Good points. And with the Presidential election season in full swing, little issues like this are likely to be kicked to the gutter.Originally Posted by Mike M
It's quite likely that *no* version of the PBOR will be passed this session. Which would mean another year's wait, at least. By that point, Inhofe may have lost interest.
Ron Wanttaja
At what point we go after expanding sport pilot to include the Cherokee/Skyhawks class of aircraft. :-)
Don't raise the bridge, lower the water. :-)
It's actually an approach that EAA/AOPA should consider, if PBOR2 doesn't go through. In fact, judging from the comments here, it would be a preferred approach vs the current content of PBOR2, as it would, basically, allow "driver's license medicals" to people who want to fly a larger class of airplane.
It would be easier to implement than PBOR would be... as it would merely require changes to an FAA *definition* (14CFR Part 1), not a change to an actual regulation. Wouldn't require Congressional action...although neither do the provisions in the PBOR. The only reason it's a congressional bill is to force the FAA to implement changes. Many of what most of us refer to the key aspects of the PBOR (e.g., driver's license medicals for larger aircraft) have already been bought into by the FAA.
However, there would be several problems with this approach. The first is the same controversy that has tagged Sport Pilot all along: The weight/speed/seat/etc. limits on the new "Light Sport" aircraft.
Would the FAA go along with raising the definition of Light Sport Airplane to the levels in the PBOR? I'm guessing not. Describing a 6000-pound six-seat aircraft as a "Light Sport Airplane" seems to be stretching things a bit.
Really, though, it's simple to determine what the limits should be:
1. Find out what aircraft Ronald James Wanttaja wants to fly without a medical.
2. Set the Light Sport Airplane definition to include such aircraft.
Joking aside, it illustrates the problem: The lack of consensus on what the limits *should* be. Everybody has their own idea. Ten years later, there's still controversy over the definition of Light Sport Aircraft. If we alter the definition...what should we alter it *to*?
(for those at the FAA taking notes, the answer to #1 is, "Cessna O-1 Bird Dog")
Everyone has their own idea. But the higher you put the limits...the more people will push back. Enough to cover 172s and Cherokee Warriors? Reasonable. Cessna 182s/Piper Archers? Hmmmm....constant speed props. Bonanzas/Piper Arrows? Hmmmm.... retractable gear. Cessna 206/Piper Cherokee 6? Hmmmm....six seaters. Where does designation as a "Light Sport Aircraft" turn ludicrous?
Most of us probably remember the huge bunfight from the original Sport Pilot/LSA rulings. Not sure if the FAA would want to go through that again.
The next issue is that of existing Light Sport Aircraft manufacturers. People tend to forget that the purpose of LSA/Sport Pilot was NOT to let some decrepit old folks like myself continue to fly (though we're grateful for the opportunity, y'honor [tugs forelock]). The purpose of Sport Pilot/LSA was to make it easier for new blood to become pilots, and to nourish a revitalization of the light aircraft industry.
The problem is whether raising the definition of Light Sport Aircraft would steal a significant portion of the market for existing LSAs. The LSA industry not doing too well, and making a vast store of used aircraft available to their potential clients wouldn't help.
Now, I can see that concern not getting a lot of sympathy from this crowd (at $150,000 a pop, it's no wonder). But consider the quandary this puts AOPA and EAA into. We'd all prefer they'd support their members and push for relaxed rules, the fact is they're partnered with industry as well. The sort of internal rift that would be generated by the alphabets taking side would NOT be good for aviation. Nor would the failure of multiple small aviation companies.
However, the previous version of PBOR and even major aspects of PBOR2 would have done the same thing, and I hadn't heard much squawking from the industry. So maybe I'm inventing a problem that doesn't really exist. Wouldn't be the first time.
There'd probably be one advantage, from the FAA's viewpoint, to raising the limits of the Light Sport Aircraft definition: It'd reduce the chance of another Pilot's Bill of Rights being pushed through Congress.
Remember, the Pilot's Bill of Rights isn't about medical certification, or what airplanes we can fly. It's about putting limits on the FAA's powers during enforcement actions. Senator Inhofe got [description deleted] by the FAA after an in-flight event, and is determined that the rights of pilots be established so what happened to him won't happen to anyone else. Adding the medical aspects helps sell the bill to the alphabets and the flying public...and, I suspect, is yet another tweak at the FAA.
Stripped of the medical issues, PBOR3 is not as likely to get as much support...Just note how many posts on the FAA forum are about medical reform vs. enforcement reform. So if the FAA mollifies the flying public NOW with a Sport Pilot relaxation, they reduce the chances of Congressional action later.
There's one big advantage of making the change an FAA action vs. an act of Congress: Openness. When the FAA implemented Sport Pilot, they released a 435-page document as to WHY the decisions came out as they did. They covered each original limit, what comments they received, and their reasons for making each aspect of the final rule come out as it did. And, IIRC, all comments were made public. We don't have that level of visibility into the lawmaking process related to PBOR.
If PBOR fails, it'd be nice to see some sort of end-run like this. The problem is, if it fails, the FAA may just assume that there isn't enough support for reform, and Congress won't be on their backs.
Ron Wanttaja
Ron, I would like to see it expanded to include the Citations I used to drive..... 501's, not the X's and that would be crazy to let a sport pilot fly one of those. In the end I will do whatever is asked of me in support of PBOR2, it does benefit the common good and something that is very important to me, general aviation. I am thrilled for those of you whom it benefits and I commiserate with those people who it does not. I keep my fingers crossed that it works, despite the fact that if it is not approved then there is a possibility of the (insert acronym here) groups may seek change in the sport pilot rules which would benefit me as an individual. Honestly after the initial pain, I am truly satisfied with LS, It beats jumping off the roof with a sheet. ( my wife gets pissed at me when I do that).
best to all of you
Rick
pS. In response to how far you expand SP.... how fast is fast enough? Slow enough? Big enough? Enough seats? Man o man that would be a debate that would never end. Simple 4 seat, fixed prop and gear 180 hp. That is what would be acceptable to me, those parameters would for the most part self limit what will work. Yes I know you can shoehorn a 360 in a vari Eze and go just south of Mach one, but try hoisting a 210 sized ac aloft with those params and see what you get. Of course someone will point out something I did not think of and flush my thoughts down the toilet.
Last edited by wyoranch; 10-03-2015 at 01:52 PM.
one thing at a time I think. 2 seats is reasonable, just up the weight to 1670 lbs. See what I did there? I just opened up thousands of C150's and 152's....
Unfortunately you also open it up to Tomahawks as well......But seriously I do get your point. I did think that it would have taken at least a couple of posts to destroy my theory. As a positive it could result in me getting a Citabria.....
Last edited by wyoranch; 10-03-2015 at 07:39 PM.
Ye Olde Official: Friends, Romans, chariot racers, lend me your ear! Thou shalt be required to eat one cubit of horse doo doo every three years to be allowed the privilege of racing your chariot.
Young Crowd: No problemo!
Old Crowd: We don’t like this but we gotta do what we gotta do.
Years pass and the chariot racers become fewer and fewer…
Ye Olde Official: Friends, Romans, chariot racers, lend me your ear! Thou shalt no longer be required to eat horse doo doo! Please joinith me in a rousing rendition of “Oh Happy Day!”
Crowd: Yay! Yippee! Oh happy day!
Ye Olde Official: Er, Friends, Romans, etc., In regards to our last pronouncement, thou shalt no longer be required to eat one cubit of horse doo doo <pause for yay’s and yippee’s to subside> – thou shalt be required to ONLY eat ˝ cubit of horse doo doo! Anyone wanna singith “Oh Happy Day?”
Crowd: Wait…wut?
Can't happen, the 1320lb/120kt limit is inviolate due to safety of people on the ground because of the momentum generated by faster or heavier vehicles if used as a terrorist weapon. Remember that one? What? Gosh, isn't that new Icon LSA a marvel of capabilities within the 1320 MGW limit! Oh.
Last edited by Mike M; 10-04-2015 at 10:38 AM.
Indeed so. BUT the 'transition period', so mildly described, is a path of great expense and aggravation and risk. Nice that the 'other side' will be a promised land, but the getting there is a very big problem. And this is a fundamental problem that was not anticipated by the membership and certainly isn't sitting well with many. Few would have given support and letters and hope to the original PBOR if it looked like the amended legislation. I feel as if I've been deceived, in great part by my own EAA 'leadership'.
The problem with that is a lot of us can't fit in those (or most of the light sport planes for that matter). For me it is a height & legroom problem, but even though I am not overweight for my height, in most 2 seaters, even if I could fit I couldn't take a passenger or instructor with me that was very big.
Reply With Quote
