I've heard some rumors that the FAA might increase the gross weight for LSA.......has anyone heard this or know anything about it
I've heard some rumors that the FAA might increase the gross weight for LSA.......has anyone heard this or know anything about it
Are you saying I could have bush wheels?
I wouldn't go holding my breath if I was you, I'm sure if it was true the EAA would know about it.
It's been the rumor since the LSA thing happened and I'd bet the farm that it ain't NEVER going to happen. Just too many bucks invested in the manufacture of 1320# aircraft that would be mostly wasted.....
More likely and more than a rumor is that the 3rd class medical might be history, thus the private pilots can continue to fly heavier aircraft and the Sport guys can continue with their little toys......
I'm now self imposed LSA coming up on 65.....I doubt if either of the above will happen soon enough to help me or any of us boomers...
I hope to get my 1320# tu-holer flying this spring. If either of the above would happen, my usefull load would just increase by 80 pounds......(more than one way to skin a cat and beat the feds to the punch)
Jack
There is no effort by FAA to increase the maximum weight limitation called out in the definition of a light-sport aircraft. These rumors keep cropping up and circulating, but there is just no truth to them.
What most people really want when they say the weight limit should be raised is to fly their (insert aircaft type here) using a driver's license in lieu of a medical certificate. I believe you will see continued efforts by many aviation organizations to expand the "driver's license medical" provisions up to at least the Recreational Pilot level. This would allow pilots to fly any aircraft that meets the recreational pilot limitations (180 hp, 4 seats but only one passenger, day-VFR, etc.) using a driver's license in lieu of an FAA medical certificate. This effort is much more likely to succeed as compared with trying to raise the LSA weight limit, so let's put our efforts where they will do the most good.
Joe
Joe,
I agree with you mostly. The exception is that the Recreational Pilot Certificate is a joke, and is far too limiting to be of any utility. That's backed up by the fact that the FAA has hardly issued ANY of the things in all the years they've been available.
What we need is being able to exercise the privileges of a Private Certificate, based on a driver's license. I do agree, though that unfortunately, the LSA category probably isn't the venue to accomplish this.
MTV
Even though the Recreational certificate has limitations regarding cross country operations I believe those restrictions can be lifted with log book endorsements from a CFI. So, a private pilot or higher operating with a driver license medical would automatically have those "endorsements" since they were trained to a higher level. Sort of like Sport Pilots having to carry a log book all the time but private pilots operating LSA with a driver license medical not needing to carry a logbook. If I am correct (small chance, but it has been known to happen) this could keep some folks flying their 172 and Cherokes as long as they could live with one passenger and no night flying. If I'm wrong about the cross country restriction, then I agree, the ability to act as a recreational pilot with a driver license medical is of no real use.
Rich G
Comm/Inst/CFIA/CFII...Now a happy Sport Pilot
The only thing that really ruined the Recreational pilot certificate is the fact that a 3rd class medical is required. As originally proposed, the Rec certificate would not have required a medical. Had that been the case, there would be thousands of them issued by now.Originally Posted by mvivion
Be that as it may, if we could get the medical requirement for the Rec certificate changed to mirror the sport pilot requirements, where the driver's license would be used in lieu of the third class medical, the Rec certificate limitations would not be a huge issue. A private pilot or higher would not be limited in distance since they already have the appropriate training, just like they don't need any of the sport pilot endorsements now. The only limitation would be on the aircraft, which would need to meet the Rec pilot requirements, the highlights of which are:
This would open the door to many pilots to fly the same aircraft they've been flying as pirvate pilots. Most of the Cherokees, 172s and other popular GA aircraft would be available to pilots using a driver's license in lieu of an FAA medical. This would be a MAJOR step forward, and an intermediate step toward the ultimate goal of private pilots flying (at least day VFR) using a driver's license in lieu of the medical certificate.
- No more than four seats
- Only one passenger
- Single Engine of no more than 180 horsepower
- Fixed landing gear
- No operation for compensation or hire, or in furtherence of business
- Day VFR only
Used in this way, the Rec pilot privileges would be a big step forward, and I believe you'd start to see more Rec pilot certificates issued.
Joe
Joe's scenario of a no-medical recreational pilot cert would be the best solution I can imagine for my own future. My PA-12 would be legal in that proposed program. If I was to compare the utility of my PA-12 to the potential utility of an LSA 180hp Carbon Cub it makes no sense that my PA-12 is excluded from the no-medical pilot program. I understand the Carbon Cub has limitations stated on paper but I also understand I'd ignore those limitations most of the time. In any event I don't see a plane like a PA-12 or even a PA-18 being a menace to society warranting exclusion from use by a no-medical certified pilot.
Thanks for the info and glimmer of hope, Joe.
Stewart
Would current LSA manufacturers lobby the FAA to block provisions allowing Recreational Pilots to fly without a medical?
LSA manufacturers would view this as creating a competitive threat, other non-LSA aircraft could be flown without a medical, would mean less
pilots buying new LSA aircraft.
Do they have the clout to block this, and does any effort to allow Recreational Pilots to fly without medicals need to address this from the beginning.
i.e., The FAA is not here to protect LSA manufacturer profits, that is not their mandate or jurisdiction.
Why chip around the edges, Rec pilot no medical etc......./
Simply do away with the 3rd class and let private pilots(or lower) fly on their drivers licence. That is what is now being considered.
If anyone wants even moderate "utility", go for at least private pilot and then add instrument rating(or at least log 20 hours or so of hood time and then recurent practice), just in case......
jack
The LSA manufacturers, individually and through the Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association (LAMA) would have the ability to comment on any proposed rule change just like you and I and EAA and AOPA do. They would not have any more or less lobbying power than any other organization.
Your comment "that is what is now being considered" is not necessarily 100% accurrate. True, there is a petition in the works that would basically do this for aircraft weighing less than 6000 lbs, but the fact that this petition exists does not necessarily mean the FAA would consider this at the present time.
I have worked with the FAA enough to understand a bit about how the agency works at the rulemaking level. It is my opinion that the climate within FAA at this time is such that this petition will not be granted and that going directly to Private Pilot flying on a driver's license is too far of a single step. I do believe that the FAA is willing to discuss taking the lesser step of moving to Rec pilot privileges on a driver's license at this time, and making the next step at a later time.
This is just my somewhat-educated opinion. Your mileage may vary. But I think that taking the measured approach will gain us more ground quicker than trying to grab the whole enchilada. Personally, going to Rec pilot on a driver's license doesn't do me any good because both of my planes don't meet the Rec pilot limitations, so I'm not saying any of this for personal reasons. I am saying, however, that this would be a step in the right direction and would be more achievable at this time than going the distance to Private Pilot. Again, your mileage may vary.
Joe
Joe
From what you know of this process at the FAA, what data are they using to help make a decision? The reason I ask is that as far as I can tell, they have no way to know how many pilots holding higher licenses than Sport Pilot are flying using a driver license medical. When I did not renew my medical in 2005 there is no way for them to know if I quit flying or I am doing 200 hrs a year in an LSA. Without that data there is no way to correlate accidents that might be caused by physical incapacitation. While there certainly are ways to find this information, I think they are reluctant to do so as it would show very clearly that a medical certificate is not needed for most private VFR flying.
Rich G
Comm/Inst/CFIA/CFII...Now a happy Sport Pilot
With due respect, IMO the rec licence is a non starter if not a joke having been over run by events(LSA).
My comment was not based on any petetion but on what seems to be happening within the FAA, based on an article on AVweb by, as I recall, a regional FAA AME type......
That said, "again" I ain't holding my breath. Logic would demand no 3rd class medicals based on the LSA experience....But having worked(and retired, thank the Lord) for the US government for almost half my life, logic seems to have very little(IF ANY) thing to do with ANYTHING........
Jack
PS I don't think most pilots are totally stupid as regards their medical issues. Few fly with significant issues and those that do will do so with or w/o a licence. The 3rd class medical is based on what the pilot says and is therefore based on self certification anyway. Those who are stupid or less than smart will simply lie on their medical and/or fly when they have a bad day, piece of paper or not...... Let smart pilots, I think the majority, fly on drivers licence and self certify each time they enter an airplane.....The dumb ones are very likely going to just fly anyway.
Another point as regards the original question and one that "logic" again would seem to make sense......?
Leave the 1320# limit in place but grant some give in how one achieves that weight. If a heavier aircraft can be safely flown two place @ 1320 whatever it's certified gross(within reason) why not let it be flown like that.
For example. My friends J5A-75 is a much, VERY MUCH, safer aircraft if flown as a 2-place @ 1320# than it is as a 3-place @ 1450#...Another is my Spezio which is perfectly legal if originally "certified" at 1320# gross but the same type if flown initially at 1400#(even if it's empty weight is even less) can not EVER be flow as an LSA. If at any time an aircraft is granted an increase in gross over 1320, it can NOT go back. Why not, it's just stupid? There are several vintage aircraft just slightly over 1320# gross, a couple at 1325#, it's simply stupid not to allow them a bloody 5 pound gross decrease. Heck, the new LSA guys are playing all kinds of tricks/games with engine power(max cruise settings) etc. to make them LSA compliant but vintage aircraft are set in stone for whatever dumb reason....
But again, logic does NOT seem to compute..
Jack
Rich,
I have no access to the specific internal discussions that may be going on regarding this subject (or any other). All I have is my contact with several FAA HQ staffers and my ongoing dealings with them on several subjects.
You are correct, there is no way to know how many pilots are operating at the sport pilot level using a higher-level pilot certificate and a driver's license. Your guess is as good as mine (or the FAA's) on how many there might be.
The data they have is the FAA and NTSB accident data. They can look at the accident, its primary cause(s), and the pilot certification level and medical status of the accident pilot.
And Jack, I don't mean to say that I think the FAA should stop at the Rec Pilot level. If there is enough horsepower within the FAA to go straight to the Private Pilot level with the driver's license in lieu of an FAA medical allowance, I say "go for it". I am just not convinced that there is an appetite at the FAA to go that far in one step. If there is, more power to them and the sooner the better.
Last edited by jnorris; 01-26-2011 at 02:53 PM.
Joe
Joe
Thanks. I understand except the one issue I have is that if a guy holding a third class medical has an accident due to physical condition, then the metrics are easy. One divided by n where n is the number of pilots holding third class Medicals. If a person using a driver license medical has the same event, the number in the denominator is unknown, so that no comparison can be made to show that one scenario is better or worse than the other.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse as I am sure you understand this, but maybe somebody from the FAA might read this thread someday
Rich
Comm/Inst/CFIA/CFII...Now a happy Sport Pilot
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks