LSA Values Declining?

[dstclair]

http://ctflier.com/index.php?/topic/295 ... right-now/

[CTLSi]

......

[MrLupin]

Snaproll, do you mean to say "increase" the weight and hp?

I mean decrease from the proposed weight limit.. The proposal is for aircraft under 6,000 pounds - my guess the FAA will shave it to 3,000 pounds or less. Original discussions centered around a 180 HP limit also - not sure what the FAA position is. Best guess knowing the FAA is they will eventually approve the drivers license medical but will again have weight, HP, speed, and complexity restrictions. Don't hold your breath on the proposal - may be some time.

Ah, I see. Thanks.

[MrLupin]

I'm pretty sure we'll be able to exercise Private Pilot privileges except possibly night flying or IFR. The main question is can we fly with constant speed props, retractable, multi-engine, etc. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. You are almost 65, so it's just a matter of time until you lose your medical and get grounded for life.

What do you base any of that on? Fantasy?

There is no reason to expect the FAA to change the rules at all. And if they did tweek them, they certainly won't gut the entire premise of a medical exam for a large number of older flyers with medical conditions now flying on a DL.

Why do you say no reason? It seems that the AOPA/EAA petitions are at least some reason. It also seems that the pilot protection act is even more reason. I think the AOPA and EAA have quite a bit of influence. The pilot protection act actually has bipartisan support which means Obama is much more likely to sign the bill if it gets to him. While you may not think these are good reasons they are a long way from fantasy.

[Jack Tyler]

Just to bang the drum one more time...

For those spending time on forums like this one, expressing support & appreciation for GAPPA (HB 3708) and/or the earlier EAA/AOPA petition, try to find a little time to write (meaning: email) or call your own Rep. If s/he is a GAPPA co-sponsor, a short note of thanks would be appropriate. If not a co-sponsor, a request to consider being one is worth a minute or two of your time.

FWIW here's what I just sent to the legislative aide in my congresswoman's office that handles all Transportation related issues:

"Mr. Martinelli, I was referred to you by Ms. Brown's Jax office in regards to House Bill 3708.

I know the Congresswoman is a member of the House General Aviation Caucus, no doubt due to the major economic benefits General Aviation alone brings to Florida ($7B+ annually) and specifically to the Jacksonville area. I am writing to learn why Ms. Brown has not yet chosen to sponsor H.B. 3708, perhaps the most widely supported aviation bill in memory, as measured by both co-sponsors and wide ranging support from the General Aviation industry. Perhaps she has not heard that 82% of the Flying Physicians Association, many of them Aviation Medical Examiners, recently voted to support elimination of Class 3 medical exams for recreational pilots of small aircraft. Or considered that drivers of 30,000# recreational vehicles and skippers of 30,000# recreational boats have no mandated medical exam while pilots of 2,000# recreational aircraft do.

Congresswoman Brown's current choice not to co-sponsor HB 3708 is a mystery to members of EAA Chapter 193 and 1379, both in the Jax area, and to the members of the Recreational Aviation Foundation whom I represent in Florida. Can we perhaps provide additional information that would help her appreciate the benefit and fairness of this Bill? We would be pleased to do so.

I would appreciate a reply to my question at your convenience.

Best regards, etc."

I don't expect this Bill will come to the House floor and I'll bet the original sponsors don't see that as their primary objective. But it is yet another avenue for influencing Sec. Fox in DOT, Huerta in the FAA and clearly the introduction of GAPPA was the primary stimulus for the FAA to issue the (still mysterious) Class 3 NPRM.