Here you go guys.....Hope this gets approved. The 'fine print' still only allows one passenger but we would be able to fly bigger planes than just LSA.
http://www.aopa.org/summit/news/2011/11 ... ect=summit

Would be great...... But seems like lsa manufacturers will be against it and would suffer if it goes through.

I agree that the LSA manufacturers may be against it but then I also think that it might help GA in general and allow the LSA guys to "step up" to a bigger plane. This would also help the market on our 172's, Cherokee's, etc.

In Canada we have the Recreational Pilot Permit and it is done with a class 4b medical, which is done by your doctor and basically the same the medical for a commercial truck driver. The 4a is for ultra lights and you just tick off the boxes,sign it yourself and send it in. The RPP allows me to fly any single engine piston powered plane that is configured for 4 place max.and a gross weight of 12000 lbs. I can only fly day VFR and take only one passenger. I can also get a float endorsement. This would allow me and my buddy to take an amphib Beaver loaded with toys on a hunting or fishing trip. A group of us contacted the FAA and asked if we could fly in the USA with this licence and they said it was ok and we have all flown there many times with no problems. The one glitch is if you have any medical problem shove you back to class 3 testing with the aviation examiner. I really hope this proposed system goes through because Canada usually follows soon after. There will be big complaints from the medical examiners, just imagine the POWER and MONEY they will lose. We are only led to believe it's about the safety.

Well, I sincerely hope this initiative works. It certainly makes sense. The frequency of aircraft accidents which have pilot medical issues as a causative factor is so low as to be almost non existent.

That said, Craig Fuller spoke to a group at OSH this year, and someone asked the question about whether AOPA was pushing the FAA to drop the third class medical. Fuller said then that the FAA Administrator had told him flat out that the FAA would not even consider that sort of proposal.

So, the question is, maybe these folks can run at this a little at a time, and eventually get to the same result.

The 1320 GW requirement is just bizarre, frankly for LSA. Why wouldn't 1800 or 2000 or even 2200 work just as well? Limit the number of passengers? Sure, but to me, there's no reason at all that a Super Cub should NOT be an LSA compliant aircraft, or a Cessna 170/172, etc.

I wish them luck, and hope they're successful.

MTV

mtv wrote:The 1320 GW requirement is just bizarre, frankly for LSA. Why wouldn't 1800 or 2000 or even 2200 work just as well? Limit the number of passengers? Sure, but to me, there's no reason at all that a Super Cub should NOT be an LSA compliant aircraft, or a Cessna 170/172, etc.
MTV

These are certainly my sentiments. I think it should rest on flight review. That's view is probably a fringe one. Why fixed gear? Why fixed prop? Their answer will be about complexity and CRS disease. There is some sense to that, but once again, medically related problems flying don't constitute the need for the class III.

Still, this is a much welcomed development.

175 magnum wrote:..... There will be big complaints from the medical examiners, just imagine the POWER and MONEY they will lose. We are only led to believe it's about the safety.

My last medical, about 4 months ago, cost me $150. I think that doctor does maybe 4 aviation medicals a month. POWER and MONEY-- I don't think so.
I was pretty jazzed to see this proposed joint AOPA/EAA pitch to the FAA. It will cover all the flying I do now, with the airplane I own now. For those who haven't read the article, you'd be able to recreationally fly a fixed-gear airplane with up to four seats (but with only one passenger), up to 180 horsepower, day VFR only- no medical required as long as you have a drivers license. No mention of yay or nay for c/s prop or floats.
Sounds great to me, I just hope it happens -- and in my lifetime.

WWhunter wrote:Here you go guys.....Hope this gets approved. The 'fine print' still only allows one passenger but we would be able to fly bigger planes than just LSA.
http://www.aopa.org/summit/news/2011/11 ... ect=summit

Be sure and sign up at the bottom of the page.

Getting rid of the class 3 is simply what has to be done. No beating around the bush with this new idea. Sadly, the move to submit a petition to essentially expand the lsa available aircraft falls short of what needs to be done. The class 3 has proven to only drive pilots to fear going to the doctor and treating conditions so they remain in the best health possible. I know people who refuse to see a doctor for perfectly treatable conditions out of fear they will end their flying career. Their (FAA) stats prove accidents caused by med problems are negligible. The lsa rule proves the drivers license medical works. The post mortems on crash victims show people are taking unapproved medications and the meds are not the cause of the crash. The FAA knows a quick med exam doesn't evidence a healthy few years to follow. The FAA knows the class 3 is an outrageous waste of money.
Why are we messing around with this new proposal when it is unacceptable.

Sadly, the harsh reality is that the new proposal will only drive many to simply 'lie and fly'. And personally I am fine with people doing that as long as they use their head to know when they can and cannot fly. We do that already. And to those who say it is wrong to feel it is okay, wait til you have a minor medical issue, go to the ame in your 3 ton truck passing the common idiot on a cell phone at a closure rate of 120 mph within feet, then learn from the ame you are not safe to go get a burger in a 172 with the kids on a calm day. What the FAA is doing with their utterly insane and archaic rules is a travesty.
We need to stop beating around the bush. The FAA is dead wrong...period.

never mind

Look at this page. http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-09-24_medical-mm.asp


It says this: "AOPA and EAA plan to file the request for exemption after the first of the year to allow time to fully develop a curriculum for the aeromedical awareness training. Under the proposed exemption pilots holding recreational, private, commercial or airline transport pilot certificates could opt to fly under the same driver’s license medical self-certification standards."

I second Weasel's comments. We don't need another set of restrictions. If it's not for hire, there should be no medical required. I made the mistake of seeing a doctor many years ago because of a persistant headache. Turned out I twisted something the wrong way exercising. Upon the next renewal, my medical was denied and I spent $1,000s getting it back. Also, the FAA medical form includes a bunch of non-medical questions. There's on about "history of traffic tickets" or some such. WTF does that have to do with my health?! Worse yet, the medical certification standards tend to get more stringent over time. A while back, the AMA "lowered" what was considered to be the "normal" range for blood pressure based on studies that are generally funded by the big drug manufacturers. Now, almost everyone is "pre-hypertensive" at best. The FAA adopted the new standard. Lots more pilots who were perfectly healthy under the previous standard now couldn't qualify (without taking noxious drugs, anyway). When the EAA, AOPA, etc. decide to take this on agressively, they can count on my membership dues.

Best,
O-2