Finally!

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2 ... ition.html

Hell Yes! Go Hightower Go !

I can't get too excited about this. Again, it places severe limits on the aircraft that can be flown without a third class medical and second it's VFR only. Better than LSA but not much. I guess the best thing it does is open the door for those of us who can afford a $20,000 raged out 172 but not a $160,000 brand new LSA. Doesn't help those of us that need an airplane for serious travel. The bullshit third class medical should be abolished, period. All personal, not for hire, use of an aircraft should be exempt. Also, you have to be a member of the APOA or EAA, WTF?

Best,
O-2

OscarDeuce wrote:I can't get too excited about this. Again, it places severe limits on the aircraft that can be flown without a third class medical and second it's VFR only. Better than LSA but not much. I guess the best thing it does is open the door for those of us who can afford a $20,000 raged out 172 but not a $160,000 brand new LSA. Doesn't help those of us that need an airplane for serious travel. The bullshit third class medical should be abolished, period. All personal, not for hire, use of an aircraft should be exempt. Also, you have to be a member of the APOA or EAA, WTF?

Best,
O-2

No. Membership in either organization will simply bring you updates via e-mail and offer guidance for participation in the comment process. If you can't imagine the advantages of a 180 horsepower C172 or Super Cub over a Kitfox then you're not giving it enough thought.

Seems silly and useless to exempt someone flying a 180hp C170 but not a 230hp C180. What're they thinking?

dprathe wrote:Seems silly and useless to exempt someone flying a 180hp C170 but not a 230hp C180. What're they thinking?

That's 2200 lbs vs 2800 lbs, sounds insignificant, I agree, but:

The FAA's rules are based on tangible, clearly cut limits and specs. If there is a weight or power threshold for this to apply, it must be stated. It's somewhat arbitrary, but there's been a high performance endorsement required for 200+ horsepower for years. Generally more power equates to more weight, which equates to more energy for a missile into the ground with a heart attack dead guy in the seat. They've got to draw the line somewhere, and it sounds like they've made a practical proposal with a decent chance of getting ratification.

Rationale for the limitations is they are the same as the Recreational Pilot Certificate which is already in the FAAs comfort zone. I don't agree those are the right limits, but they think it easier to sell that way.

I don't know if all of the below limitations are included in the new proposal.

For your reading pleasure:


Sec. 61.101 — Recreational pilot privileges and limitations.

(a) A person who holds a recreational pilot certificate may:
(1) Carry no more than one passenger; and

(2) Not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with a passenger, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenses, or aircraft rental fees.

(b) A person who holds a recreational pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft on a flight within 50 nautical miles from the departure airport, provided that person has—

(1) Received ground and flight training for takeoff, departure, arrival, and landing procedures at the departure airport;

(2) Received ground and flight training for the area, terrain, and aids to navigation that are in the vicinity of the departure airport;

(3) Been found proficient to operate the aircraft at the departure airport and the area within 50 nautical miles from that airport; and

(4) Received from an authorized instructor a logbook endorsement, which is carried in the person's possession in the aircraft, that permits flight within 50 nautical miles from the departure airport.

(c) A person who holds a recreational pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft on a flight that exceeds 50 nautical miles from the departure airport, provided that person has—

(1) Received ground and flight training from an authorized instructor on the cross-country training requirements of subpart E of this part that apply to the aircraft rating held;

(2) Been found proficient in cross-country flying; and

(3) Received from an authorized instructor a logbook endorsement, which is carried on the person's possession in the aircraft, that certifies the person has received and been found proficient in the cross-country training requirements of subpart E of this part that apply to the aircraft rating held.

(d) A person who holds a recreational pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft in Class B, C, and D airspace, at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace, and to, from, through, or at an airport having an operational control tower, provided that person has—

(1) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor on the following aeronautical knowledge areas and areas of operation, as appropriate to the aircraft rating held:

(i) The use of radios, communications, navigation system and facilities, and radar services.

(ii) Operations at airports with an operating control tower to include three takeoffs and landings to a full stop, with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern at an airport with an operating control tower.

(iii) Applicable flight rules of part 91 of this chapter for operations in Class B, C, and D airspace and air traffic control clearances;

(2) Been found proficient in those aeronautical knowledge areas and areas of operation specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section; and

(3) Received from an authorized instructor a logbook endorsement, which is carried on the person's possession or readily accessible in the aircraft, that certifies the person has received and been found proficient in those aeronautical knowledge areas and areas of operation specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

(e) Except as provided in paragraphs (d) and (i) of this section, a recreational pilot may not act as pilot in command of an aircraft—

(1) That is certificated—

(i) For more than four occupants;

(ii) With more than one powerplant;

(iii) With a powerplant of more than 180 horsepower, except aircraft certificated in the rotorcraft category; or

(iv) With retractable landing gear;

(2) That is classified as a multiengine airplane, powered-lift, glider, airship, balloon, powered parachute, or weight-shift-control aircraft;

(3) That is carrying a passenger or property for compensation or hire;

(4) For compensation or hire;

(5) In furtherance of a business;

(6) Between sunset and sunrise;

(7) In Class A, B, C, and D airspace, at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace, or to, from, through, or at an airport having an operational control tower;

(8) At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL or 2,000 feet AGL, whichever is higher;

(9) When the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles;

(10) Without visual reference to the surface;

(11) On a flight outside the United States, unless authorized by the country in which the flight is conducted;

(12) To demonstrate that aircraft in flight as an aircraft salesperson to a prospective buyer;

(13) That is used in a passenger-carrying airlift and sponsored by a charitable organization; and

(14) That is towing any object.

(f) A recreational pilot may not act as a pilot flight crewmember on any aircraft for which more than one pilot is required by the type certificate of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted, except when:

(1) Receiving flight training from a person authorized to provide flight training on board an airship; and

(2) No person other than a required flight crewmember is carried on the aircraft.

(g) A person who holds a recreational pilot certificate, has logged fewer than 400 flight hours, and has not logged pilot-in-command time in an aircraft within the 180 days preceding the flight shall not act as pilot in command of an aircraft until the pilot receives flight training and a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor, and the instructor certifies that the person is proficient to act as pilot in command of the aircraft. This requirement can be met in combination with the requirements of §§61.56 and 61.57 of this part, at the discretion of the authorized instructor.

(h) A recreational pilot certificate issued under this subpart carries the notation, “Holder does not meet ICAO requirements.”

(i) For the purpose of obtaining additional certificates or ratings while under the supervision of an authorized instructor, a recreational pilot may fly as the sole occupant of an aircraft:

(1) For which the pilot does not hold an appropriate category or class rating;

(2) Within airspace that requires communication with air traffic control; or

(3) Between sunset and sunrise, provided the flight or surface visibility is at least 5 statute miles.

(j) In order to fly solo as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, the recreational pilot must meet the appropriate aeronautical knowledge and flight training requirements of §61.87 for that aircraft. When operating an aircraft under the conditions specified in paragraph (i) of this section, the recreational pilot shall carry the logbook that has been endorsed for each flight by an authorized instructor who:

(1) Has given the recreational pilot training in the make and model of aircraft in which the solo flight is to be made;

(2) Has found that the recreational pilot has met the applicable requirements of §61.87; and

(3) Has found that the recreational pilot is competent to make solo flights in accordance with the logbook endorsement.

[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997, as amended by Amdt. 61–110, 69 FR 44868, July 27, 2004; Amdt. 61–124, 74 FR 42558, Aug. 21, 2009]

I'm aware of the FAA's arbitrary specs and limits, and that's my point -- they're completely arbitrary. If it's statistically safe for a pilot exempt from a Class III medical to fly a 180hp, fixed-gear, piston-powered, single engine airplane, then it's equally safe for that same pilot to fly the same category of airplane with 230hp and I don't think the difference in gross weight should be the dividing line for the exemption. The reality is pilots flying airplanes with driver's licenses have been proven no more dangerous to themselves or others than pilots flying with Class III medicals. Frankly, I think Class III medicals should be completely eliminated.

So my Glastar with the 0-360 that has the Lycon ported and polished chambers and bigger valves, auto plugs along with the electronic ignition and fuel injection for better ignition should still qualify Right? 180 hp

Emory Bored wrote: If you can't imagine the advantages of a 180 horsepower C172 or Super Cub over a Kitfox then you're not giving it enough thought.

Depends on your mission. For playing in the backcountry, you're right. For me, at the present time, getting from A to B fast is more important than how much I can carry or how short I can land. 115Kts is 115Kts. Beats driving but if I can't go IFR to boot, not always. The big difference is price as most LSAs are new, or nearly new and therefore hideously expensive.

Best,
O-2

dprathe wrote:I'm aware of the FAA's arbitrary specs and limits, and that's my point -- they're completely arbitrary. If it's statistically safe for a pilot exempt from a Class III medical to fly a 180hp, fixed-gear, piston-powered, single engine airplane, then it's equally safe for that same pilot to fly the same category of airplane with 230hp and I don't think the difference in gross weight should be the dividing line for the exemption. The reality is pilots flying airplanes with driver's licenses have been proven no more dangerous to themselves or others than pilots flying with Class III medicals. Frankly, I think Class III medicals should be completely eliminated.

gov'ments are all about the arbitrary limits. like speed limits or how old you need to be to buy cigs or vote. governments like rules that are one size fits all. These limits are not always aligned with what's safe or rational. The LSA weight limit had no basis in reality.

I wish they had taken a more aggressive shot. If this succeeds I think the rule won't change again for a long time and we're gonna be stuck with it. Neither my 195hp 170B or my retractable gear Falco project fit the rule. But if this succeeds it opens up a lot more possibilities than before.

c170pete wrote:

dprathe wrote:I'm aware of the FAA's arbitrary specs and limits, and that's my point -- they're completely arbitrary. If it's statistically safe for a pilot exempt from a Class III medical to fly a 180hp, fixed-gear, piston-powered, single engine airplane, then it's equally safe for that same pilot to fly the same category of airplane with 230hp and I don't think the difference in gross weight should be the dividing line for the exemption. The reality is pilots flying airplanes with driver's licenses have been proven no more dangerous to themselves or others than pilots flying with Class III medicals. Frankly, I think Class III medicals should be completely eliminated.

gov'ments are all about the arbitrary limits. like speed limits or how old you need to be to buy cigs or vote. governments like rules that are one size fits all. These limits are not always aligned with what's safe or rational. The LSA weight limit had no basis in reality.

I wish they had taken a more aggressive shot. If this succeeds I think the rule won't change again for a long time and we're gonna be stuck with it. Neither my 195hp 170B or my retractable gear Falco project fit the rule. But if this succeeds it opens up a lot more possibilities than before.

I agree. Something is better than nothing. But, as you say, it'll be a long time before we see another change.

OscarDeuce wrote:

Emory Bored wrote: If you can't imagine the advantages of a 180 horsepower C172 or Super Cub over a Kitfox then you're not giving it enough thought.

Depends on your mission. For playing in the backcountry, you're right. For me, at the present time, getting from A to B fast is more important than how much I can carry or how short I can land. 115Kts is 115Kts. Beats driving but if I can't go IFR to boot, not always. The big difference is price as most LSAs are new, or nearly new and therefore hideously expensive.

Best,
O-2

Agree. I need half a dozen airplanes. For my first priority though, this standard is pretty good. Especially as I don't see a restriction on constant speed props. The fixed gear restriction is unfortunate. I do believe that folks make GU landings regardless of medical condition. I'm content though, that if this thing goes through I'll have 90% of my mission covered.

OK so I can't find any limits other than Seats, HP, fixed gear. A 180 HP RV would get from point A to point B fairly quickly. So would a whole slew of AA-1's and AA-5's at a bargain price. Or how about a Varga Kachina?
Any number of fun planes out there that would fill the bill and not break the bank.

The only thing that I don't care for, but could live with, is only one passenger. I intend to own a 4 place that fits all of this criteria, but I'd like to be able to take both my kids, or even my wife along. If this passes as is, I'll still have to keep my medical, until maybe they try to widen the scope in the years to come. It's a start I guess.

It's not perfect...but then what is.
If this passes I can keep my present airplane, fly during daylight hours ( which I do mostly anyway), fly into Class B,C,or D, and continue my backcoutry flying all without the dreaded Class III medical.
I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth!!

If someone was trying to get a drug approved that would only cure half of the people with cancer, would some people say it is a BS drug because it doesn't cure everyone with cancer?

For the first time in recent memory the FAA has listened and acted on things that would help an average pilot. Not just one irrelevant concession nobody would use, but several real, tangible improvements. They worked hand in hand with EAA and AOPA, for chrissakes!

First, there was Sport Pilot, which at least opened up the door for SOME people to at least get back in their old Ercoupes and fly. Then they listened to people about how much it costs to certify to Part 23, and actually relaxed the regulations to allow an ASTM standard for a new category (LSA), which would make a $1X certification program cost 1/3X . Some of us never thought we would live that long to see such a thing.

After a few years of data gathering... only a blink in Dinosaur time... they are now willing to listen and actually address the fact that none of you decrepit old farts popped a cork and slammed into the proverbial orphanage with a no-medical LSA. There is actually a chance that over half of the pilots, and probably 80% of the "fly for fun" pilots in the country, could get into an older cheaper 172 or Scout or Cherokee 180. Why??? Because they listened again about the fact that there's thousands of perfectly good airplanes sitting on the ramp that should not be obsoleted and scrapped, thus forcing you to buy a house-priced plastic toy from the People's Republic of Whack-Backistan.

Maybe I'm the only one who understands this is the biggest f***ing windfall of good fortune that the flying community has had in years, and the horrible nasty anti-aviation bumbling no-goodniks who "aren't happy until you're not happy" were actually the good guys in the white hats who are actually trying to save the day!

EZ is right. This is simply another step. The FAA recently rejected an individual's petition to drop the third class medical. They've already answered that question, and in the negative. Too big a bite of the apple, apparently.

This is a step, if approved.

And, it's a positive one, in the right direction.

MTV

I can see this having an effect on plane prices. It may drop prices for the "plastic toys" and raise prices of a lot of certified iron. There are quite a few potential ramp mummies out there that will see new life if this passes.
Not sure if this means a new class of pilot, if it applies to Private pilots,a change to the Recreational pilot, or an an upgrade to the Light Sport pilots.
I agree with EZ and MTV, this is a "glass is half full" step in the right direction.......IF it passes.

I think this is a big step in the right direction. It will keep more people flying. It will also hurt LSA sales if it goes through, and make your old 172 hold its value a little better. Average Joe can now buy or keep his $30K 172 instead of getting out of flying or buying a half size LSA for $80K. This is all good. Maybe 10 years from now after they have accumulated their data they can see the wisdom in dropping the Class 3 all together.