National Aeronca Association Bulletin Board

I can't disagree that someone who wants a Champ for it being a Champ, will still want a Champ, but many people wanted an affordable LSA and a Champ was what they got, not because they loved Champs. This will become a Supply and Deman issue. I will not give up my Aeronca's, but I know a bunch of people at my airport alone that will give them up to get more performance. In watching the prices, I have already seen a decline in prices on LSA aircraft due to economic conditions as well as lower GA flying. It is a shame what is happening. High fuel prices help sales of low fuel consumption planes.

With 1320 MGW as part of the current LSA regs, a High HP Champ with a starter and alternator, battery and radio and transponder (assuming a legal electrical system the transponder is then required for many of us in Metropolitan areas) does not leave a lot of usefull load if you want to stay legal and carry any fuel.

I also want to see the rule pass as I believe it will help get some people back into flying.

Bob makes a good point about the value we have enjoyed because the Champ and Chief are under the magical 1320 lbs weight restriction.
As far as pilots flying on their drivers license and using LSA aircraft to exercise their privileges, we will loose them as they go back to the 172's and Cherokees, but the individual who cannot pass the online questions will be forced to stay onboard an LSA path and they will still want something lighter than 1320 lbs.

I didn't see a drastic jump in the prices when the LSA craze took off. A very nice plane always brought the big bucks. The price of a nice solid Champ is still reasonable. The $100K LSA's didn't push up the prices much, so I would guess the addition of more availability shouldn't soften the prices.
Paul

Good point about the not passing the on-line medical test. The real concern regaqrding that is that so far no ones knows for sure if the results of the quiz will be stored and provided to authorities. If that is the case, then under the current FARs regarding the use of the drivers license, you might be just as bad off as if you failed a physical, hence no LSA even. The LSA regs have a caveat stating that if Know Of Any Condition that would proclude you from getting a medical, you need to ground yourself. LSA / Drivers license or not. Those on Medication can go on the FAA web site and look up what meds qualify and which ones disqualify you. There have been some interesting changes. Coumadin used to automatically disqualify you and you had to be off for 6 months before retaking the medical exam. Now you can be on Coumadin as long as you have month blood tests and your INR for the last 12 tests has at least 9 of the readings between 2.0 and 3.0. Just like bllod pressure, which allows for unmedicated blood pressure now up to 155 / 95, when anything ovr 89 for the distaulic used to disqualify you.

For flying gliders you always had to write and sign a letter, that you would carry, saying you felt you were good enough health to fly a glider. Lots of things to consider.

Bob

Here is my thought. I rebuilt my Champ over a period of two years, installing 2 wing tanks, a C85 (O-200 conversion) with a battery and a starter. Now that I've had a few hundred hours in the Champ (it is LSA), the only issue I have is that the Champ is delicate. It is tube and fabric. On flights, I worry about leaving the aircraft outside in case of: high winds, a storm, hail, ice and frost in the morning. I will not part with it because it is a joy to fly; BUT, if the new rule takes effect, I would buy a 150 or a 172 in a heartbeat. Leave it outside and not worry so much.

This discussion is becoming more interesting as the potential passage of a new regulation approaches (maybe in the cy 2013 ?). There seem to be a large number of assumptions about its configuration though, which while possible, are not in fact a principal part of the position yet taken by either the proposers or the FAA. For example, the new situation will probably include aircraft with a rated horsepower of up to 180, could be 4 passenger machines but the new reg will still limit the passenger manifest to 1 person. Additionally, retractable gear, complex (probably meanining controllable pitch, turbine powered etc. acft.) will not be part of the new eligible acft fleet and no change in VFR operations is expected. I believe that there will be some kind of online education , probably similar to the FAA sponsored DC SFRA course required. As much as the AOPA would hope they will be allowed to administer this, I believe that is immensely unlikely to happen. If the new rule comes about, the most likely change will be simply an extension of the aircraft which legally can be flown under the existing LSA/Sport Pilot Rules. In all likelihood, for people with a Private Pilots License or higher, there will be no significant change except that an online course is required and self certification of medical status will be a lost concept. For whatever the new category is called, the change will be that the FAA will have a computer record of your completion of the medical awareness course and, Bob Kittine pointed out, a federal record of your status which did not exist before. I imagine that Sport Pilots will also get an additional requirement for CFI checkout in higher powered newly eligible to them.

The above is based on my understanding of the proposal submitted by the AOPA and EAA to the FAA as a proposed Rule making change. If anyone is aware of demonstrable errors in what I have indicated, please post them with your evidence of differences.

Dale

Dale and Bob have each expressed their understanding of the 'PROPOSED NO MEDICAL' rule and with Dale's encouragement I tried to better understand the subject.

The petitioners in their preamble further confuse me further by stating that their members are to fly 'recreationally'.

Here is what was filed, as I understand it.

http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/petition_for_exemption.pdf

If they add Recreation Pilot restrictions (50km from your base airport), this could get real convoluded.

I believe that this will be an exemption and not a rule change. I think this means it will not have to go through the normal rule-making process. It will also mean that it will be easier for the FAA to withdraw the exemption if they feel it is necessary. The 50nm restriction on RP is not very onerous, all that is need is a logbook endorsement by a CFI that the individual has been found proficient in the cross-country training requirements. Then you are free to move about the country. When the petitioners are talking about flying "recreationally" they are speaking of the actual activity and not the rating. Any rated pilot can use their rating to fly for recreation and the thinking is when doing so the medical requirements can be lessened.

Yep, according to our local FAA guy, an exemption for the need of an FAA medical, so it can easily be changed and the "Recreational" does mean for recreation and not the level of Certificate. What he claimes the FAA came back with has some modifications. If you are say a Private pilote, there are no restrictions on things like cross country, but for "Recreation" - No night, no flight over 10,000 MSL / 2,000 AGL, no IFR. Still will remove many of the current LSA aircraft requirements, which in addition to restricting weight (MGW Wheels to 1320 / MGW Float 1430) there is no max cruise, max stall speed etc. just 180 HP, Fixed gear and Fixed Pitch Prop and only one passenger regardless of the number of seats. I believe that Canada has something similar and even less restrictive, which has part of the allowance, up to 6 seats, plus other things.

Bob

It should certainly open up the number of planes those of us currently flying light sport are able to fly. I'd guess most of us probably hold a private anyway but just choose not to take a medical because (1) we're 'at the age' where some gremlin might pop up and then wind up as a pen pal with Oklahoma City and (2) it's not required for our Champs, Chiefs, etc. I'd also venture most of us take a yearly physical from a regular doctor so we have a pretty good idea of our health situation and deal with it accordingly.

I've had my eye on a P***** Colt that needs a small amount of repair and it appears the owner has lost interest but of course it's over the 1320 restriction so I've been holding off.
No...I'm not selling my L16...just looking for a project to keep me busy for awhile. Aeroncas seem to be hard to find and I don't really want to tackle another total basket case right now.

Mike

The way I understand it is that I would be able, with an LSA license, already having a private, I would be able to go rent a 150 HP Citabria and go for a ride. I would like that! Mike, with his abilitys as a rebuilder could fix up a Colt, ( nice little airplane! Maybe even make a taildragger out it!) and fly it light sport. Or better yet he could find a beat up super cub , fix it and fly it. I 'm not at all worried about the Feds having a record of mine as after 55 years of flying they have never bothered me at all. I just sold a very nice Trophy winning BC12 D. 65 h.p. I suppose if I had never flown anything else it would have been OK. As it was, it was boring plus I had to tie it down and prop it which is a real drag. I hope they pass it as its long overdue. (In the old days someone would ALWAYS give you a prop. Today there's usually no one around and if they are there they DO NOT want or even know how to prop an aircraft.) best, And.....I agree with mike, to find an 85 aeronca champ like his with wing tanks is almost impossible. Iv'e looked. I had an 85. Champ, a nice one but it only had the single tank. it was very restrictive on a cross country and I almost ran out of gas a couple of times. Best, JP

This is my dilemma... Purchase a decent 7AC now but run the risk of it dropping in value (in the near future) due to the medical exemption. If the medical exemption passes I anticipate a decrease in potential old tailwheel (e.g. 7AC) buyers and a lowering of price. As previously stated, it's getting pretty lonely at the field and I can't count on a helping hand when I'm by myself. Anyone else facing these types of decisions? Thoughts? Is this even a good time to get back into the market (previous nose dragger owner)?

Bubba,
It's always a good time to buy an airplane. But, if you're thinking of the Aeronca as an investment, rent don't own. It will be much cheaper to rent.
I don't think the planes will drop due to the medical stuff. Most people just want to fly a 150 with their drivers license not an Aeronca.
Now with that being said, I've bought a few planes before. I buy them because I like them, not because I am betting they will increase in value. In general the planes will increase in value unless you buy an orphan like an Emigh Trojan. It will always be a fire sale airplane.
Paul

If this becomes an exemption and not a rule it can leave as quickly as it arrived. If I understand the petition, this is not an exemption to the LSA rules. It hasn't anything to do with the Light Sport community other than not requiring a medical exam to exercise your privileges. This petition as Bob alluded to is a means for rated pilots to fly 'recreationally' by restricting the limits of their rating.

Exactly Dick, the only thing changing then is the elimination for the need for an FAA medical to fly under those restrictions.