The Medical Snarl

Talk about airplanes! At last count, there are 39 (and growing) FAA certificated S-LSA (special light sport aircraft). These are factory-built ready to fly airplanes. If you can't afford a factory-built LSA, consider buying an E-LSA kit (experimental LSA - up to 99% complete).

Moderator: drseti

Nomore767
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: The Medical Snarl

Post by Nomore767 »

rezaf_2000 wrote:
SportPilot wrote:I would be happy if the proposal was as simple as: Licensed Private Pilots or higher may operate under Sport Pilot privileges and limitations using a driver's license medical in standard certificated single engine, fixed gear aircraft up to 3200 pounds max certified gross weigh and 235 horsepower.
Well the pilot protection act specifies VFR, so I guess this is guaranteed to not include IFR. The first stop would be two seaters that are a bit over 1320 lbs, which includes all the Cessna 150/152s. That ought to increase the price of them by a few thousand dollars at least. The main question is whether the bill would put pressure on the price of modern LSAs (probably), and by how much.

Alternatively, how much lower can LSAs go and still be profitable for their manufactures? With the added price pressure, possibly some of the smaller manufacturers are going to go out of business, and the few that remain each get larger market share. Whoever can streamline their manufacturing process and reduce the costs, will win.

I can't wait for the new medical reform, but not to buy an old 150 or 172. I just would like to see the LSA prices go down.
Assuming the reformed medical goes through as planned I don't personally see there being too much downward pressure on LSA prices.
After the reform (if it passes) I presume that Light Sport rules would still be in effect. The 1320lb rule etc. The sport pilot may now be able to fly both LSA and the older GA airplanes like the 150/172. However, there won't be a glut of reasonably priced GA airplanes on the market other than the older ones out there now. Prices of new 172s will still be very high. Other than the refurbished C152s that AOPA is pushing through Aviat for around $100k and Sportys' refurbished C172 Lite airplanes, there isn't anything else as 'new' as recent LSAs.
I think LSAs will continue in their own right as a source of well performing recreational flying as an alternative to the 'legacy' airplanes like Cessna and Piper.
My RV-12 SLSA is a popular LSA and there are hundreds built as Experimentals. Today I flew mine at a KTAS of 125 kts at 4500' on about 4.5gph using $3.66 93 non-ethanol auto-gas. I think it performs better than the older GA airplanes but it has it's limitations too.
A couple of neighbors at the airfield have older C152s one using auto-gas and the other 100LL. Both really nice airplanes in great shape. One guy really wants an RV-12 and has his eyes on winning the Sportys one. He can't afford a new one.
I don't see the price I paid for mine coming down at all and there's a queue of customers for new ones as well as kits, many with all the options. New FD CTLS airplanes and Tecnams all come with numerous expensive options and there are many who are willing to pay the premium for them.

I think LSA manufacturers have already trimmed their costs pretty well. The established manufacturers such as Flight Design, Tecnam, Czeck Sport Cruiser , Legend, Cub Crafters and Vans to name a few have pretty shrewd production facilities. In the end airplanes, especially new ones, aren't going to be cheap.

It will be interesting to see how the market adapts if the medical reform passes.
SportPilot
Posts: 1060
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:39 pm

Re: The Medical Snarl

Post by SportPilot »

.......
Last edited by SportPilot on Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nomore767
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: The Medical Snarl

Post by Nomore767 »

SportPilot wrote:I agree Howard. However, I don't think the 3rd class ruling will affect Sport Pilots at all. They were trained and licensed as Sport Pilots in LSA aircraft. I don't see the FAA allowing them to step up to larger aircraft without obtaining a Private.

With a rule change they could expand their horizons and upgrade the level of license. If they're LSA renters and can't afford the higher LSA prices they could now buy an older legacy GA airplane instead of renting an LSA as well as enjoy the increased weight/load capabilities. There are quite a few sport pilots (you and me included) who are already qualified with higher ratings who might opt to buy an older plane for the lower price and increased utility.
Conversely many like the advanced technology in avionics and engines in the modern LSAs and their missions may suit sport flying with it's restrictions on weight, load and being a 2 place airplane. They're happy to stay with LSA and their sport (only) license.

Either way, a change in the medical may provide a lot more options which is what we all want.
SportPilot
Posts: 1060
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:39 pm

Re: The Medical Snarl

Post by SportPilot »

.......
Last edited by SportPilot on Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
3Dreaming
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: The Medical Snarl

Post by 3Dreaming »

SportPilot wrote:But you and I are not Sport Pilots. I'm a Commercial and you're an ATP. Yes, the intent, as I see it, is for us to be able to fly larger aircraft. I don't think anything will change at all for "Sport Pilots." We'll see.
Sportpilot, mark this in you record book. I agree with you. All joking aside, I also think that there will be no regulatory change for sport pilots. The changes will be for those flying under sport pilot privileges who hold a higher rating, and sport pilots who choose to move up to private pilot.
I don't expect a change in sport pilot privileges allowing them to fly heavier aircraft.
Nomore767
Posts: 929
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: The Medical Snarl

Post by Nomore767 »

SportPilot wrote:But you and I are not Sport Pilots. I'm a Commercial and you're an ATP. Yes, the intent, as I see it, is for us to be able to fly larger aircraft. I don't think anything will change at all for "Sport Pilots." We'll see.
I guess I didn't make myself clear. I'm saying that sport ONLY pilots (not those with higher licenses flying AS sport pilots) would have the opportunity to be able to fly more complex, bigger and heavier airplanes with a DL if they upgrade their license. Currently they CAN still do this but only if they get a 3rd class medical and a higher rating.

Minor point but just wanted to clarify.

I don't believe the sport pilot category, in and of itself, will be changed.
SportPilot
Posts: 1060
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:39 pm

Re: The Medical Snarl

Post by SportPilot »

.......
Last edited by SportPilot on Thu Feb 12, 2015 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: The Medical Snarl

Post by drseti »

SportPilot wrote: If they want to fly larger aircraft, they could get a Private. The difference is, they would not need a 3rd class medical to get the Private and fly under whatever restrictions are imposed.
It's not clear to me that this will be the case. There's an FAR right now that says you must have a 3rd class medical to fly solo as a student pilot pursuing a private, and also to take the private pilot practical test. The AOPA proposal is to allow those already licensed as Private Pilots to exercise certain privileges using a DL medical. Unless the FAA also changes the rule referenced above, the proposed change will only benefit those who already hold a PP or above. It remains to be seen whether FAA will address the other issue. I'm not expecting that they will, but I could be wrong.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
Flocker
Posts: 635
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 10:16 am
Location: Atlanta GA; Home Airport: PDK

Re: The Medical Snarl

Post by Flocker »

Nomore767 wrote:With a rule change they could expand their horizons and upgrade the level of license. If they're LSA renters and can't afford the higher LSA prices they could now buy an older legacy GA airplane instead of renting an LSA as well as enjoy the increased weight/load capabilities. Conversely many like the advanced technology in avionics and engines in the modern LSAs and their missions may suit sport flying with it's restrictions on weight, load and being a 2 place airplane. They're happy to stay with LSA and their sport (only) license.
Quite the dilemma indeed.
Aviation Real Estate Broker
SportPilot
Posts: 1060
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:39 pm

Re: The Medical Snarl

Post by SportPilot »

.......
Last edited by SportPilot on Tue Feb 24, 2015 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
3Dreaming
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: The Medical Snarl

Post by 3Dreaming »

SportPilot wrote: Of course it's not clear. This is all speculation on our parts. However, logic tells me that if they allow Privates and higher to fly without a medical, why would they not allow students and Sport Pilots to obtain a Private without a medical?
Some of the past decisions the FAA has made make me wonder if in fact they do anything based on logic. Case in point is sport pilot instruction time not counting towards higher ratings.
SportPilot
Posts: 1060
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:39 pm

Re: The Medical Snarl

Post by SportPilot »

.......
Last edited by SportPilot on Tue Feb 24, 2015 9:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
3Dreaming
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: The Medical Snarl

Post by 3Dreaming »

SportPilot wrote:
3Dreaming wrote:
SportPilot wrote: Of course it's not clear. This is all speculation on our parts. However, logic tells me that if they allow Privates and higher to fly without a medical, why would they not allow students and Sport Pilots to obtain a Private without a medical?
Some of the past decisions the FAA has made make me wonder if in fact they do anything based on logic. Case in point is sport pilot instruction time not counting towards higher ratings.
I guess the logic would be they consider a Sport Pilot Instructor less qualified than a part H CFI.
The decision to not allow sport pilot instructor time to count for higher ratings was that of a FAA lawyer. There was no "THEY" in the decision. The folks who wrote the rule intended the sport pilot rating to be a stepping stone to higher ratings. Again there was no logic involved in the decision, it was a decision based on the written words and intent had no bearing.
Jack Tyler
Posts: 1380
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Prescott AZ
Contact:

Re: The Medical Snarl

Post by Jack Tyler »

Let's not forget that, for all the angst and energy we put into these posts on the medical proposal, the amended FAR to be published will be a DRAFT version of the proposal. Which means the public will be allowed to comment. And the quality and substance of those comments will dictate whether the FAA will consider them before publishing a final rule. (Cut & paste, listing editorial URL's, form letter formats - those are the kinds of comments which are either clumped together or eliminated entirely). It's understandable why so many of us have become critical and also a bit cynical of the FAA, but that doesn't alter the fact we play a role in the process. Wouldn't it be nice if there were several thousand responses to the draft rule and they generally conveyed some consistent themes, just as has been happening on these forums for the last three years.
Jack
Flying in/out KBZN, Bozeman MT in a Grumman Tiger
Do you fly for recreational purposes? Please visit http://www.theraf.org
Post Reply