Sport Pilot Talk

drseti wrote:

VL Roberts wrote:No where does the regulation say "appropriate" medical.

Actually, the word "appropriate" does appear in the FARs with respect to a medical certificate. (I can't cite the specific reg off the top of my head, but I researched this some months ago.) At the time that reg was written (pre-LSA), I'm sure that by "Appropriate" they meant third, second, or first class. They certainly didn't consider driver's licenses, but those are now appropriate medical certificates in some circumstances. Furthermore, I ran this interpretation past John Yodice (former AOPA counsel), and he unofficially validated my interpretation. Although this hasn't been tested at FAA (I'm certainly not going to bring a test case, and John advised against doing so), he did say that position seemed reasonable to him, in his professional estimation.

VL Roberts wrote:At EAA.ORG there is a Sport Aviation "ask the expert" Q and A.

drseti wrote:

VL Roberts wrote:At EAA.ORG there is a Sport Aviation "ask the expert" Q and A.

In my experience, any time you ask two experts, you get three mutually contradictory answers. I'm with FFF: let common sense prevail.

VL Roberts wrote:Currently, I would favor EAA over AOPA when it comes to interpretations of Sport rules.

drseti wrote:

VL Roberts wrote:Currently, I would favor EAA over AOPA when it comes to interpretations of Sport rules.

I understand. But, affiliation notwithstanding, when it comes to interpreting FARs, I would favor an aviation attorney over an "expert" of unspecified credentials.

VL Roberts wrote:He also advised you not to query the FAA on this matter,

drseti wrote:

VL Roberts wrote:He also advised you not to query the FAA on this matter,

Actually, that was my take on the risk of requesting Letters of Interpretation (on any topic) from FAA Legal. John merely concurred with it. I'm not saying I'm right, or he is, or EAA is, merely that FAA hasn't clearly said one way or the other, and that's probably a good thing.

drseti wrote:Yes, I'm all for full disclosure. Meanwhile, I do believe (perhaps naively) that logic should prevail. How is it logical that one's decision to let a medical lapse should negate four decades of successful teaching experience?

FlyingForFun wrote:

drseti wrote:Yes, I'm all for full disclosure. Meanwhile, I do believe (perhaps naively) that logic should prevail. How is it logical that one's decision to let a medical lapse should negate four decades of successful teaching experience?

It doesn't. You're still a Commercial Pilot and still a CFI and still legal PIC in LSA. And, per the OP's question, you were instructing a student pilot toward the requirements of a Sport Pilot certificate. So now, potentially years later, someone wants to say the time is not legal toward a Private license because you were flying, and perfectly legal, with a driver's license. I don't buy it.

FlyingForFun wrote:

FlyingForFun wrote:Here is Paul Hamilton's interpretation:

"Here is a unique situation where a subpart H (private) flight instructor (CFI) has a current flight instructor certificate but let his 3rdclass medical expire. He/she can instruct a student private pilot in a light sport aircraft without a medical and the time counts towards a sport pilot and private pilot because he/she is pilot in command (PIC). All hours count towards a sport and private certificate (except night) because the CFI has a valid Subpart H flight instructor certificate and is PIC of the LSA. He/she cannot fly or provide instruction in a non LSA, at night in any aircraft or in IFR conditions in any aircraft because he/she cannot be pilot in command."

http://sportpilottraining.sportaviation ... ate-pilot/

I agree with this guy.