Sport Pilot Talk

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the
4 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
5 Federal Aviation Administration shall issue or revise med-
6 ical certification regulations to ensure that an individual
7 may operate as pilot in command of a covered aircraft
8 without regard to any medical certification or proof of
9 health requirement otherwise applicable under Federal law
10 if—
11 (1) the individual possesses a valid State driv-
12 er’s license and complies with any medical require-
13 ment associated with that license;
14 (2) the individual is transporting not more than
15 5 passengers;
16 (3) the individual is operating under visual
17 flight rules; and
18 (4) the relevant flight, including each portion
19 thereof, is not carried out—
20 (A) for compensation, including that no
21 passenger or property on the flight is being car-
22 ried for compensation;
23 (B) at an altitude that is more than
24 14,000 feet above mean sea level;

drseti wrote:This would be a great thing, and as I see it would in no way harm the LSA movement. Yes, one needs to be a PPL or above to fly these aircraft, which means the pilot must have been able to pass a third class medical at some point. For those who aren't already PPL, or can't pass a third class for whatever reason, LSA will remain a viable option. And the operating costs and maintenance options for LSA will still be attractive to some people. So I see absolutely no reason for the LSA community to oppose this legislation. Fingers crossed!

MrMorden wrote:Some in Congress decided to take the driver's license medical proposal out of FAA's hands since they dragged feet on it so long...

http://www.aopa.org/....aspx?CMP=ADV:1

It's like a wish list for sport pilots and guys worried about their medical.

dstclair wrote:The Bill is pretty short. Salient section:

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the
4 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
5 Federal Aviation Administration shall issue or revise med-
6 ical certification regulations to ensure that an individual
7 may operate as pilot in command of a covered aircraft
8 without regard to any medical certification or proof of
9 health requirement otherwise applicable under Federal law
10 if—
11 (1) the individual possesses a valid State driv-
12 er’s license and complies with any medical require-
13 ment associated with that license;
14 (2) the individual is transporting not more than
15 5 passengers;
16 (3) the individual is operating under visual
17 flight rules; and
18 (4) the relevant flight, including each portion
19 thereof, is not carried out—
20 (A) for compensation, including that no
21 passenger or property on the flight is being car-
22 ried for compensation;
23 (B) at an altitude that is more than
24 14,000 feet above mean sea level;

Actually quite a bit more latitude than the EAA/AOPA proposal. Could be that the bill is overly broad for negotiation reasons or they want to force the FAA to approve the existing proposal. Or neither

For those PP's currently flying with SP privileges in an LSA, you could get back:

* Flying VFR over a cloud layer
* Night Flying (if manufacturer approved)
* Flying in furtherance of a business
* Flying above 10K feet and 2K over terrain. I'd assume the real regs will have the 14K feet and 2K AGL language.

I've got my tea leaves out and crystal ball. I'd guess the passage of this (or adoption of the petition) will raise the cost of used 4/6 seaters and, potentially, lower the cost of S-LSAs. Probably doesn't increase the airplane market; just may shift the demand.