EAA AOPA medical proposal

[FastEddieB]

If anyone does want to mix flying and politics...

Pilotsofamerica.com

And you have to specifically join "The Spin Zone".

I'm FastEddieB over there as well.

[Merlinspop]

I agree it would be best not to bring up politics here.

I brought up process and conjecture based on specific actions of the FAA. I made no judgements on right or wrong nor did I say anything in favor of or against the policy makers. You read a political aspect into it. I meant no such thing.
Discussing legislation that impacts flying isn't "bringing up politics."

[Merlinspop]

What I'm saying is if the Democrats were against this for some reason, it would not pass in the Senate. The Democratic controlled Senate is not going to go against the President on something like this. If the Democrats lost control of the Senate in 2014 and this didn't come up for a vote until after January 2015, then things could be different if there was a reason the Democrats opposed thls. I don't see why they would.

Who suggested this was a partisan issue, other than you just now? So, other than you taking offense to my suggestion that the President would veto this bill if it ever got that far (presidents do do that), I don't see us disagreeing here. I agree with you that if the administration signals opposition to it, it wouldn't get out of the senate. I doubt it'll have enough support to get out of the House committee. So I'm dropping it.

[MovingOn]

Delete...

[drseti]

Gentlemen and ladies, I have no objection to folks discussing (or speculating on) what particular parties, houses of congress, or branches of government advocate, support, or oppose with regard to any aviation issue. What your humble moderator will not tolerate on this board is ad-homenim attacks on any individual politician, or generalizations about any party. Fortunately, such divisiveness has been extremely rare on these forums, and I thank you all for your restraint.

<full disclosure>
My own political involvement is no secret. It is a matter of public record that I am an elected member of my County's Democratic Party steering committee, and that I once served on a County Board as a Democrat. That doesn't mean that I support or agree with all Democratic office-holders or candidates, any more than it means I disagree with or oppose all Republicans. We tend to make entirely too much of party affiliation, while both major parties have both outstanding and mediocre members! As long as we stick to relevant issues and not individuals, political topics on this board are appropriate, and welcome.
</full disclosure>

[MovingOn]

Delete...

[Jack Tyler]

Returning to our regularly scheduled program...

The link that was provided above captures what I think is the three-ring circus that has unfolded re: this issue:
[Ring #1]: "In the Dec. 26 letter, Huerta apologized for the delay in taking action on the petition, saying it was important to “ensure that such an unprecedented change will not result in any adverse impact that could lead to degradation in safety.”

[Add a little pandering for spice]: The administrator also acknowledged the importance of the issue to pilots, referring to the more than 16,000 comments submitted on the petition.

[Ring #2, an advocacy group attempting to influence regulatory action]: “We appreciate the administrator’s willingness to discuss this issue and the FAA’s concern for safety [a bit of counter-pandering]—that’s always our highest priority,” said Baker. “But we do feel pilots have waited long enough for an answer, so we will keep vigorously pursuing both our petition and [wait for it...here's Ring #3] legislative options to expand the use of the driver’s license medical standard.”

What I see, admittedly just thru my lens, is a regulatory body that's trying to affirm its preeminent role in such matters while doing so to a legislative body it is unavoidably subject to. Meanwhile, the 3rd party (that's us, in the form of EAA & AOPA) banging away at the former while attempting to spur on the latter. Like they say, never visit a sausage factory if you like some with your eggs.

[MovingOn]

Delete...

[FrankR]

I myself dont see where this will have a big impact on LSA sales if it passes. It could even help LSA sales as pilots will eventually want to move into something newer and an LSA would be a good next step up from a 150. Fuel savings of an LSA would be enticing also.

A potential buyer of a $150000 LSA is not going to now buy an old cessna instead. I dont get it. And if you want new you can buy an LSA or spend $300000 on a 172 designed in the 50s with modern avionics. Makes the LSA look like a pretty good buy.

I do believe there are some pilots who will steer away from LSAs due to the durability and sensitive flight caractoristics though. Giving them a couple hundred more on gross weight and a bit more wing loading would really help their desirability although I dont see that ever happening.

Jake

Back to the original post.

As some know, I have been talking to local pilots about a club.

We are all in agreement: "do not purchase or acquire an LSA until this gets sorted out."

I can't help but believe that the regulatory uncertainty is going to lead to lower LSA sales this year.

[Mark Gregor]

I am interested to know what your club would do differently if the this does pass?

Jake

[MovingOn]

.......

[FrankR]

I suspect they would purchase a C-172 or Cherokee instead of an LSA. That's what I would do.

Suspicions correct. Or join one of the many clubs in the area.

The point of starting an LSA club is to overcome the lack of LSA rental inventory, offer choice, manage safety.

[Nomore767]

Interestingly, I heard this comment quite a few times today at Sebring..including from my wife…

"Those planes look like LSAs but THOSE planes look more like 'real' planes'.

Maybe that perception is true in many flying clubs too? Just sayin.

[Jack Tyler]

Retrospectively, don't we all remember the immediate, angry and disappointed reaction LAMA and the LSA distributors/builders were when the EAA/AOPA 'drivers license medical' proposal was submitted? It negative consequences they feared are only magnified by the more sweeping congressional bill's language. I can't imagine any reason the impact of such a change would be other than negative to the LSA industry.

Howard, congrats on 'luring' your wife more into the fold!

[drseti]

Jack, i am aware of that industry response. I also think it is extremely shortsighted. These are nice, new, very modern, well equipped (did I say new?) aircraft, selling for a fraction of the price of their certified counterparts. Medical certificate notwithstanding, for a certain mission there will always be a market for them.