Pilots could now fly bigger planes on driver's license

[Nomore767]

After nearly two years of FAA inaction on the AOPA/EAA third-class medical petition, Congress has taken matters into its own hands, offering up legislation that would vastly expand the number of pilots who could fly without going through the expensive and time-consuming third-class medical certification process. Reps. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.), a member of the House General Aviation Caucus, and GA Caucus Co-Chair Sam Graves (R-Mo.) on Dec. 11 introduced the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act. The legislation would dramatically expand the parameters for flying under the driver's license medical standard. Rokita and Graves are both AOPA members and active pilots.

"We have waited far too long for the FAA to expand the third-class medical exemption to more pilots and more aircraft," said AOPA President Mark Baker. "Congressmen Rokita and Graves stepped forward to take decisive action in the best interests of general aviation when the FAA refused to act. We appreciate their outstanding leadership on this issue and look forward to seeing this bill move forward."

The General Aviation Pilot Protection Act would allow pilots to use the driver's license medical standard for noncommercial VFR flights in aircraft weighing up to 6,000 pounds with no more than six seats. That includes virtually all single-engine airplanes with six or fewer seats, including Beech Bonanzas, as well as many light twins like the Piper Aztec, Beech Baron 55 and 58, and Cessna 310. By way of comparison, most large SUVs on the roads today weigh more than 6,000 pounds and can carry six to seven passengers, making them larger than the aircraft that would be operated with proof of a valid driver's license under this new bill.

Pilots would be allowed to carry up to five passengers, fly at altitudes below 14,000 feet msl, and fly no faster than 250 knots. The act also would require the FAA to report on the safety consequences of the new rule after five years.

"As a pilot, I am pleased to introduce this important legislation with my colleagues and fellow pilots," said Rokita. "This bill eliminates a duplicative and therefore unnecessary medical certification regulation that drives up costs for pilots and prevents the general aviation industry from fulfilling its economic potential."

"For many recreational pilots, the FAA's third class medical certification process is nothing more than a bureaucratic hoop to jump through," said Graves. "It discourages new pilots and does not truly improve safety. As a pilot, I have gone through this process several times. However, like all pilots, I am responsible for determining whether I am medically fit to fly during the time between my mandated medical certifications. Expanding the current exemption makes sense and will promote greater recreational aviation activity across the U.S. without an impact on safety."

In addition to Rokita and Graves, the bill was co-sponsored by Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Bill Flores (R-Texas), Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.), and Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.). All four co-sponsors are members of the GA Caucus.

The legislative action comes after the FAA has repeatedly declined to rule on a March 2012 petition filed by AOPA and EAA. That petition asked the FAA to expand the driver's license medical standard already used by sport pilots for nearly a decade. Under the petition, pilots would be able to operate noncommercial VFR flights in single-engine aircraft with 180 horsepower or less, four or fewer seats, fixed gear, and a maximum of one passenger. To participate, pilots would need a valid driver's license and would be required to take recurrent safety training to help them accurately assess their fitness to fly.

More than 16,000 overwhelmingly favorable comments were filed during the public comment period on the petition. But despite strong support from the aviation community and solid evidence that the exemption would maintain or improve safety, the FAA failed to act, so AOPA turned to supporters in Congress for help.

Building support for the General Aviation Pilot Protection Act will be critical to its passage, and AOPA will be calling on members to show their support in January after Congress returns from recess.

[Nomore767]

I know there is another thread on the EAA/AOPA proposal but there seems to be a potentially huge impact on the LSA category. I wonder what others here have to say about the impact of such a change?

Just today I got an E-mail from Vans about the SLSA being at the Sport Expo in January. Whilst I'm very interested in the airplane, it does give me pause to wait to see how this Bill pans out. I will have a really good look at it, but the purchase decision might now be put on hold for a while.
Initially, a successful passage would allow someone like me to get access to a whole range of rental aircraft previously deemed inaccessible without the Third Class medical. Also, there are a number of clubs who operate aircraft that would now be available. Instead of ruminating over the LSA's real world 'limitations', I could now have access to aircraft without w/b issues or mogas issues. The ownership/rental argument would have new meaning.

It's early days and a lot of water has to pass under the bridge yet, but still, I think this Bill would do a lot to inject positives to GA as a whole. I wonder too if the airlines are happy with the prospect of more new pilots entering the pool as hiring is about to ramp up at the same time retirements are about to surge. This month, 5 years ago, is where the almost 60 year old pilots elected to stay on till 65, but now they really have to go.

I guess we'll see.

Cheers, Howard

[Merlinspop]

I know there is another thread on the EAA/AOPA proposal but there seems to be a potentially huge impact on the LSA category. I wonder what others here have to say about the impact of such a change?

Cheers, Howard

Such a thread is going on in the Hangar forum.

[Jack Tyler]

Howard's post is, I think, very representative of the effect such a bill's passage will have on the a/c marketplace.

"Initially, a successful passage would allow someone like me to get access to a whole range of rental aircraft previously deemed inaccessible without the Third Class medical. Also, there are a number of clubs who operate aircraft that would now be available. Instead of ruminating over the LSA's real world 'limitations', I could now have access to aircraft without w/b issues or mogas issues. The ownership/rental argument would have new meaning."

[Wm.Ince]

Howard's post is, I think, very representative of the effect such a bill's passage will have on the a/c marketplace.

"Initially, a successful passage would allow someone like me to get access to a whole range of rental aircraft previously deemed inaccessible without the Third Class medical. Also, there are a number of clubs who operate aircraft that would now be available. Instead of ruminating over the LSA's real world 'limitations', I could now have access to aircraft without w/b issues or mogas issues. The ownership/rental argument would have new meaning."

That is the beauty I see coming from this legislation.
Opens up many more options.

[Chemguy]

While not necessarily an LSA issue, by a twist of irony, this could potentially breathe new life into Cessna's Skycatcher. If they break the 1320, beef it up, and try to keep the cost down (say, under half that of the Skyhawk), they may have a new trainer (essentially a 152 replacement) as well as a new market for flight schools, clubs, and those with PPLs who are not completely sold on its current LSA limitations. Furthermore, now that they realize the 162 is not going to become the next Volkswagen of the skies, and perhaps, with more modest production expectations, they could build it here. It would be wonderful to see production on lines and facilities parallel to the Skyhawk's while possibly utilizing many of the same assemblers depending on which aircraft they have more orders for at a given time. The catch, of course, is while the medical requirements may be mitigated somewhat (BTW, no assurance the insurance underwriters for the schools and FBOs will see it this way!), the regulatory requirements for aircraft over 1320 will have to wait for the potential changes (presumably to address costs) in the certification process. At a minimum, it offers additional optimism for the future of GA.

[designrs]

I currently have finance applications in process to buy a new LSA for +/- $150k. I recently acquired my Sport Pilot's License and have no desire to go through the medical process unless at some point I must have it... say for a desire to fly solo in a high-performance aerobatic aircraft.

If I didn't buy the LSA and could buy any aircraft I'd buy a Van's RV-9A, which could be purchased for $65k to $85k, would have higher performance, could be serviced everywhere, and happily burns 100LL... but quite a bit more of it!

The big questions are:
1) How long do I have to wait? (uncertain)
2) Will it ever happen? (uncertain)
2) Would I still need an initial medical to get the Private Pilot? (uncertain)

Should I go ahead and buy the new LSA?
I've wanted for this for a long time and I'm not a very patient man! LOL

[Nomore767]

While not necessarily an LSA issue, by a twist of irony, this could potentially breathe new life into Cessna's Skycatcher. If they break the 1320, beef it up, and try to keep the cost down (say, under half that of the Skyhawk), they may have a new trainer (essentially a 152 replacement) as well as a new market for flight schools, clubs, and those with PPLs who are not completely sold on its current LSA limitations. Furthermore, now that they realize the 162 is not going to become the next Volkswagen of the skies, and perhaps, with more modest production expectations, they could build it here. It would be wonderful to see production on lines and facilities parallel to the Skyhawk's while possibly utilizing many of the same assemblers depending on which aircraft they have more orders for at a given time. The catch, of course, is while the medical requirements may be mitigated somewhat (BTW, no assurance the insurance underwriters for the schools and FBOs will see it this way!), the regulatory requirements for aircraft over 1320 will have to wait for the potential changes (presumably to address costs) in the certification process. At a minimum, it offers additional optimism for the future of GA.

In my view, Cessna could possibly resurrect the C162 and offer two versions. The current LSA with 1320lbs max gross and offer the Rotax to improve useful load. They could also offer a higher weight (1320lbs+) version using the 0-200D or even the 0-233 engines. They could also use much more composite on the fuselage, like Tecnams, to reduce weight.

Will they do any of this? Surely not. Instead they will sit on the existing inventory and wonder why, after they've said it has 'no future', why no one is stepping up with their checkbooks. Officially, they're still asking just under $150 for a new airplane.
Finally, I'll bet they will have zero presence at the Sebring Expo. Thus they are basically stuck with the LSA "Edsel".
Which is sad because I really liked flying it.

[Nomore767]

I currently have finance applications in process to buy a new LSA for +/- $150k. I recently acquired my Sport Pilot's License and have no desire to go through the medical process unless at some point I must have it... say for a desire to fly solo in a high-performance aerobatic aircraft.

If I didn't buy the LSA and could buy any aircraft I'd buy a Van's RV-9A, which could be purchased for $65k to $85k, would have higher performance, could be serviced everywhere, and happily burns 100LL... but quite a bit more of it!

The big questions are:
1) How long do I have to wait? (uncertain)
2) Will it ever happen? (uncertain)
2) Would I still need an initial medical to get the Private Pilot? (uncertain)

Should I go ahead and buy the new LSA?
I've wanted for this for a long time and I'm not a very patient man! LOL

If your personal 'mission' remains the same then you could continue. However, changes from this new proposal 'may' impact LSA prices to a certain extent.
If the gates open to allow a large number of GA pilots to fly on a DL then whilst the Sport pilot category may remain, would manufacturers still look at it as a viable market? I mean, even now, sales are slow and models numerous. If only a few models remain, I'd say it might be best to be the owner of one with good and continuing support.
They say patience is a virtue. Perhaps in this case, keeping a shrewd weather eye on how things transpire whilst continuing to rent may save both dollars and anguish later on?

[drseti]

If only a few models remain, I'd say it might be best to be the owner of one with good and continuing support.

A month ago, I would have bet real money that Cessna would be foremost among the survivors. Just shows you that there's no telling how the cards will fall.

[Jack Tyler]

“In my view, Cessna could possibly resurrect the C162 and offer two versions…. Will they do any of this? Surely not.”

Completely agree. 1) How will the cost of all that engineering, manufacturing and regulatory work be covered? 2) There is no indication they want to be in this end of the industry with its low sales volume, competitors with lower overheads, and with the marketplace itself fractured.

“I currently have finance applications in process to buy a new LSA for +/- $150k… Should I go ahead and buy the new LSA?”
“If your personal 'mission' remains the same then you could continue.”

That’s really designrs dilemma tho’, isn’t it. He points out his mission remains somewhat open ended, which is true of many newly licensed pilots who, as they begin to fly regularly, discover their interests can expand and certain challenges resonate more than they expected. From that perspective, making a firm choice for any specific a/c can be self-limiting. Making a LSA choice with such in-built limitations would seem to compound the matter. And to buy a $150K LSA now, given the uncertainty of its future resale value, seems like a risky decision from a financial perspective. (Not that we pilots normally behave in financially prudent ways...).

My impression is that most successful legislation has very long gestation periods. Even building support from across the aisle at the committee level takes time, so the 'uncertainty' (if also great interest) this bill is creating will could remain for quite some time. It could even fail in committee but take on a life of its own if the sponsors promise to introduce it again.

My hunch: The sponsors were not initially motivated primarily by the bill's prospects. They certainly have earned some bragging rights within the aviation industry - not a bad place for a politician to have friend$ - and that comes to them no matter what the bill's future. I suspect their primary motivation was to knee the FAA in the groin and motivate them to act on the EAA/AOPA proposal specifically as well as on aviation regulatory matters more generally. (The sponsors' actions seem to be saying, "You think their proposal is unworthy? How would you like THIS amount of change to come your way?") We might think the bill represents good public policy in an aviation sense. But it also seems to reflect a clever political power play if you want to have more influence over what is typically an insular, independent agency.

[FastEddieB]

Should I go ahead and buy the new LSA?

I think your situation may call for considering a lightly used Light Sport.

Should come in at least $50k less than you've budgeted, and perhaps more than that.

I do not know if buying used makes financing problematical, so that remains a factor.

You could consider it a "holding action" at first. IOW, if a year or two down the road the rules change and more options open up, you could sell it and move into something else.

Yes, there would be some depreciation involved, especially if suddenly Light Sport pilots have more options available. But that would be the case, in spades, with a new Light Sport as well.

I would also think long and hard about each and every option. The joy of flight is there even without monster glass panels and traffic and autopilots and so on. Each adds weight and complexity and maintenance concerns. Anyway, there are advantages to keeping it simple that go beyond the financial.

In any case, I would not put off an airplane purchase - life is short and you obviously need an airplane now!

As an aside, I know the Sky Arrow, with it's relatively slow speed, high empty weight and tandem configuration is not for everyone. But the new one I saw at Oshkosh had some nice improvements, and was still just under $100k. Very high build quality, great visibility and handling, lots of baggage space (if not capacity). Come down to Copperhill if you want to try one out!

[designrs]

Jack fuels my desire to go ahead with the LSA… an airplane purchase is never financially prudent, who knows how long this legislation will take, it may die, or may be merely symbolic notice to the FAA.

Thanks Eddie, I like the SkyArrow. It was one of the first LSA's that I was attracted to and I have flown in it. Unfortunately I do not physically fit in the plane, not in terms of girth but in other personal issues. I don't have to have all the bells and whistles of a state-of-the-art modern glass panel. Unlike the newbie pilot that just goes for the "bling"I have flown three Sport Cruisers over a few years… both analog and glass. You might recall the Sport Cruiser that I flew into Sentimental Journey this year was analog. Great plane!

I would certainly consider a lesser-priced used analog plane if the conditions were right. For example earlier this year I saw a BRAND NEW Sport Cruiser Classic (analog) ZERO time for $105k direct from US Sport Aircraft. Wow! I never inquired as I was not ready to jump on it. That would be most tempting! There is no reason that I could not be happy with a basic analog plane. For a while I was preferring the analog plane over glass at the flight school of Fleming Aviation. (Same price, more availability, round out experience, same good time!)

OTOH after spending some time in both glass and analog, glass seems to fit my mission a bit better. I like the instant warning of engine monitoring, having a BRS as a last resort option over unfavorable terrain, and the ability to switch on AP while multitasking or for optimum speed during cruise.

Other considerations are when flying with pilot friends I can give them their own panel on glass.

Resale:
Analog will offer the ability to offer a "cheeper plane" to a larger market.
Glass attracts the bells and whistles market which might mean a lot if the medical exemption does pass.
Glass might get the nod for resale to a training environment… attractive to students, again dual panels.

Still… I will keep my eyes on the "cheeper" pre-owned market as well!
Thanks for refreshing the idea Eddie!

[designrs]

Granted, a huge pull to LSA is "no medical". Still though, a good plane is a good plane. I think of DeltaFox Dave and others who are Private Pilots who have (or had) a medical and chose an LSA aircraft voluntarily for features and cost. I believe that Dave was considering buying a Cirrus for lots more $$$$. Then there are others that did private pilot training in the LSA… apparently they liked the modern aircraft and the reduced cost. I'd welcome feedback of those who have chosen the LSA even though they had and intended to keep a medical.

[dstclair]

Count me in to the population that could've purchased any plane (within my budget) and I chose an LSA. We've beat this to death but it all comes down to your mission and the Sting met mine 6 years ago and still does.