Sport Pilot Talk

There has been some questions as to whether the proposal would just be for current RP and above pilots (who at one time had a medical) or would allow the RP to be earned without a 3rd class medical. The following is a clarification from EAA on the actual proposal:

_________________
dave

Dave, thanks for posting that. It's an important distinction in multiple ways. It certainly makes clear that, assuming FAA acceptance of the proposal, the (at least initial) intent is to 'save' the pilot population in place and reduce the attrition rate of active pilots - and presumably, mostly older pilots. This isn't about growing a new population of student pilots - those who would pursue a RP/PP license if only they could avoid the Class III medical requirement. And given that, another point it makes is how limited this proposal's impact should be on those doing SP training and/or selling LSA a/c.

Overall, this is probably a low-risk (from a safety standpoint) option that will have a relatively low impact on the trends associated with the GA pilot population and a low impact on the health of the immature SP/LSA industry. But that doesn't impeach it as a worthy proposal.

_________________
Jack
RAF Florida State Liaison
Please visit www.theraf.org

Agreed, very low risk. But also of declining value over time. Pilots ineligible for PPL training due to class 3 medical issues get no benefit from it. We can only hope that, once in place, it opens the door to elimination of the class 3 medical requirement for training for recreational type flying with PPL.

_________________
FredG
Iowa City

Admittedly, I was a bit dissapointed by this clarification, however I do completely understand why they are taking this approach, and its a fantastic first step.

I've been able to continue taking instructions in full size GA aircraft which would be applicable to the RP rule, and even had a mock-checkride and mock-solo, basically at this point I've got the instructor there to keep me legal and i'm doing all the flying. Downside is that due to scheduling and availability, i've yet to have a good track on my sport pilot training. I'm looking forward to see if and when this passes, and how this will affect getting new pilots started.

Depending on which sources you research, this is the 7th failure at blanket removal of the 3rd class medical: http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/3rd_class_medical_petition_denied_pilot_driver_license_206224-1.html

The reason for failure cited lack of data to support the petition. This gives credence to the EAA/AOPA approach of using the LSA data, limiting the aircraft to something similar (in practice or in use) to the collected data, provide a process to ensure safety equivalence, and base it on existing FARs (recreational pilot). If the exemption is successful, then a beach head can be established to expand the exemption if the data supports it. This also gives the FAA an out since they could easily revoke the exemption if the data doesn't support it.

_________________
dave

"The reason for failure cited lack of data to support the petition. This gives credence to the EAA/AOPA approach of using the LSA data, limiting the aircraft to something similar (in practice or in use) to the collected data, provide a process to ensure safety equivalence, and base it on existing FARs (recreational pilot). If the exemption is successful, then a beach head can be established to expand the exemption if the data supports it. This also gives the FAA an out since they could easily revoke the exemption if the data doesn't support it."

Extremely well stated. This appears to be, by far, the best 'tactical' approach so far. Just the partnering of these two - for the vast majority of the GA population, the "only two" - membership organizations portends a more likely positive outcome. It's also fair to say, I think, that both these organizations have more politically astute and effective senior leadership than has been true in the past, which is another new(ish) wrinkle.

To me there's an excellent, recent regulatory case study that bears on this: the FCC's liberalizing of qualifications for amateur radio privileges. The FAA and FCC cultures strike me as quite similar:
-- hidebound, rules-oriented, 'the past is prologue' mindsets that could be maintained so long as external forces (technology, demographics and mostly healthy economic growth) were fairly stable
-- more recently both became threatened by these same influences and both were/are seeing a significant drop in one portion of the public for which their existence is justified

The FAA folks are not dumb and you can already see examples of their rigidity to change softening. TraCon Centers now have Customer Service programs, reducing the difficulty and expense of a/c and equipment certification is now on the table, and the demographics & operations numbers must look, to FAA employees and managers, like worrisome revenue decreases would to the business owner and his/her employees. The timing of this proposal might be just right...

_________________
Jack
RAF Florida State Liaison
Please visit www.theraf.org

EAA/AOPA have submitted the petition: http://eaa.org/news/2012/2012-03-20_exemption.asp

I encourage those with an opinion to comment on the FAA site on the petition.

Let the waiting game begin

_________________
dave

Moving this thread to the new "Medical Issues" forum.

_________________
The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven
http://AvSport.org fly@AvSport.org