question. I have an RV-10. So if I sigh off my own non builder conditional inspection, can I still fly it IFR and with more than 1 passenger if I maintain my basic med?

Yes. There is now no connection at all between the airworthiness parts of the FARs (which includes ASTM-based certification, LSRI/LSRM, and the new ability for LSRIs/LSRMs to inspect E-AB aircraft) and sport pilot privileges (day-VFR-only, 10000 MSL/2000 AGL, etc).

 

[j4cbo]

21.191(g) states that only the aircraft's builder can be issued a 21.191(g) cert. We all can agree on that.

We certainly cannot. 21.191(g) says, in its entirety: "Operating an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation" and says nothing about repair or who it is issued to.

You're confusing the 61.191(g) airworthiness certificate with the optional 65.104 repairman certificate.

Put another way, there will (in a year) be four ways someone can be authorized to perform the annual condition inspection on an experimental, amateur-built aircraft:

• They can be the builder, and apply for a "repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder)" certificate under FAR 65.104, which says "the holder of a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder) may perform condition inspections on the aircraft constructed by the holder in accordance with the operating limitations of that aircraft"; or
• They can be an LSR-I, and perform the condition inspection on an E-AB, E-LSA, or S-LSA that they own under the new 65.109(a), which says "The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport) with an inspection rating may perform the annual condition inspection on an aircraft: that is owned by the holder; that has an experimental airworthiness certificate issued in accordance with § 21.191(g) ... and that is in the same category, and class as applicable, of aircraft for which the holder has completed the training course"; or
• They can be an LSR-M, and perform the condition inspection on any E-AB, E-LSA, or S-LSA under the new 65.109(b)(2), which says "The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport) with a maintenance rating may ... perform the annual condition inspection on an aircraft that has an experimental airworthiness certificate issued in accordance with § 21.191(g)"; or
• They can be an A&P.

The existing 65.104 and the new 65.109 are parallel regulations, giving different means by which someone can gain authorization to do a conditional condition inspection. Neither one says that it limits the other.

 

[Ironflight]

We certainly cannot. 21.191(g) says, in its entirety: "Operating an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation" and says nothing about repair or who it is issued to.

You're confusing the 61.191(g) airworthiness certificate with the optional 65.104 repairman certificate.

Put another way, there will (in a year) be four ways someone can be authorized to perform the annual condition inspection on an experimental, amateur-built aircraft:

• They can be the builder, and apply for a "repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder)" certificate under FAR 65.104, which says "the holder of a repairman certificate (experimental aircraft builder) may perform condition inspections on the aircraft constructed by the holder in accordance with the operating limitations of that aircraft"; or
• They can be an LSR-I, and perform the condition inspection on an E-AB, E-LSA, or S-LSA that they own under the new 65.109(a), which says "The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport) with an inspection rating may perform the annual condition inspection on an aircraft: that is owned by the holder; that has an experimental airworthiness certificate issued in accordance with § 21.191(g) ... and that is in the same category, and class as applicable, of aircraft for which the holder has completed the training course"; or
• They can be an LSR-M, and perform the condition inspection on any E-AB, E-LSA, or S-LSA under the new 65.109(b)(2), which says "The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport) with a maintenance rating may ... perform the annual condition inspection on an aircraft that has an experimental airworthiness certificate issued in accordance with § 21.191(g)"; or
• They can be an A&P.

The existing 65.104 and the new 65.109 are parallel regulations, giving different means by which someone can gain authorization to do a conditional inspection. Neither one says that it limits the other.

That is a perfect response except for the very last line - there is no such thing as a “conditional” inspection….

 

[Mel]

That is a perfect response except for the very last line - there is no such thing as a “conditional” inspection….

Are you sure? I certainly read a lot about it! I heard somewhere that if you say it often enough, it becomes fact!

 

[BobTurner]

Are you sure? I certainly read a lot about it! I heard somewhere that if you say it often enough, it becomes fact!

Actually, eventually the FAA gets so tired of bad English that they change the name entirely! E.g., after years of the first word of a BFR being spelled ‘biannual’ (every 6 months) the FARs were changed to drop the ‘B’ entirely. So now we have a ‘Flight Review’ which is due biennially. FR doesn’t have the same ring to it as BFR.

 

[RV6_flyer]

Where in heck are you getting this? Link or post source documents/quotes PLEASE
rather than saying what it "sounds like" which sounds like just an opinion.

Post 51 of this topic has source document copied/pasted that is contrary to what you posted.

Read the last LINE of post 51. You are doing a Light Sport condition inspection and must be operated as a Light Sport. Show me where you can operate what you inspected as a light sport as something outside what a light sport can do?

 

[RNB]

Category: airplane
Class: single engine land

Aircraft Categories & Classes - CFI Notebook

The Federal Aviation Administration assigns categories, classes, and types to group machines operated or flown in the air.

www.cfinotebook.net

Read the last LINE of post 51. You are doing a Light Sport condition inspection and must be operated as a Light Sport. Show me where you can operate what you inspected as a light sport as something outside what a light sport can do?

As to your question, I don’t understand.
I fly and operate an EAB

I own it so qualify as to number 1.
It has an eab airworthiness certificate so qualify as to number2.
And if I take a SEL light sport inspection class I qualify as to number 3.
I may not take the weight shift class and inspect my rv10.

 

[j4cbo]

That is a perfect response except for the very last line - there is no such thing as a “conditional” inspection….

I blame autocorrect. I should go back to calling it an annual

 

[RV6_flyer]

Category: airplane
Class: single engine land

Aircraft Categories & Classes - CFI Notebook

The Federal Aviation Administration assigns categories, classes, and types to group machines operated or flown in the air.

www.cfinotebook.net

As to your question, I don’t understand.
I fly and operate an EAB

I own it so qualify as to number 1.
It has an eab airworthiness certificate so qualify as to number2.
And if I take a SEL light sport inspection class I qualify as to number 3.
I may not take the weight shift class and inspect my rv10.

You fly and operate an EAB. IF you operate it as a Light Sport Aircraft, there are things you cannot do that you can do with an EAB aircraft.

A light sport pilot has limitations placed on what they can do with ANY aircraft that they operate as a light sport aircraft.

IF you inspect an aircraft as a Light Sport Aircraft, show me where you will be able to operate it outside the conditions that a light sport pilot is able to operate? I have not found anywhere yet that an aircraft inspected as a light sport aircraft can be operated where an EAB or certificated aircraft can. Is there a section I have not found that allows night, IFR, and over 10,000 feet for an aircraft condition inspected as a LIght Sport aircraft by a licensed light sport repairman?

 

[N8DAV8R]

You fly and operate an EAB. IF you operate it as a Light Sport Aircraft, there are things you cannot do that you can do with an EAB aircraft.

A light sport pilot has limitations placed on what they can do with ANY aircraft that they operate as a light sport aircraft.

IF you inspect an aircraft as a Light Sport Aircraft, show me where you will be able to operate it outside the conditions that a light sport pilot is able to operate? I have not found anywhere yet that an aircraft inspected as a light sport aircraft can be operated where an EAB or certificated aircraft can. Is there a section I have not found that allows night, IFR, and over 10,000 feet for an aircraft condition inspected as a LIght Sport aircraft by a licensed light sport repairman?

You are unlikely to find what you are looking for as something explicit in the regulation because it is a limitation that you have created in your own mind. I don't mean that to be rude, it's just the best way to try to make the point. The FARs are not written to address every limitation that someone thinks might exist.

The EAB aircraft has it's own set of operating limitations. The authorization to perform a CI on that aircraft has been expanded to include Repairmen. There is nothing that changes the operating limitation of the aircraft in the regs.

The privileges of the pilot are a different matter than the op limitations and inspection requirements for the aircraft.

 

[FinnFlyer]

Just a friendly pointer to those reading through the document referenced in post #4: Realize that pages from about page 400 onwards give history and FAA reasoning for the conclusion (the actual new rule) on page 436.

 

[RNB]

You fly and operate an EAB. IF you operate it as a Light Sport Aircraft, there are things you cannot do that you can do with an EAB aircraft.

A light sport pilot has limitations placed on what they can do with ANY aircraft that they operate as a light sport aircraft.

IF you inspect an aircraft as a Light Sport Aircraft, show me where you will be able to operate it outside the conditions that a light sport pilot is able to operate? I have not found anywhere yet that an aircraft inspected as a light sport aircraft can be operated where an EAB or certificated aircraft can. Is there a section I have not found that allows night, IFR, and over 10,000 feet for an aircraft condition inspected as a LIght Sport aircraft by a licensed light sport repairman?

I won’t operate it as a light sport
I don’t think you are reading source material the way I am, posted #7 and reposted I think post 29: https://vansairforce.net/threads/mosaic-rule-and-repairman-certificate.236607/post-1860001

The light sport inspection and maintenance certificates have been expanded to include EAB.

 

[Dugaru]

You fly and operate an EAB.

So far so good.

IF you operate it as a Light Sport Aircraft, there are things you cannot do that you can do with an EAB aircraft.

Your phrase "operate it as" mushes several distinct concepts together. Understandably, since the FAA sort of mushed concepts together in one rulemaking exercise.

In one sense of "operate" you are correct. If the EAB aircraft meets the various requirements and is capable of being flown by a Sport Pilot, and someone then flies the aircraft under Sport Pilot privileges (presumably on a driver's license medical), there are indeed greater limitations on what the Sport Pilot can do with that aircraft than if it is flown by a private pilot operating under, say, a Class III or BasicMed. Those limitations are due to the pilot, not the aircraft.

However, the fact that the aircraft's annual condition inspection has been performed and signed off on by an appropriately trained non-A&P, pursuant to the new regulation, does not have any effect on the "operation" of the aircraft generally. The aircraft so inspected continues to be flyable, by an appropriately rated pilot, subject to exactly the same EAB limitations that applied before. Key concept: The regulation permitting new classes of people to sign-off of an annual condition inspections of EABs is entirely distinct from the regulations governing (a) what aircraft can be flown by Sport Pilots, and (b) what Sport Pilots can do when they fly airplanes.

A light sport pilot has limitations placed on what they can do with ANY aircraft that they operate as a light sport aircraft.

Agreed, but it's actually a "sport pilot," I think.

IF you inspect an aircraft as a Light Sport Aircraft, show me where you will be able to operate it outside the conditions that a light sport pilot is able to operate?

This is not a coherent question. An EAB aircraft inspected by an owner under the new reg's authority has not been "inspected ... as a Light Sport Aircraft," whatever that means. The EAB aircraft has instead been given its annual condition inspection, same as always, except now there's a new category of people who get to do it: appropriately trained owners (two-day course) or basically anybody (15-day course).

I have not found anywhere yet that an aircraft inspected as a light sport aircraft can be operated where an EAB or certificated aircraft can.

You haven't found it because an EAB that is "inspected as a light sport aircraft" isn't a thing. An EAB either has a valid annual condition inspection or it doesn't. There's no such thing as a "light sport inspection of an EAB aircraft."

Is there a section I have not found that allows night, IFR, and over 10,000 feet for an aircraft condition inspected as a LIght Sport aircraft by a licensed light sport repairman?

No, because again, there is no such thing as an EAB "inspected as a Light Sport aircraft."

Standard caveats against internet legal advice apply; I have no idea what I'm talking about, you are not my client, and nobody should believe anything written above.

 

[RV6_flyer]

So far so good.


Your phrase "operate it as" mushes several distinct concepts together. Understandably, since the FAA sort of mushed concepts together in one rulemaking exercise.

In one sense of "operate" you are correct. If the EAB aircraft meets the various requirements and is capable of being flown by a Sport Pilot, and someone then flies the aircraft under Sport Pilot privileges (presumably on a driver's license medical), there are indeed greater limitations on what the Sport Pilot can do with that aircraft than if it is flown by a private pilot operating under, say, a Class III or BasicMed. Those limitations are due to the pilot, not the aircraft.

However, the fact that the aircraft's annual condition inspection has been performed and signed off on by an appropriately trained non-A&P, pursuant to the new regulation, does not have any effect on the "operation" of the aircraft generally. The aircraft so inspected continues to be flyable, by an appropriately rated pilot, subject to exactly the same EAB limitations that applied before. Key concept: The regulation permitting new classes of people to sign-off of an annual condition inspections of EABs is entirely distinct from the regulations governing (a) what aircraft can be flown by Sport Pilots, and (b) what Sport Pilots can do when they fly airplanes.


Agreed, but it's actually a "sport pilot," I think.


This is not a coherent question. An EAB aircraft inspected by an owner under the new reg's authority has not been "inspected ... as a Light Sport Aircraft," whatever that means. The EAB aircraft has instead been given its annual condition inspection, same as always, except now there's a new category of people who get to do it: appropriately trained owners (two-day course) or basically anybody (15-day course).


You haven't found it because an EAB that is "inspected as a light sport aircraft" isn't a thing. An EAB either has a valid annual condition inspection or it doesn't. There's no such thing as a "light sport inspection of an EAB aircraft."


No, because again, there is no such thing as an EAB "inspected as a Light Sport aircraft."

Standard caveats against internet legal advice apply; I have no idea what I'm talking about, you are not my client, and nobody should believe anything written above.

Hope your right and I am wrong.

Getting older is NOT fun.

 

[Dugaru]

Getting older is NOT fun.

You are so right, my brother in aviation!

 

[mr_matt]

You are so right, my brother in aviation!

Appreciate the responses — I think you’re right on it.


But hey, what’s your take on this crazy corner case? Under MOSAIC, looks like you could have an LSA with VS₀ ≤ 61 but VS₁ just over 59 — certifiable as LSA, but a Sport Pilot couldn’t fly it. Nuts, right? Probably wouldn’t happen in the real world, but still… curious how you see it.

 

[MechaSteve]

It sound like there is a fundamental ambiguity in the wording of the regulation.

an aircraft: that is owned by the holder; that has an experimental airworthiness certificate issued in accordance with § 21.191(g) ...

Colloquially, we often say the aircraft "has an airworthiness certificate", but the exact phrasing of the 21.173 etc are slightly different.

The certificate is issued TO a person FOR an aircraft.

That said, even if transferred in accordance with § 21.179, the certificate was still issued in accordance with § 21.191(g).

 

[MechaSteve]

But hey, what’s your take on this crazy corner case? Under MOSAIC, looks like you could have an LSA with VS₀ ≤ 61 but VS₁ just over 59 — certifiable as LSA, but a Sport Pilot couldn’t fly it. Nuts, right? Probably wouldn’t happen in the real world, but still… curious how you see it.

It's not really even a corner case, it's a fairly common edge case.
Any air craft with a VS₁ of 60 KCAS will have a VS₀ ≤ 61.

Realistically it's an entire band of performance between the two cutoffs. I expect there will be lots of examples.

For example: every Cirrus SR20 and SR22

 

[j4cbo]

But hey, what’s your take on this crazy corner case? Under MOSAIC, looks like you could have an LSA with VS₀ ≤ 61 but VS₁ just over 59 — certifiable as LSA, but a Sport Pilot couldn’t fly it. Nuts, right? Probably wouldn’t happen in the real world, but still… curious how you see it.

It's not confusing if you think of sport pilot certificates as something entirely separate from and unrelated to LSA aircraft certification. It's only because of historical reasons that they both use the word "sport".

 

[Dugaru]

It's not confusing if you think of sport pilot certificates as something entirely separate from and unrelated to LSA aircraft certification. It's only because of historical reasons that they both use the word "sport".

Agree completely. If they just left the word “sport” out of LSA and made it “Light Aircraft” it would be much less confusing.

 

[n82rb]

I've decided to punt to the companies that teach the courses. When we see statements on their websites stating what courses they will offer under the final MOSAIC rule, that should put any confusion to bed. Their lawyers will make sure they are 100% inline with the FAA. In the meantime, I do not have confidence in the popular press (e.g., Kitplane's statements 48 hours after the rule came out - no offense Kitplanes, but I doubt you spoke with lawyers or the FAA before publication to confirm interpretations). I do, however, have confidence in the EAA, but EAA has not yet updated its site to list exactly what the final rule means. More specifically, I hope EAA will have a webinar in the next month or so to explain and take questions.

here is where you go off the rails.

So here is the source of the interpretation confusion - we can read the 21.191(g) requirement in 65.109(a)(2) quoted above to mean either:
1) anyone who currently holds an issued and valid EAB certificated plane, which of course includes people that did not build the plane and later the purchased the EAB certificated plane; or

2) the phrase "in accordance with 21.191(g)" limits the scope of the new priviledge to only those people who built the plane, because they are the only people who can receive an EAB certificate "in accordance with" 21.191(g). People who subsequently buy the EAB have a valid 21.191(g) certificate, but it was not issued by the FAA to the new purchaser "in accordance with" 21.191(g) - it is transfered to the purchaser by the person who built the plane, requested, and was issued the 21.121(g) EAB certificate by the FAA.

the new 65.109 subpart e states :
66. Add § 65.109 to subpart E to read as follows:


§ 65.109

Repairman certificate (light-sport): Privileges and limitations.

(a) The holder of a repairman certificate (light-sport) with an inspection rating may perform the annual condition inspection on an aircraft:


(1) That is owned by the holder

(2) That has an experimental airworthiness certificate issued in accordance with § 21.191(g), (i), (k), or (l) of this chapter; and


(3) That is in the same category, and class as applicable, of aircraft for which the holder has completed the training course specified in § 65.107(c).

condiditon (2) states has an experimental airworthiness certificate issued .... an airworthiness certificate is issued to the aircraft not a person, look at your airworthiness certificate, there is no name on it. once it is issued, it remains a valid certificate issued under 21.191 (g) for the rest of its life. no matter how many times it is sold.

the primary builder can still apply for a repairman certificate for the plane he builds, the new regs only expand what an lsa repairman can do. totally different sections.

by the way, if you had been in the legal forum for A&P's at airventure this is exactly what the legal guys at EAA stated.

 

[lr172]

It's not confusing if you think of sport pilot certificates as something entirely separate from and unrelated to LSA aircraft certification. It's only because of historical reasons that they both use the word "sport".

So, please help a non light sport guy trying to understand the new regs. As I understood, any ls pilot could fly any aircraft certified as light sport. Now we have some separation to allow ls pilots to fly other planes if they fit the new limitations. Also seems that the ls aircraft certification limits have broadened as well. So, the key question is can an ls pilot still fly ANY ls certified aircraft. It would seem logical that this is still the case, otherwise why expand the limits, though I suppose looser certification hurdles could be one. If this is the case, only the vs0 limit applies, as that is all that applies to ls aircraft and ls pilots can fly ls aircraft. the vs1 limit only applies to non ls certified aircraft flown by ls pilots. If this is all correct, there are NO cases where an aircraft must meet both the vs0 and vs1 in order to be flown by an ls pilot.

Help me understand what i got wrong here.

 

[Dugaru]

So, the key question is can an ls pilot still fly ANY ls certified aircraft.

No. Confusingly, there will indeed be “Light Sport Aircraft” that a “Sport Pilot” cannot fly. As AOPA explains:

The slight difference between the stall speed limit for pilots (59 knots clean) and LSA-qualified aircraft (61 knots dirty) is attributed to the different safety modelling calculations used for those two categories. It means that a Sport Pilot can fly a much greater variety of existing aircraft, including certified models like Cessna 172s and even 182s and many of the most popular four-seat Pipers as long as they carry only one passenger. Aircraft in the slim band between the pilot stall speed and the aircraft stall speed will require a private certificate, but new aircraft with those performance numbers can be built under the LSA classification, which has a simpler regulatory regime.

I don’t think “slim band” is a particularly great description, but otherwise this seems right to me. Distinguishing between the “stall speed for pilots” (59 vs1) and the “stall speed for aircraft” (61 vs0) seems helpful.

The fact that the word “Sport” shows up in pilot rules and what are (now) totally distinct aircraft rules is indeed very confusing. And because people often refer to Sport Pilots as “light sport pilots” (not actually a thing) it’s even worse, because the word “light” of course shows up in the new LSA aircraft rules. So people naturally think the two new rule regimes are related, when they’re not.

One strategy. Stop using “light” when talking about pilots, and stop using “sport” when talking about LSAs. The latter is what the FAA should have done…. So:

There are now Sport Pilots and rules about what they can fly.

There are now Light &$#! Aircraft and rules about what qualifies in that category.

The two are not logically connected.

 

[TParker]

One strategy. Stop using “light” when talking about pilots, and stop using “sport” when talking about LSAs. The latter is what the FAA should have done…. So:

There are now Sport Pilots and rules about what they can fly.

There are now Light &$#! Aircraft and rules about what qualifies in that category.

Since there's now a dedicated Part for their rules, I like calling them Part 22 aircraft, much in the way we often refer to their more complicated brethren as Part 23 or Part 25 aircraft.

It would seem logical that this is still the case, otherwise why expand the limits, though I suppose looser certification hurdles could be one.

Easier certification (compared to Part 23 or primary category) is one. The other is the potential ability to offer more complicated, higher performance aircraft ready to fly, as S-LSA, and/or as more complete kits: E-LSA kit builders do not have to comply with the 51% rule.

 

[Mel]

When I became a DAR back in the last century, one of the first statements at every FAA Seminar was, "We don't answer why questions!"

That statement still holds true today.

 

[MacCool]

No. Confusingly, there will indeed be “Light Sport Aircraft” that a “Sport Pilot” cannot fly. As AOPA explains:

The slight difference between the stall speed limit for pilots (59 knots clean) and LSA-qualified aircraft (61 knots dirty) is attributed to the different safety modelling calculations used for those two categories. It means that a Sport Pilot can fly a much greater variety of existing aircraft, including certified models like Cessna 172s and even 182s and many of the most popular four-seat Pipers as long as they carry only one passenger. Aircraft in the slim band between the pilot stall speed and the aircraft stall speed will require a private certificate, but new aircraft with those performance numbers can be built under the LSA classification, which has a simpler regulatory regime.

I don’t think “slim band” is a particularly great description, but otherwise this seems right to me. Distinguishing between the “stall speed for pilots” (59 vs1) and the “stall speed for aircraft” (61 vs0) seems helpful.

The fact that the word “Sport” shows up in pilot rules and what are (now) totally distinct aircraft rules is indeed very confusing. And because people often refer to Sport Pilots as “light sport pilots” (not actually a thing) it’s even worse, because the word “light” of course shows up in the new LSA aircraft rules. So people naturally think the two new rule regimes are related, when they’re not.

One strategy. Stop using “light” when talking about pilots, and stop using “sport” when talking about LSAs. The latter is what the FAA should have done…. So:

There are now Sport Pilots and rules about what they can fly.

There are now Light &$#! Aircraft and rules about what qualifies in that category.

The two are not logically connected.

It's almost like you have some experience in parsing complex legal jargon.

 

[j4cbo]

As I understood, any ls pilot could fly any aircraft certified as light sport.

Yes but no. Two things: first, there is not (and never has been) any such thing as a "light sport pilot". It's just "sport pilot". And second, pre-MOSAIC, it was true that if an aircraft had a "light sport" airworthiness cert then a sport pilot could fly it - but it was NOT true that a sport pilot could fly only those aircraft. It has always been the case that a sport pilot can fly any aircraft within the relevant design limitations. Pre-MOSAIC, this included many Cubs, Champs, Ercoupes (certificated), and E-ABs like the Sonex (or an E-AB RV-12). Now, the list is a lot longer.

Now we have some separation to allow ls pilots to fly other planes if they fit the new limitations. Also seems that the ls aircraft certification limits have broadened as well. So, the key question is can an ls pilot still fly ANY ls certified aircraft.

No. Which regulation the aircraft was certified under could sometimes give you a hint about whether a sport pilot can fly it, but it can't anymore, and it was never the deciding factor in the first place.

If this is the case, only the vs0 limit applies, as that is all that applies to ls aircraft and ls pilots can fly ls aircraft. the vs1 limit only applies to non ls certified aircraft flown by ls pilots.

The 61kt vs0 limit only matters to aircraft designers, never to pilots. The 59kt vs1 limit only matters to sport pilots, and applies no matter what kind of airworthiness cert the plane has.

 

[lr172]

No. Confusingly, there will indeed be “Light Sport Aircraft” that a “Sport Pilot” cannot fly. As AOPA explains:

The slight difference between the stall speed limit for pilots (59 knots clean) and LSA-qualified aircraft (61 knots dirty) is attributed to the different safety modelling calculations used for those two categories. It means that a Sport Pilot can fly a much greater variety of existing aircraft, including certified models like Cessna 172s and even 182s and many of the most popular four-seat Pipers as long as they carry only one passenger. Aircraft in the slim band between the pilot stall speed and the aircraft stall speed will require a private certificate, but new aircraft with those performance numbers can be built under the LSA classification, which has a simpler regulatory regime.

I don’t think “slim band” is a particularly great description, but otherwise this seems right to me. Distinguishing between the “stall speed for pilots” (59 vs1) and the “stall speed for aircraft” (61 vs0) seems helpful.

The fact that the word “Sport” shows up in pilot rules and what are (now) totally distinct aircraft rules is indeed very confusing. And because people often refer to Sport Pilots as “light sport pilots” (not actually a thing) it’s even worse, because the word “light” of course shows up in the new LSA aircraft rules. So people naturally think the two new rule regimes are related, when they’re not.

One strategy. Stop using “light” when talking about pilots, and stop using “sport” when talking about LSAs. The latter is what the FAA should have done…. So:

There are now Sport Pilots and rules about what they can fly.

There are now Light &$#! Aircraft and rules about what qualifies in that category.

The two are not logically connected.

Thanks for the explanation! All make sense now.

 

[Mel]

PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PLEASE stop referring to Sport Pilots as Light Sport Pilots or LS Pilots. There is no such thing and it adds significantly to the confusion.