Medical Exemption Survey

[Jonathan Harger]

The FAA is interested in collecting more data to aid in its evaluation of the EAA/AOPA petition for the recreational pilot medical exemption, which would allow private pilots to fly non-complex, four seat, 180 h.p. maximum, day-VFR aircraft with a self-certification standard and a driver's license.
We ask all pilots who are currently flying under sport pilot rules to visit this link and complete our survey, which is completely confidential and will help us and the FAA get a clear idea of the number of hours being flown per year by sport pilots without 3rd class medicals.
Strong participation in the survey will help us prove the point we have made all along: that preflight self-certification is the most important medical certification, and that day-VFR pilots can fly a Cessna 152 with a self-certification and driver's license medical as safely as they can currently fly a Piper Cub under existing sport pilot rules.
Thank you for your participation, and if you know anyone flying sport pilot, please pass on the news that we all need their input!

[JHD]

I would oppose this change. The EAA fought for years to get LSA established. Now if this is implemented it will devastate an industry. My friends in the LSA business have told me the interest level began to dry up at the first time this was announced. I think EAA has abandoned the very people who supported the LSA initiative. Just my two cents.

[cub builder]

LSA was a first step towards convincing the FAA to dump this stupid third class medical. Ok, so we have a segment of high priced planes that can be flown without a medical. But there is a glut of safer planes like the Cessna 152, Piper Tomahawk, Grumman Yankee, etc that are now dirt cheap. It's silly to restrict perfectly safe pilots from flying them thanks to arcane regulation that is used to needlessly disqualify otherwise perfectly safe pilots.

-CubBuilder

[David Pavlich]

LSA was a first step towards convincing the FAA to dump this stupid third class medical. Ok, so we have a segment of high priced planes that can be flown without a medical. But there is a glut of safer planes like the Cessna 152, Piper Tomahawk, Grumman Yankee, etc that are now dirt cheap. It's silly to restrict perfectly safe pilots from flying them thanks to arcane regulation that is used to needlessly disqualify otherwise perfectly safe pilots.

-CubBuilder

Hear, hear! I find it strange that the FAA hasn't eeked out every last bit of data when it comes to LSA accidents with direct links to medical issues. I would have thought that would be in the very first paragraph of their analysis for the restricted Private certificate. But hey, what do I know.

David

[Frank Giger]

I would oppose this change. The EAA fought for years to get LSA established. Now if this is implemented it will devastate an industry. My friends in the LSA business have told me the interest level began to dry up at the first time this was announced. I think EAA has abandoned the very people who supported the LSA initiative. Just my two cents.

I disagree that expanding aircraft PPL's can fly without a current medical will devastate the LSA market on a few counts:

1) In order to use the rule, a PPL will have to have had a valid class III medical first, and then let it expire. Folks who want to fly non-LSA planes will have to get the PPL with the longer training requirements. Letting them continue to fly a plane they have purchased as a PPL with a lapsed medical is not a loss for the LSA market.

2) Folks buying new LSA's aren't doing so because of a lapsed medical. They are driving up the cost of Champs and Cubs, though. 100+K for an airplane is being spent by newer Sport Pilots.

3) The intent of the Sport Pilot program was to get more people into aviation, not to give a loop hole for Private Pilots to continue to fly. That PPL's use the SP rules to continue to fly is neither here nor there; it's not adding to aviation in the least bit (other than to allow some pilots to continue to be active).

4) Forcing PPL's into SP restrictions serves nobody. If an LSA is what serves the pilot, he'll buy it regardless of his medical status or pilot license type. Lots of medically current PPL's fly Cubs and Champs because that's what fits their aviation needs. Similarly, I know a PPL holder that owns a CTLS for the same reason - he just doesn't need a four seater, the performance is well within his needs, and the maintenance is inexpensive.

If the LSA market has been relying on the castoffs of the Private Pilot world they were doomed to begin with.

[Joe LaMantia]

Well said Frank!,

If the goal is to expand aviation, then allowing a group of pilots to continue to fly a certain class of aircraft under the proposal will reduce the rate of loss in the current pilot population. That in itself doesn't "grow aviation" but it would help keep the aging pilots flying longer. The LSA market is a small attempt to expand aviation by keeping costs down for those who are training and those who fly for fun, it's a small market but it's only been around a few years. We have a huge inventory of single engine aircraft that don't comply with the LSA rules and are mostly sitting in hangers collecting dust. Prices on many of these aircraft are "flat" which means too few buyers and too many up for sale. I for one don't think the rule change would have a big impact on this situation, but it would be helpful to create a practical "stepping stone" for new pilots to move from LSA to a more capable aircraft with an expanded "mission" at a lower cost. The key is the lower cost part, lots of inventory for sale between $25K and $100K. The current situation of a declining GA is being driven by economics and anything we can do to reduce costs is helpful, it's driving AOPA into promoting clubs.

Joe

[malexander]

Frank & Cub builder are 100% correct.
You'll have a hard time convincing me that a Cub, T-craft, Champ, or any other tail dragger is safer to fly than a 150.

[David Pavlich]

I was thinking along this line of logic: Here's me on the cusp of taking lessons in the Light Sport category. A new S-LSA with a nice avionics package is going to be near $150K. Along comes the restricted Private certificate and suddenly, this Archer becomes a viable option:

http://www.aso.com/listings/spec/Vie...3369&dealerid=

For me, there would be no choice (as long as the bank account ok's it :-) and the restricted certificate is a reality). The Archer is the more capable aircraft. And this one in particular is fairly well decked out. Or am I missing something?

I hope you guys don't mind me picking your brains like this. I don't have anyone to bounce this stuff off of, so you've become the "victims".

David

[Frank Giger]

Frank & Cub builder are 100% correct.
You'll have a hard time convincing me that a Cub, T-craft, Champ, or any other tail dragger is safer to fly than a 150.

I think they're all equally safe if the pilot is trained and experienced in type.

All trikes are "safer" than tailwheels in that ground looping a trike is much, much harder - but few people die from a ground loop.

Most fatal incidents are sadly the same stupid causes for all GA aircraft, regardless of type. Unless you have some data that says a Champ is more likely to spin on base turn to final, a C150 pilot is less likely to fly VFR into IMC or run out of gas, etc. than if he were flying an LSA.

Granted, I'm a Sport Pilot and would love to see the price of Champs go down!

The C150 isn't an LSA because it weighs too much. The line on where the weight restriction should be had to be somewhere, and it is less than the 150. If they moved the weight up include it, then somebody would say that it's unfair that plane X was excluded.

See the overly long thread on the ICON; and wait until the exemption for PPL's is accepted by the FAA and folks will begin to scream that the horsepower limitation is keeping them from flying "safer" aircraft and is a purposeful slight against whatever their non-compliant favorite plane is.

[Mike Berg]

Part of the problem is that the 1320# limit is arbitrary. Take Champs for example: Many of them have a GW of 1220#, some at 1300# and a few at 1330# and 1350#. However they are basically the same aircraft, still two place front to back and they all fly the same....just will haul a little more weight. Most of the new LS aircraft are priced out of the range of the average potential owner. $100,000 is a pretty expensive toy with not a lot of utility. Even the 'new Champ' is in the $90,000 range and it doesn't have any more utility than a 1946 model...just newer.