Are Sport Pilots allowed to fly the M20 with the MOSAIC final rule?

[Moondoggy]

Mooney Flyers,

 

I seek consensus and feedback from Mooney operators regarding the new FAA rule change (MOSAIC) that allows Sport Pilots to fly four-seat complex aircraft, provided the aircraft’s clean stall speed is 59 KCAS or less.

 

Are Sport Pilots allowed to fly the M20 with the MOSAIC final rule?

 

Using the TCDS, Owners Manuals/Pilot Operating Handbooks (POH), FAA definitions, and the final rule as a reference, it looks like the answer is not no. The answer is more like, “It depends!”

 

Because we are dealing with a stall speed limitation (VS) and VS is measured using Calibrated Air Speed (CAS), we must determine how to adjust the indicated speeds published in most Owners Manuals (vintage Mooneys) and POH (later Mooneys). The aerodynamic design factors that impact the stall characteristics of the M-20 have not changed substantially from the original type certificate. Structural enhancements over time have increased the load factors that newer aircraft can be exposed to, resulting in increased speed and gross weight limits. Aircraft maximum takeoff gross weight (MTGW) directly impacts the published clean stall speed (VS1). Therefore, VS1 for the Mooney M20 is a function of MTGW, and the highest published MTGW, which equates to a VS1 of 59 KCAS, is 2740 LBS.

 

So, my position is that a Sport Pilot would be entitled to operate an M20J or earlier with a published MTGW of 2740 or less. The data to support this idea is published in the 1977 Mooney M20J POH Figure 2-2. Published airspeed indicator marking ranges in Figure 2-2 are in CAS MPH. Specifically, the green arc range is 68 - 200 CAS MPH. When 68 MPH CAS is converted to KCAS, the result is 59 KCAS, the limit that Sport Pilots can operate.

 

Why is this important? Sport Pilots only need a valid driver's license to meet the medical requirements to fly; the lack of a flight physical is no longer a limitation to being legal to fly an older Mooney and many other certificated aircraft.

 

Is my position correct?

 

- Cheers

[toto]

There’s a pretty good discussion over here:

 

[Moondoggy]

Thank you, Toto! The discussion thread Mosaic Mooneys is great.

[jager3]

   I know of quite a few "private" pilots with very "deep pockets" that have flown high performance aircraft that far exceed Mooney's specifications, ie. speed, weight, etc. Just because it is allowed does not make it safe or practical.  The ones I am familiar with can afford the "ride" and smart enough to obtain the applicable license to operate the aircraft (and can afford the "gosh awful" insurance cost), but are woefully deficient in flight experience! While I don't relish sharing the same airspace with a sport pilot in a "complex aircraft", I share the road with a closing speed of over 130 mph with 16 year olds who (many) can barely walk and chew gum at the same time (much less "text" while driving!). I also know, and have known, of inexperienced aviators starting out in complex aircraft and most realize the vast amount of knowledge they do not posses, but must learn. (That experience is a rude awakening when any emergency arises compounded by weather and speed!)

   Long story short: I'm all for obtaining more pilots into our community.  Most  restrictions placed on applicants trying to enter our "world" have been based on incidents and accidents resulting in more regulations and expense, we will eventually "price" ourselves out of the "game" without restructuring regulations.  Restricting sport pilot to two "occupants" or limiting speed is not so restrictive as to curtail participation.  Requiring a person to become familiar with the aircraft and "equipment", or becoming more proficient in "type" is not too restrictive either.  Most Serious aviators move up in ratings to expand their knowledge and abilities when pursuing a career, those pursuing a hobby just want to experience "flight".  In my experience flying as a hobby is short lived unless it leads to more serious pursuits.  I'm glad and surprised to see an effort to expand our community by our federal government, for it is a positive sign in my opinion, which may lead us back to a more favorable societal view of aviation as a "pass time".  

   I claim no superior point of view; my very first aircraft was lent to me by the government.  As a 22 yr. old flying a T-34C with a 225 HP engine - I had all of 8 hr. when I solo'd. Regulations should not inhibit the motivation to fly, but promote the quest to learn. Mooney did, at one time, make a model with fixed gear (M20D?) as a "training" aircraft. This training model was short lived, either due to cost or other factors. Although the fixed gear model could be converted by the factory, Mooney marketed their retractable geared aircraft as a "fast traveler" to complete with other retractable geared aircraft - the fixed gear model did not fit this "mold".

    We are reminded of expensive flying has become each time we taxi up to a fuel pump, or receive a bill for our last annual - the EAA is finally exploring ways to make flying cheaper. We fly one of the most efficient aircraft in the market, why not share this secret with rest of the community! My .02

   

[1980Mooney]

11 minutes ago, jager3 said:

   I know of quite a few "private" pilots with very "deep pockets" that have flown high performance aircraft that far exceed Mooney's specifications, ie. speed, weight, etc. Just because it is allowed does not make it safe or practical.  The ones I am familiar with can afford the "ride" and smart enough to obtain the applicable license to operate the aircraft (and can afford the "gosh awful" insurance cost), but are woefully deficient in flight experience! While I don't relish sharing the same airspace with a sport pilot in a "complex aircraft", I share the road with a closing speed of over 130 mph with 16 year olds who (many) can barely walk and chew gum at the same time (much less "text" while driving!). I also know, and have known, of inexperienced aviators starting out in complex aircraft and most realize the vast amount of knowledge they do not posses, but must learn. (That experience is a rude awakening when any emergency arises compounded by weather and speed!)

   Long story short: I'm all for obtaining more pilots into our community.  Most  restrictions placed on applicants trying to enter our "world" have been based on incidents and accidents resulting in more regulations and expense, we will eventually "price" ourselves out of the "game" without restructuring regulations.  Restricting sport pilot to two "occupants" or limiting speed is not so restrictive as to curtail participation.  Requiring a person to become familiar with the aircraft and "equipment", or becoming more proficient in "type" is not too restrictive either.  Most Serious aviators move up in ratings to expand their knowledge and abilities when pursuing a career, those pursuing a hobby just want to experience "flight".  In my experience flying as a hobby is short lived unless it leads to more serious pursuits.  I'm glad and surprised to see an effort to expand our community by our federal government, for it is a positive sign in my opinion, which may lead us back to a more favorable societal view of aviation as a "pass time".  

   I claim no superior point of view; my very first aircraft was lent to me by the government.  As a 22 yr. old flying a T-34C with a 225 HP engine - I had all of 8 hr. when I solo'd. Regulations should not inhibit the motivation to fly, but promote the quest to learn. Mooney did, at one time, make a model with fixed gear (M20D?) as a "training" aircraft. This training model was short lived, either due to cost or other factors. Although the fixed gear model could be converted by the factory, Mooney marketed their retractable geared aircraft as a "fast traveler" to complete with other retractable geared aircraft - the fixed gear model did not fit this "mold".

    We are reminded of expensive flying has become each time we taxi up to a fuel pump, or receive a bill for our last annual - the EAA is finally exploring ways to make flying cheaper. We fly one of the most efficient aircraft in the market, why not share this secret with rest of the community! My .02

It will be interesting to see how the insurance industry deals with this.  I think it naive to believe that they will limit themselves to filling no more than the co-pilot seat (in a 4 seat plane) or staying below 10,000 ft.  

You said "Long story short: I'm all for obtaining more pilots into our community."  Let's think about who this will attract:

• It will attract individuals whose health or vision previously precluded them from passing a Flight Physical. 
  • You can be half dead and still get a driver's license in most states.  In Texas a driver's license is valid for 8 years (under age 84) - so even if your health declines, the license is still valid for a long time.  And you can be pretty blind (with correction) and still pass the vision test for a drivers license.  In Texas you can get a drivers license (with limitations) even if your CORRECTED VISION IS ONLY 20/70.  The new Sport Pilot regs makes no distinction for a drivers license with limitations - all you need is a "drivers license".
• It will allow existing older pilots, with declining health such that they are no longer fit enough to pass a Flight Physical or BasicMed, to keep flying.  I suspect they will keep flying just as they always did - filling the seats if they wish and flying above 10,000 ft if they wish.  
• It will attract those that just want a quick and easy path to fly.  They don't strike me as particularly committed to grow skills.

Regarding older pilots of declining health, it shifts the burden to family members to "take the airplane keys way from grandpa" or "don't let the kids/grandkids fly with your Dad"

 

[Schllc]

I’m all for Darwinism. 

[McMooney]

i'm not sure why there's a converstation, it's clearly stated, yes.  atleast for my m20e

[mhrivnak]

15 hours ago, Moondoggy said:

So, my position is that a Sport Pilot would be entitled to operate an M20J or earlier with a published MTGW of 2740 or less.

I'm looking at a 1983 M20J POH, and it disagrees. Green arc starts at 63 KIAS. Looking at the airspeed calibration graph, that would be about 61 KCAS. Its max weight is 2740lbs.

[TangoTango]

5 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

It will be interesting to see how the insurance industry deals with this.  I think it naive to believe that they will limit themselves to filling no more than the co-pilot seat (in a 4 seat plane) or staying below 10,000 ft.  

You said "Long story short: I'm all for obtaining more pilots into our community."  Let's think about who this will attract:

• It will attract individuals whose health or vision previously precluded them from passing a Flight Physical. 
  • You can be half dead and still get a driver's license in most states.  In Texas a driver's license is valid for 8 years (under age 84) - so even if your health declines, the license is still valid for a long time.  And you can be pretty blind (with correction) and still pass the vision test for a drivers license.  In Texas you can get a drivers license (with limitations) even if your CORRECTED VISION IS ONLY 20/70.  The new Sport Pilot regs makes no distinction for a drivers license with limitations - all you need is a "drivers license".
• It will allow existing older pilots, with declining health such that they are no longer fit enough to pass a Flight Physical or BasicMed, to keep flying.  I suspect they will keep flying just as they always did - filling the seats if they wish and flying above 10,000 ft if they wish.  
• It will attract those that just want a quick and easy path to fly.  They don't strike me as particularly committed to grow skills.

Regarding older pilots of declining health, it shifts the burden to family members to "take the airplane keys way from grandpa" or "don't let the kids/grandkids fly with your Dad"

 

I find it hard to believe any aging PPL/CPL/ATP would choose Sport Pilot over Basic Med. The real truth is that Basic Med is already a pretty permissive standard: Basic Med doesn't go through MedXpress and denials aren't reported to the FAA. If a doctor won't sign you off, you can simply keep trying until you find one that will.

The new Sport Pilot privileges are more useful to new pilots, because unlike Basic Med it doesn't require you to have ever held a medical. This allows people who didn't want to face denial or the Special Issuance process a pathway to some much more capable airframes. I predict an incoming wave of Sport Pilots with a childhood history of ADHD or other conditions that the FAA has frankly made unnecessarily difficult to get through the regular medical process. They won't have a pathway to ever fly for hire, so it's really only going to attract those that have a passion to fly for fun. I suspect that population is safer than average.

[1980Mooney]

44 minutes ago, mhrivnak said:

I'm looking at a 1983 M20J POH, and it disagrees. Green arc starts at 63 KIAS. Looking at the airspeed calibration graph, that would be about 61 KCAS. Its max weight is 2740lbs.

Good point.  Here is a 1978 M20J POH.  63 KIAS also. So early M20J's are not allowed to be flown by Sport Pilots.

[1980Mooney]

Here is a 1986 M20J POH.  Mysteriously the VS1 is lower at 61 KIAS

[Jackk]

11 hours ago, jager3 said:

   I know of quite a few "private" pilots with very "deep pockets" that have flown high performance aircraft that far exceed Mooney's specifications, ie. speed, weight, etc. Just because it is allowed does not make it safe or practical.  The ones I am familiar with can afford the "ride" and smart enough to obtain the applicable license to operate the aircraft (and can afford the "gosh awful" insurance cost), but are woefully deficient in flight experience! While I don't relish sharing the same airspace with a sport pilot in a "complex aircraft", I share the road with a closing speed of over 130 mph with 16 year olds who (many) can barely walk and chew gum at the same time (much less "text" while driving!). I also know, and have known, of inexperienced aviators starting out in complex aircraft and most realize the vast amount of knowledge they do not posses, but must learn. (That experience is a rude awakening when any emergency arises compounded by weather and speed!)

   Long story short: I'm all for obtaining more pilots into our community.  Most  restrictions placed on applicants trying to enter our "world" have been based on incidents and accidents resulting in more regulations and expense, we will eventually "price" ourselves out of the "game" without restructuring regulations.  Restricting sport pilot to two "occupants" or limiting speed is not so restrictive as to curtail participation.  Requiring a person to become familiar with the aircraft and "equipment", or becoming more proficient in "type" is not too restrictive either.  Most Serious aviators move up in ratings to expand their knowledge and abilities when pursuing a career, those pursuing a hobby just want to experience "flight".  In my experience flying as a hobby is short lived unless it leads to more serious pursuits.  I'm glad and surprised to see an effort to expand our community by our federal government, for it is a positive sign in my opinion, which may lead us back to a more favorable societal view of aviation as a "pass time".  

   I claim no superior point of view; my very first aircraft was lent to me by the government.  As a 22 yr. old flying a T-34C with a 225 HP engine - I had all of 8 hr. when I solo'd. Regulations should not inhibit the motivation to fly, but promote the quest to learn. Mooney did, at one time, make a model with fixed gear (M20D?) as a "training" aircraft. This training model was short lived, either due to cost or other factors. Although the fixed gear model could be converted by the factory, Mooney marketed their retractable geared aircraft as a "fast traveler" to complete with other retractable geared aircraft - the fixed gear model did not fit this "mold".

    We are reminded of expensive flying has become each time we taxi up to a fuel pump, or receive a bill for our last annual - the EAA is finally exploring ways to make flying cheaper. We fly one of the most efficient aircraft in the market, why not share this secret with rest of the community! My .02

   

 What’s with “private pilot” in quotes?

I know private pilots who fly jets and do damn well at it. Most of them could get their ATP if they wanted, but would more likely go take a aerobatic course or do a fun fly in vacation instead.

 

 I don’t think a Mooney is a fire breathing dragon and wouldn’t have a issue doing initial training for someone in one.

 

 I believe the big appeal for this sport pilot thing will be one of the short comments of basic med, where basic required a medical from the bureaucrats in OKC to start out 

 I think this will allow folks who don’t have the time and/or money to burn appeasing OKC over stuff like a old traffic ticket, or a childhood BS ADHD diagnosis etc

 

It will also help the career focused types continue to train and build time and progress, while they get their ducks in a row to apply for that 1/2/3rd class med

 

 As far as the sharing the airspace with sport pilots

I’m a active ATP/CFI working pilot, wide bodies to old taildraggers, I got zero issue with a sport pilot flying around.  

Its often the sky admiral in his 182 heavy who will complain about a non standard radio call only to fly through a active drop zone, or land ref+warp speed, the folks who just go up for the joy of flight tend not to be the big offenders in my experience

 

So long as the CFIs and DPEs do their jobs more people who enjoy and end up advocating for flying the better 

 

 

 It’s also been proven, unwillingly by the FAA funny enough, that FAA medicals are no more safe than basic.BasicVsMedical.pdf 

Edited Wednesday at 04:23 AM by Jackk

[Moondoggy]

mhrivnak & 1980mooney,

The Sport Pilot speed limitation is 59 KCAS, not 59 KIAS. In my experience as a Flight Engineer, the difference between KCAS and KIAS on the four jets I flew was two knots at sea-level standard day temperature and zero humidity. That said, 59 KCAS is equivalent to 61 KIAS. This is why, in my 1965 M20E, the bottom of the green arc (VS1) is 70 MPH (indicated) or 68 MPH (calibrated), which, when converted to Knots, corresponds to 61 KIAS and 59 KCAS, respectively.

TangoTango,

I agree with you, many people have been unable to obtain a license to fly legally due to medical conditions that are, frankly, benign and yet prevent them from legally operating an airplane. Now, they won't be criminals if they want to pursue their passion for flying.  Also, I have had many friends who have suffered deep depression, and some have decided to leave us early because they could not fly due to medical conditions (very sad).

 

[Moondoggy]

Refer to the attached 1996 M20J POH Stall Speed Chart for VS1 (Clean Stall) speeds at 2900 lbs, 2740 lbs, 2500 lbs, and 2300 lbs, respectively.  

Mooney M20J POH Stall Speed Chart.pdf

[ArtVandelay]

Here is a 1986 M20J POH.  Mysteriously the VS1 is lower at 61 KIAS

Weren’t the winglets added at that time?

[A64Pilot]

3 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

Weren’t the winglets added at that time?

Mine is an 81 I think and has the upswept tips if that’s what you mean, factory equipped not added.

Other than appearance, I’m nearly certain they have no effect, although I’ve heard some say they increase aileron effectiveness.

I’ve done a lot of Certification flight testing, it’s not as cut and dried as we want to think, meaning there is some variance from one aircraft to another and frankly pilot technique, if I approach the stall slightly more aggressively, I’ll get a lower number, then those numbers are “corrected” to standard day, and the correction factors aren’t perfect, usually they are conservative, meaning you will get better numbers if your flight condition isn’t corrected.

I bet for some reason the aircraft was reflown, a flight test report sent to the FAA and the POH corrected, maybe the cause was an increase in gross weight or something ?

Edited Wednesday at 01:19 PM by A64Pilot

[1980Mooney]

10 hours ago, Moondoggy said:

TangoTango,

I agree with you, many people have been unable to obtain a license to fly legally due to medical conditions that are, frankly, benign and yet prevent them from legally operating an airplane. Now, they won't be criminals if they want to pursue their passion for flying.  Also, I have had many friends who have suffered deep depression, and some have decided to leave us early because they could not fly due to medical conditions (very sad).

Deep depression is a "benign condition"?  Hmmm.  I don't think the medical community, aviation community or the families of the 150 victims of the Germanwings Flight 9525 deliberate crash into the Swiss Alps 10 years ago would agree.

But since those afflicted can drive and carry guns here, then why not let them fly....  

Edited Wednesday at 06:43 PM by 1980Mooney

[1980Mooney]

10 hours ago, Moondoggy said:

mhrivnak & 1980mooney,

The Sport Pilot speed limitation is 59 KCAS, not 59 KIAS. In my experience as a Flight Engineer, the difference between KCAS and KIAS on the four jets I flew was two knots at sea-level standard day temperature and zero humidity. That said, 59 KCAS is equivalent to 61 KIAS. This is why, in my 1965 M20E, the bottom of the green arc (VS1) is 70 MPH (indicated) or 68 MPH (calibrated), which, when converted to Knots, corresponds to 61 KIAS and 59 KCAS, respectively.

Great point.  My mistake.

[Moondoggy]

A64Pilot,

 

I agree that flight testing is not always cut and dry! As a test engineer for modifications made to USAF C-20H and C-37 aircraft, I found it apparent that each aircraft tested had variances from the computed/expected limitations. Barring unexplained deviations from the mean data, we would set the limitation tipping more to the safe side of the envelope we were testing. 

 

The M20 TCDS (2A3) doesn't publish the VS1 for any model. Therefore, the MOSAIC final rule, which recommends using AC90-89A to determine VS1, may be used to determine the clean stall of specific models. My experience tells me that weight will be the key factor impacting VS1 if the airfoil is not altered. There are differences in the wing design over the years. Besides the wingtip fairings, which in my opinion have a limited effect on slow flight, specific year ranges of M20s incorporate more washout into the wing. Those years all have an MTGW under 2740LBS.

 

The FAA definition implies that the published lower limit of the green arc is VS1, which I would use to determine the clean stall speed. To determine the application of the Sport Pilot limitation, we need only adjust the published KIAS range to a KCAS range. 

1980Mooney,

The folks I was referring to had no psychological issues prior to being told they could no longer exercise their pilot privileges. The loss of identity when this happens can be devastating to a lifelong pilot. 

- Cheers

[Hank]

@Moondoggy, @1980Mooney and everyone else:  this is the relevant page in the Owners Manual / POH to determine if Sport Pilot privileges are relevant.

So for my C, 70 mphi = 67 mph CAS; Vs1 = 67 mphi = 64 mph CAS = 55.6 KCAS. So yes, a Sport Pilot can legally fly my C, if he can get both my permission and my keys . . . . 

Yes, that would be an unusual request, and would require additional instruction (most likely) equivalent to a Complex Endorsement for Day VFR flight only.

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, Moondoggy said:

The folks I was referring to had no psychological issues prior to being told they could no longer exercise their pilot privileges. The loss of identity when this happens can be devastating to a lifelong pilot.

- Cheers

I can see your interpretation now and agree.  It reinforces my point that older pilots that lose their medical will just whip out their driver's license, fly as a Sport Pilot and continue to fly just as they always did regardless of the limitations supposedly self-imposed (actually imposed by no-one.).  It puts more burden on family members to "take the keys away from Grandpa". 

And thinking about my comment more, those that are currently suffering deep depression or have corrected vision to only 20/70, night vision problems,  debilitating health issues, etc. in most states are generally able to get a drivers license (with or without Limitations).  Also in Texas, with a DUI conviction you may be able to get an "Occupational Drivers License" for necessary driving.  But the Sport Pilot Reg says nothing about drivers license limitations.     So they can all qualify to fly as Sport Pilot.

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, Moondoggy said:

The folks I was referring to had no psychological issues prior to being told they could no longer exercise their pilot privileges. The loss of identity when this happens can be devastating to a lifelong pilot. 

A particularly sad case just happened here.

https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/537784

 

[toto]

3 hours ago, Hank said:

@Moondoggy, @1980Mooney and everyone else:  this is the relevant page in the Owners Manual / POH to determine if Sport Pilot privileges are relevant.

So for my C, 70 mphi = 67 mph CAS; Vs1 = 67 mphi = 64 mph CAS = 55.6 KCAS. So yes, a Sport Pilot can legally fly my C, if he can get both my permission and my keys . . . . 

Yes, that would be an unusual request, and would require additional instruction (most likely) equivalent to a Complex Endorsement for Day VFR flight only.

I posted a thing over in the other thread, and had no responses, but I’m interested to hear input -

Basically - I’m interested in the MOSAIC consequences to changing the GW from 2740 to 2900# and the possibility of going back to 2740.

The GW change is basically just a rudder weight check and a flight manual supplement. It’s not an STC and it involves no changes to the aircraft. But I’m assuming that the KCAS numbers in the flight manual will control MOSAIC applicability, and those numbers change with the 2900# GW supplement. 

[Hank]

45 minutes ago, toto said:

I’m interested in the MOSAIC consequences to changing the GW from 2740 to 2900# and the possibility of going back to 2740.

The GW change is basically just a rudder weight check and a flight manual supplement. It’s not an STC and it involves no changes to the aircraft. But I’m assuming that the KCAS numbers in the flight manual will control MOSAIC applicability, and those numbers change with the 2900# GW supplement. 

Could you just get rid of the 2900 lb flight manual supplement? Or hide it until you sell the plane, then give it to the purchaser so they can use the greater loading flexibility if desired?

[1980Mooney]

56 minutes ago, toto said:

I posted a thing over in the other thread, and had no responses, but I’m interested to hear input -

Basically - I’m interested in the MOSAIC consequences to changing the GW from 2740 to 2900# and the possibility of going back to 2740.

The GW change is basically just a rudder weight check and a flight manual supplement. It’s not an STC and it involves no changes to the aircraft. But I’m assuming that the KCAS numbers in the flight manual will control MOSAIC applicability, and those numbers change with the 2900# GW supplement. 

Those certified at the Factory at 2900 lbs GW are 2900.

I see you are talking about those J’s that were delivered at 2740 lb GW, upgraded to 2900 lbs by paperwork, rudder weight check (noted in the Airframe Log), new Weight and Balance & Useful Load calculation/page in Section VI in your POH.

I suppose you could undo all that, remove the AFM, run new W&B and reduced UL which you add to the POH Section VI and make a log entry in your Airframe log. 
 

 

Edited Wednesday at 11:15 PM by 1980Mooney