Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Any updates on the 3rd class medical?

  1. #11
    dewi8095's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by S3flyer View Post
    Can't argue with that. It would make sense for EAA/AOPA to put forth an update on their web sites. Forum Moderator, please?
    While Craig Fuller's comments were "public," it is a little strange that there has not been a joint statement from AOPA/EAA, especially since this is billed as a cooperative venture. There may be genuine indecision within the two groups as to what to do, submit or hold pending appointment of a new administrator, or, perhaps, there may be some disagreement between the two groups on the best course of action.

    I would very much like to see the petition submitted, and approved, but doing so without a full-time administrator seems very risky. Interim leaders are almost always "caretakers" and not willing to make major changes.

    Don

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by dewi8095 View Post
    While Craig Fuller's comments were "public," it is a little strange that there has not been a joint statement from AOPA/EAA, especially since this is billed as a cooperative venture. There may be genuine indecision within the two groups as to what to do, submit or hold pending appointment of a new administrator, or, perhaps, there may be some disagreement between the two groups on the best course of action.

    I would very much like to see the petition submitted, and approved, but doing so without a full-time administrator seems very risky. Interim leaders are almost always "caretakers" and not willing to make major changes.

    Don
    I would also like this petition to be submitted and confirmed but lack of full-time administrating makes it rather risky.

  3. #13
    dewi8095's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    97
    After reading several related posts on the AOPA forums, it looks like the AOPA/EAA leadership did not have its medical support for the proposal lined up. Prognosis for a positive result sounds grim!

    Don

  4. #14
    Would you mind posting a few of the links you are referencing from the AOPA forums

  5. #15
    dewi8095's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Kurt_3_0_1 View Post
    Would you mind posting a few of the links you are referencing from the AOPA forums
    Here's one, see especially post #30:

    http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.ph...emption&page=2


    Here's another, long and sometimes tedious, but informative:

    http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.ph...mption&page=12

    And a third, see especialy post #14!

    http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.ph...ight=exemption

    The discussion on AOPA has more depth than here, but yields a bleaker outcome. I noticed that today's AOPA newsletter had a brief statement declaring the proposal as "on track." That maybe good or bad news, we'll just have to wait and see how it progresses.

    Don

  6. #16
    Eric Witherspoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    200
    I just went back and re-read a statement of what the proposal contains. One thing that had been on my mind - 180hp, 2 souls max regardless of seats... Seems to me this would open us up to - how fast can a 2-seater go on 180hp? And/or - could I re-prop / re-rpm-limit my current LSA for more speed, given in that case, that it could no longer be PIC'd by a Sport Pilot, but could be flown by a Private Pilot w/o medical... I see some LSA designs would be well-positioned for this (higher speed / higher gross weight) market, regardless the legitimate complaint that allowing more aircraft to be eligible for "no-medical" pilots might cut into some LSA sales. One of those _extremely_ rpm limited Cub-esque types comes to mind - same engine, 500 lbs more payload anyone?

    So though there may be some complaining, I think the market would quickly adapt with lightly-revised LSA-based products with a whole lot more performance, as well as perhaps increasing the value of a lot of the existing fleet, pumping up business for replacement parts, restorations, and mechanics' services...
    Murphy's 13th: Every solution breeds new problems...

    http://www.spoonworld.com

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas, Texas, United States
    Posts
    53
    Eric,I believe you are correct that several current S-LSAs could fly faster than the current 120KTAS limit and/or safely operate above the current 1320 lbs MTOW. But the only way to do so with the current regs is to go through the Part 23 (or the EU equivalent) certification process. As a PP today, I cannot repitch my LSA to exceed 120kts or load it beyond 1320 lbs and be legal. The pilot rating has no bearing on the certification of the plane. There is talk of increasing the MTOW for LSAs to accommodate safety equipment but it's not as far along as the RP exemption and I doubt that it will propose more than 50lbs additional. Given the size of most LSA manufacturers, I also doubt too many could afford the certification process.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    2,236
    IIRC, the FlightDesign CTLS was propped to meet LSA requirements for the USA. They could re-prop with variable pitch, rename, and sell them. I suspect the gross weight is artificial as well, as it is a perfect 1320.
    The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

  9. #19
    David Dean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    10
    THis proposal is much needed by General Aviation, and deserves more effort and focus from the leadership of both organization, or at least some communication why not!

  10. #20
    dewi8095's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    97
    Another "proposal going forward soon" piece in the AOPA weekly e-newletter -- see link:

    http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article...WT.mc_sect=tts

    The arguments in this announcement seem weak and unconvincing to me. I hope the proposal leadership has something stronger to offer than this. I haven't seen a word from EAA about the proposal's progress. Is EAA still a supportive player?

    Don

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •