Mosaic Mooneys

[MikeOH]

9 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Anyone - Tell me what I am missing....tell me what I have wrong in my interpretation of the new MOSAIC rules for pilots?

Probably, nothing. But I think you fail to realize that the existing rules have ALWAYS relied on each pilot's honest self evaluation.

That is, your comment:

 

10 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Sport Pilot solely and completely responsible to self-police their health conditions prior to flight

Has been in place already for all Classes of Medical, including "Basic".

[Hank]

10 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

A licensed pilot with declining health or growing addictions that is in denial or just doesn't care yet still insists on flying.  Someone who doesn't care about rules.

The 717 page FAA MOSIAC Final Rules document is confusing and hard to digest because it only lists all the modifications to FAR.

On page 677 it inserted the following into § 61.23 Medical certificates: Requirement and duration. (c) 2

• (4) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would make that person unable to operate an aircraft in a safe manner.

It makes the Sport Pilot solely and completely responsible to self-police their health conditions prior to flight.  It is complete "Don't ask - Don't tell".  No Medical, no Basic - just a driver's license.

Those of us who fly under any class of medical are also the arbiters of our own fitness to fly before each flight. Do you know people who fly when they are sick, tired, haven't slept, aren't Instrument or Night current, overweight, haven't checked CG, etc.?

All same same here, it appears to me. I watch a video everymither year, and visit a non-FAA-approved "state licensed physician" after every other video, but the accident rates for us BasicMed pilots is not only not higher than pilots under Class 1, 2 & 3 Medical tickets but actually is less than them as a whole. Why do you think Sport Pilots will suddenly turn aviation into the Wild West of Rule-Breaking???

[Hank]

4 hours ago, McMooney said:

I currently fly basic but will be going cat2 soon just to say i can practice commercial, 8 years from now i may only do weekend burger runs, win win.

 

16 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Not sure why you think you need a Class 2 medical to train and earn a commercial cert.  You don't.

You will only need a Class 2 if you want to use the privileges of the commercial cert; that is, get PAID to fly.  

Yep. I started on the maneuvers under BasicMed, they're fun. Go enjoy them! Just don't post the procedures for the maneuvers here, you'll get taken to task for following your CFI's methodology instead of those (differing) methods preferred by the self-proclaimed brain trust here.

Class 2 is only required to exercise Commercial privileges, and of course to take the CSEL Check Ride. 

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, Hank said:

Class 2 is only required....of course to take the CSEL Check Ride. 

I don't think that is true.  My understanding is that you can take any check-ride as long as you legally able to act as PIC.  Specific medical is irrelevant.

@kortopates?

[kortopates]

I don't think that is true.  My understanding is that you can take any check-ride as long as you legally able to act as PIC.  Specific medical is irrelevant.
[mention=7862]kortopates[/mention]?

Absolutely correct!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[1980Mooney]

45 minutes ago, Hank said:

Those of us who fly under any class of medical are also the arbiters of our own fitness to fly before each flight. Do you know people who fly when they are sick, tired, haven't slept, aren't Instrument or Night current, overweight, haven't checked CG, etc.?

All same same here, it appears to me. I watch a video everymither year, and visit a non-FAA-approved "state licensed physician" after every other video, but the accident rates for us BasicMed pilots is not only not higher than pilots under Class 1, 2 & 3 Medical tickets but actually is less than them as a whole. Why do you think Sport Pilots will suddenly turn aviation into the Wild West of Rule-Breaking???

Can you site your source of data that shows BasicMed pilots have lower accident rates?  - and is that rate based upon accidents per hour flown?

And you point out that your BasicMed makes you actually think about your health and visit a doctor.  The new Sport Pilot does not require that.  It is a slippery slope.  That is my point.

[Hank]

@1980Mooney, This is probably the article that I read from an AOPA email:

https://aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2023/march/27/faa-report-validates-safety-of-basic-med-for-private-pilots

[McMooney]

3 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Not sure why you think you need a Class 2 medical to train and earn a commercial cert.  You don't.

You will only need a Class 2 if you want to use the privileges of the commercial cert; that is, get PAID to fly.  

I don't actually NEED it for training but i do need it to Exercise the privileges

[Will.iam]

9 hours ago, kortopates said:

Absolutely correct!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe true in cfi world but in part 121 world it is not. Had my sim partner that was going for checkride in the sim but had his 1st class lapse into a 2nd class check airman said no problem for sim check just make sure you have your class 1 by the time you get to the flight line. We passed our check rides that day but he found out later that week check airman was mistaken and he had to go get his 1st class medical and then retake his checkride again because his first checkride was invalid for not having a 1st class medical at time of check! I think that is insane of a rule since you are in a sim not a plane and the whole point of a first class is to try and vet you are not going to have a medical issue while up in the air. But the faa is rarely logical. 

[aerochet]

I am super excited that this new rule gives me a path to continue flying when I get to the point I can no longer pass BasicMed. With a DL medical, you could have type 2 diabetes or a heart attack and after a recovery period, start flying again as soon as the doctor allowed you to return driving your car! With a Class 3 Medical and even with BasicMed to a lesser extent, you have to wait and jump through many hurdles to return to flying. I have no plans to let my BasicMed lapse, but who knows what health issues I will have as I age.

[Andy95W]

I’ll go out on a limb and say the insurance companies will probably require BasicMed as a minimum. Maybe not for a C-152, but probably for something faster or retractable gear.

[aerochet]

You never know what the insurance companies will require, but I am hopeful that a pilot's years of experience in make/model and lack of claims would be more important than a medical. Nobody knows for now how they will react.

[MikeOH]

On 7/26/2025 at 11:59 PM, Will.iam said:

Maybe true in cfi world but in part 121 world it is not. Had my sim partner that was going for checkride in the sim but had his 1st class lapse into a 2nd class check airman said no problem for sim check just make sure you have your class 1 by the time you get to the flight line. We passed our check rides that day but he found out later that week check airman was mistaken and he had to go get his 1st class medical and then retake his checkride again because his first checkride was invalid for not having a 1st class medical at time of check! I think that is insane of a rule since you are in a sim not a plane and the whole point of a first class is to try and vet you are not going to have a medical issue while up in the air. But the faa is rarely logical. 

Interesting!

I don't find anything limiting in Part 67, but have certainly NOT read through all of Part 121.

Do you know if this an actual Part 121 requirement, or some kind of requirement imposed by an OpSpecs/airline specific kind of thing?

[1980Mooney]

On 7/26/2025 at 4:03 PM, MikeOH said:

Probably, nothing. But I think you fail to realize that the existing rules have ALWAYS relied on each pilot's honest self evaluation. That is, your comment: Has been in place already for all Classes of Medical, including "Basic".

 

On 7/26/2025 at 4:08 PM, Hank said:

Those of us who fly under any class of medical are also the arbiters of our own fitness to fly before each flight. Do you know people who fly when they are sick, tired, haven't slept, aren't Instrument or Night current, overweight, haven't checked CG, etc.?

All same same here, it appears to me. I watch a video everymither year, and visit a non-FAA-approved "state licensed physician" after every other video, but the accident rates for us BasicMed pilots is not only not higher than pilots under Class 1, 2 & 3 Medical tickets but actually is less than them as a whole. Why do you think Sport Pilots will suddenly turn aviation into the Wild West of Rule-Breaking???

I think aerochet just made my point.  "super excited that this new rule gives me a path to continue flying when I get to the point I can no longer pass BasicMed."

I doubt that you will see many SEP ads anymore that say "LOST MEDICAL - NEED TO SELL".  Owner pilots will just whip out their driver's license and keep flying.

The majority won't do anything intentionally nefarious (of course some will) but it is easy to lull yourself into believing "I'm OK, I am not that bad, I feel fine".  And be brutally honest - how many here would bother to get an annual physical or even visit the doctor if it were not required by insurance or work?  Occasional cold or flu? - just go to a "Doc In The Box" or now "tele visit".   And DL pilots will be honest in self-assessment- "What I don't know, can't hurt me" - "Don't ask....no reason/nothing to tell"

I think, at least for older pilots, there will be less attention to medical condition simply there will be less focus or requirement.  And more likely to keep flying when I should probably stop.  Myself included.  Like I said, it's a slippery slope.  

Sometimes you need a third party to tell you "no".  And who will take the "airplane keys" away from grandpa?  He just needs his easy to get drivers license out and he is good to go.

Did anyone see the NTSB report on the June 14, 2023 fatal crash of Mooney Ovation N1025C in Wisconsin that took the lives of the 73 year old pilot and his 8 year old grandson?

• Spatial disorientation
• They found delta-8-THC., codeine, gabapentin and possible ethanol use.  Tests showed morphine and hydrocodone but they could have been metabolites of codeine
• However he was being treated for high blood pressure, arthritis, back pain, insomnia, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and low testosterone
  • He had extensive systemic steroid use for back pain and was prescribed muscle relaxants and narcotics and his OSA was being treated with a CPAP device (although they are not sure if he was using it)
  • A codeine prescription is a disqualifier
  • Use of gabapentin may cause drowsiness, dizziness, blurred vision, and general central nervous system 
    (CNS) depression.
    • Gabapentin use with codeine can have even higher risk of central nervous system depression.

 

6 hours ago, aerochet said:

I am super excited that this new rule gives me a path to continue flying when I get to the point I can no longer pass BasicMed. With a DL medical, you could have type 2 diabetes or a heart attack and after a recovery period, start flying again as soon as the doctor allowed you to return driving your car! With a Class 3 Medical and even with BasicMed to a lesser extent, you have to wait and jump through many hurdles to return to flying. I have no plans to let my BasicMed lapse, but who knows what health issues I will have as I age.

 

Edited July 28 by 1980Mooney

[MikeOH]

3 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

• Spatial disorientation
• They found delta-8-THC., codeine, gabapentin and possible ethanol use.  Tests showed morphine and hydrocodone but they could have been metabolites of codeine

Hmm, it would seem the first follows the second!  This is a pretty extreme example (drugged out pilot) and you didn't mention what medical this guy had?  If he had a Third Class I think your arguments go out the window (That is, your argument seems to be that a reduction in Medical standards is going to result in more 'scofflaws').  This example seems to show that scofflaws have always existed and will continue, regardless.

I recall that while Basic Med was being proposed there were others that ranted "The sky will literally fall" if we allow a reduction in medical certification....thing is, the actual data hasn't shown that to be the case. AT. ALL.

So, the fear that now this MOSAIC with it's 'reduction' to allowing DL for a wider range of aircraft is going to suddenly result in medical induced accidents is a more than a little hard to swallow as a rational fear.  DL has been allowed for a while now for 'aircraft of a lesser god' and I'm not aware of a plethora of accidents due to medical incapacitation for those pilots/aircraft.  Have you?

I think all of these changes (e.g., Basic Med, MOSAIC, DL for LSA) are evidence of tangible progress in reigning in the out of control over zealous non-science based bureaucratic entity that is OKC!

[1980Mooney]

Just now, MikeOH said:

Hmm, it would seem the first follows the second!  This is a pretty extreme example (drugged out pilot) and you didn't mention what medical this guy had?  If he had a Third Class I think your arguments go out the window (That is, your argument seems to be that a reduction in Medical standards is going to result in more 'scofflaws').  This example seems to show that scofflaws have always existed and will continue, regardless.

I recall that while Basic Med was being proposed there were others that ranted "The sky will literally fall" if we allow a reduction in medical certification....thing is, the actual data hasn't shown that to be the case. AT. ALL.

So, the fear that now this MOSAIC with it's 'reduction' to allowing DL for a wider range of aircraft is going to suddenly result in medical induced accidents is a more than a little hard to swallow as a rational fear.  DL has been allowed for a while now for 'aircraft of a lesser god' and I'm not aware of a plethora of accidents due to medical incapacitation for those pilots/aircraft.  Have you?

I think all of these changes (e.g., Basic Med, MOSAIC, DL for LSA) are evidence of tangible progress in reigning in the out of control over zealous non-science based bureaucratic entity that is OKC!

Perhaps you are saying that rules were only "keeping the honest, honest".  So let's get rid of "over zealous bureaucratic" rules.

The pilot was a retired dentist who should be more attuned to health issues and drugs than the average Joe.  MOSIAC pilot heath is completely self-policing with no pretense of really any oversight of rules.

It's a slippery slope.

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Perhaps you are saying that rules were only "keeping the honest, honest"

I think that's been true of all laws for very long time

 

5 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

The pilot was a retired dentist who should be more attuned to health issues and drugs than the average Joe.

So, did he have the vaunted Third Class Medical, or not?

 

6 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

MOSIAC pilot heath is completely self-policing with no pretense of really any oversight of rules.

As has been the DL for LSA.  Again, I'm not aware of those aircraft dropping out of sky due to pilot medical incapacitation.

7 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

It's a slippery slope

Well, there's a trite aphorism that can be generally applied to just about everything.

The point here is that laws/rules should be established when there is sufficient and verifiable evidence (scientific preferred) of a PROBLEM.  Given the EVIDENCE that there has been NO problem with either Basic Med or LSA DL causing an uptick in accidents due to medical incapacitation, I just can't work up much angst over MOSAIC!

IOW, I loath the argument (a favorite of the TSA) that we dare NOT eliminate ANY rules/laws for the fear of negative repercussions but WITHOUT any evidence to support that fear.

"How do we know that if not for these laws many horrible things would have happened. Thus, we must not repeal them" is NOT a cogent argument.

[1980Mooney]

5 hours ago, MikeOH said:

I think that's been true of all laws for very long time

 

So, did he have the vaunted Third Class Medical, or not?

 

As has been the DL for LSA.  Again, I'm not aware of those aircraft dropping out of sky due to pilot medical incapacitation.

Well, there's a trite aphorism that can be generally applied to just about everything.

The point here is that laws/rules should be established when there is sufficient and verifiable evidence (scientific preferred) of a PROBLEM.  Given the EVIDENCE that there has been NO problem with either Basic Med or LSA DL causing an uptick in accidents due to medical incapacitation, I just can't work up much angst over MOSAIC!

IOW, I loath the argument (a favorite of the TSA) that we dare NOT eliminate ANY rules/laws for the fear of negative repercussions but WITHOUT any evidence to support that fear.

"How do we know that if not for these laws many horrible things would have happened. Thus, we must not repeal them" is NOT a cogent argument.

I think I hit a nerve.  I must be on to something. 

It's a slippery slope.....

 

[MikeOH]

11 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

I think I hit a nerve.  I must be on to something. 

It's a slippery slope.....

 

Amusing video.

No nerve hit.  I've rebutted your arguments and the best you've got is a veiled ad hominem attack?

[Parker_Woodruff]

On 7/26/2025 at 3:51 PM, 1980Mooney said:

 

• @Parker_Woodruff - where do the insurance companies stand on this?...
•  

I can only think of one time in the past 6+ years running the agency that an insurance company has declined someone due to a condition when they had made it through FAA Aeromedical.

Most insurance companies are content with FAA compliance and, though they ask about special issuance/waiver/etc, there's not much scrutiny.

Some companies require a 3rd class or more advanced medical after a certain age, but even that seems less common these days.  Still have a couple companies where I've never seen anything required in excess of whatever is necessary for the flight involved for pilots in their 80s.

One company deleted medical questions in their application altogether.

[Pinecone]

On 7/26/2025 at 11:43 AM, EricJ said:

it seems like maybe one should self-ground if things are not good enough to fly Basic Med.    Perhaps if somebody's Basic Med expired then it might make sense as a temporary measure?

That is how Basic Med works.  The training you have to do every two years is big on self evaluation before each flight.

But if you self eval and determine you are not safe to fly on Basic Med, why would you think you were safe to fly as SP??????

[1980Mooney]

4 hours ago, Pinecone said:

That is how Basic Med works.  The training you have to do every two years is big on self evaluation before each flight.

But if you self eval and determine you are not safe to fly on Basic Med, why would you think you were safe to fly as SP??????

When there is no Basic Med required, no third part scrutiny, no reason to do a structured self evaluation/assessment, it becomes easy to convince oneself that "I am good enough to fly" in spite of the facts.  I suspect that there are many Mooney families here that have "taken the keys away from Grandpa" even though he was convinced in his mind that he was still able to drive a car safely.

It's a slippery slope....

[toto]

On 7/22/2025 at 10:16 PM, TangoTango said:

After reading and rereading the final rule, I think only the 59KCAS clean stall speed applies to a pilot exercising sport pilot privileges (ie a PPL holder operating with a driver's license as a medical). This is part of the new 14 CFR 61.316, which describes aircraft a sport pilot can operate, and only mentions the 59KCAS Vs1. This would allow Hank's C model, but it puts my 2900# J over the limit. 

I’ve been wondering what this means for those of us in the serial number range that’s eligible for the 2900# AFM supplement. 

Our aircraft have the same type certificate at 2740 as at 2900, but the vs0 numbers are critically different in the flight manual (see chart below). I assume an aircraft that doesn’t have the AFM supplement is under the vs1 limit, but an aircraft *with* the AFM supplement is over the limit. 

There’s no STC, so it’s really just whether you have the supplement stuck in your flight manual or not. I’m not sure whether it’s possible to reverse compliance with a service letter? Can you write a logbook entry that says “uncomplied with SL92-1 and SB M20-252?”

[PBones]

On 7/23/2025 at 8:20 PM, kortopates said:

Personally IMO this is a total nothing burger.  While MOSAIC will allow a Sport Pilot licensed pilot to fly some Mooney's (even if its just a C model) its still up to the Insurance companies to set the real requirements for flying a Mooney. Maybe they do at the same cost as Private with Basic med, maybe they increase the insurance cost substantially or require much longer checkout times before solo. We don't know but those could be incentives for a Sport pilot to upgrade to a Private - its not much harder.

Then IMO what really makes the Sport pilot cert so limited is that our Mooney's are most popular with pilots for their efficient cross country capabilities. But that is most dependent on an instrument rating and Sport Pilots are VFR only and can't get an instrument rating till they get their Private cert and do the cross country flights they didn't need for the Sport pilot.

I can only see that as attractive to some older pilots that can't qualify for a Basic Med and are willing to go strictly VFR - which will no doubt appeal to a few but I doubt many.

Agreed about the insurance companies dictating the training needed for them to cover a high performance airplane, since I just purchased a K, they set the exact hours and type of training I will need to be covered by the policy since I have only trained in Piper and Cessna fixed gear low HP planes.