The first phase of the new Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification (MOSAIC) comes into effect on Oct. 22 and it will greatly expand the list of aircraft that can be flown with a driver’s license medical. Under the rule, which was announced at AirVenture 2025, the so-called Sport Pilot 2.0 will allow anyone with Sport Pilot qualifications to fly aircraft that were previously available to private pilots or those with higher qualifications. Single-engine aircraft with a clean stall speed of 59 knots or less, four seats (but only carrying one passenger) and even features like variable pitch propellers and retractable gear are open to sport pilots who have the necessary endorsements.
The new rules cover aircraft like most lower-powered Cessnas, like the 140, 150/152 and 172, many Piper singles and some more modern designs. There is no paperwork involved. “You can exercise sport pilot privileges under your existing pilot certificate beginning October 22, 2025, without any additional paperwork or checkride,” says an EAA fact sheet. “Simply familiarize yourself with sport pilot privileges and fly accordingly. You now have access to all the aircraft that are sport pilot eligible while exercising sport pilot privileges, meaning you can continue to fly what you want without carrying your third-class medical or BasicMed certification.”
We’ve achieved a welcome update of the Light Sport pilot requirements and — next year — an update to the ASTM standards required to build a new light sport compliant aircraft BUT … there’s been no modification to the maintenance requirements. This is a ‘third factor’ in the equation that is being ignored. The FAA is still treating a C172 as if it were a Boeing airliner on the ramp. It’s TIME to update the maintenance requirements for certificated aircraft being flown solely under recreational / light sport rules to bring it in line with the way S-LSA aircraft are maintained.
Along with this problem, we’re facing a shortage of certificated mechanics. We’re over “inspecting” while under maintaining our airplanes, too. It’s time to update maintenance rules for certificated airplanes. MY idea is to allow A&P mechanics (without IA) to ‘sign off’ an annual CONDITION INSPECTION of any certificated airplane being flown solely for recreation under MOSAIC just like — say — a Legend Cub S-LSA. IF said aircraft was later needed to fly commercially, an IA would have to reinspect it to certify that it meets its Type Certificate. This would drastically increase the number of people who could do the annual maintenance requirement. Longer term, I also think there should be a path for an owner to take the appropriate light sport repairman courses to do their own condition inspections once certificated.
One of the problems I see with certificated airplanes is that owners are taught — from day 1 of their pilot training — that an A&P / IA is some sort of ‘god,’ who has special capabilities and that they should not try to maintain their own airplanes. FAR Part 43 has a list of preventative maintenance tasks that owners are allowed to perform but this list is rarely taught and often discouraged. It’s time to stop that. Further, the preventative maintenance task list is sorely too incomplete. I ‘get’ that some owners should never get near a screwdriver or wrench but many — likely, most? — are full capable of doing more tasks on their own airplanes … especially if they were properly trained via Light Sport Repairman (LSR) maintenance courses … possibly to include their specific model of airplane.
Many moons ago I achieved an A&P but mostly use it to maintain my own airplane(s). My 172 has never been touched by another person for the last 40 years of ownership and it reflects my personal attention. THAT is what the goal of maintenance should be … to allow lower cost, more frequent and complete maintenance by OWNERS … not just “inspection.” I could live with a transition period where — say — every 5 years an IA would have to look at the certificated aircraft after its annual condition inspection by an A&P. Once the FAA was convinced that the new “model” of maintenance was working well — and it would — the IA requirement could be dropped. Kinda like MOSAIC is Light Sport 2.0.
Unless and until the maintenance requirements for aircraft being flown under Light Sport 2.0 are updated, the MOSAIC rule is incomplete IMHO.
Completely agree with the over-inspected and under-maintained comment. Also agree that Mosaic needs to incorporate a path for sensible maintenance of aircraft under its certification standards as you have stated in your comment.
I would, however, consider caution in the phasing out of A&P or IA participation in any maintenance program. Anyone maintaining their own airplane, licensed or not, runs the risk of complacency as a by-product of familiarity. A good mechanic and IA, while far from god-like, is useful in rendering an unbiased evaluation of airworthiness without being hamstrung by the routine, time-consuming tasks that could be better handled by the ones closest to its operational requirements.
I agree with the notion that complacency could become an issue if only the owner was completing an inspection and that’s why I offered — as a first step — that an A&P or Light Sport Repairman maintaining a certificated airplane flown solely as a light sport airplane be backed up every 5 years. Critical systems in aircraft are usually backed up to ensure reliability so I have no problem with a second set of qualified ‘eyes’ looking the aircraft over. I just see doing it every year as too often.
The problem I see is that many airplanes are not flown all that much yet are kept in hangars and otherwise protected yet undergo annual inspection after annual inspection for no good reason. We’re literally wearing our airplanes out inspecting them. Meeting an inspection requirement doesn’t do maintenance. For myself, each year I pick something extraordinary and dive into it deeper. In a way, it’s a sort of progressive inspection. Even though I possess an A&P, I do not have an IA because I do not want to be taking care of other people’s airplanes. So … I have to find an IA to work with me. Typically, I do the annual and then hand the open airplane along with squawk sheet over to the IA who looks it over again and then signs it off. Talking with FSDO folks in Orlando, they’re completely comfortable with this notion. In many maintenance organizations, young starting A&P’s or even aspirants are doing much of the work backed up in just this sort of way. That ain’t free!
I guess my main point is that owners need to become more involved in the maintenance of their airplanes. I became a much better pilot once I got my A&P and started maintaining my own airplane. This idea works just fine for Light Sport airplanes so … why shouldn’t it work for certificated airplanes being flown under MOSAIC.
Witness the quality of workmanship of E-AB airplanes built by people who are not previously certificated mechanics. That says much about this idea.
Larry S: Yes, this is what I am hoping for. I expect that the resale value of my recreation-only C182 would drop significantly if it was maintained/inspected under the “Recreation Only” program you suggest, but that value would likely go back up again by putting a recent, full A&P/IA Annual in the logs. The potential impact on insurance rates are a whole nuther thing, and could end up being a deal killer for many of us. Worth trying, though.
I pretty much did that for the last 18 years of Aeronca Chief ownership. I would do it all. Then a friend A&P would come along and see what damage I might have caused and if it was minimal, would do the paperwork and sign it off. Our relationship with this very simple aircraft worked great. Made me feel like it was my airplane and let him get an easy one to look over. Very enjoyable.
Next summer the FAA will clarify the Sport Aircraft rules. From what’s being said so far, there’s a ‘Standard’ Airworthiness Certificate (Commercial Aircraft) and a ‘Special’ Airworthiness Certificate (Sport Aircraft). An owner may take on the responsibilities of a manufacturer of an Aircraft and re-licence it as ‘Special’ Airworthiness Certificate. MOSAIC also included removing the 51% build rule. Let’s wait and see but, this should allow you to become the manufacturer of your Cessna 172 and turn it into a LarryS 172. Which will remove it from the restraints of the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS). Then the ‘Special’ Airworthiness Certificated Sport Aircraft can be maintained in accordance with “ASTM Consensus Standards”.
They made it pretty clear that there will be no such thing as”re-licensing” of standard category aircraft. They will remain as originally certified and will require an A&P. Going forward, new aircraft licensed as LSA can/will have similar or better flight capabilities to your 172, they will be newly certificated aircraft. It’s all in the rule.
Correct, Rusty. THAT is the problem. Intracengency.
I came across a guy who changed his Cessna to an experimental Homebuilt about 5 years ago. He said that he did the 51% rule and became the manufacturer. A Designated Airworthiness Representative (DAR) treated it like any Homebuilt kit. If they drop the 51% rule then it will just require a DAR to process the paperwork and the owner to become the manufacturer. Then it’s not a legacy aircraft anymore. .. I don’t know…. We’ll know next Oshkosh.
I thought that helping maintain legacy general aviation aircraft would make a fun retirement gig, so I added an inspection authorization (IA). Turns out that liability insurance is so expensive and hard to get that working on and inspecting other folk’s legacy (1960 and older) could never work. Thank you trial lawyers.
THAT is why I don’t get my IA even though I’m emmimently qualified, Steve. Plus, I’m retired … I don’t need the $$ OR the work.
Mr. Zeller, yours is a familiar story.
In my GA career, I can count on one hand the years I had product liability insurance. Small business struggles to meet the demands made on behalf of much larger organizations and their attached airport entrenchments. But rules are rules and prices reflect the reality.
Licensed inspectors working to help out local friends should have agreements over coffee to further the notion that smart, interested, and engaged people can do the things necessary to be compliant, safe, and in control.
How are we over-inspecting? Is the rationale that an annual inspection for GA recreational aircraft is excessive? I’m not tracking there. Under-maintaining, yes, I agree with. But it has nothing to do with any ‘rule’. It’s because of time and expense. We could be overpopulated with qualified mechanics and aircraft owners will still cut corners and jeopardize safety to save a buck and a smidgin of ground time. It’s a human factor that’s been in the GA environment for decades and it will never go away.
Well, “over-inspecting” by using the calendar as the sole criteria as to when an annual must be performed. Had a friend with a Bonanza, he flew 40 hours each year. Did that amount of flight justify removing all the inspection panels, interior, etc. and jacking up the plane to test the landing gear every year?
A better approach would be a years/hours threshold;; an annual every hundred hours OR two or three calendar years.
We have biennial flight reviews for pilots perhaps a similar rule can be applied to non-rental/training aircraft.