National Aeronca Association Bulletin Board

Actually Mike I think this is a good thing.

1. - This is almost identical to the Canadian rule and there is a considerable amount of safety data already available to support it.
2. - It will not drastically effect aircraft prices (other than our planes value will probably drop for people that want more performance, but are currently religated to LSA.) as there will be an extremely broad base of aircraft that people could buy, meaning C-150s up through Cherokee 180s no longer would be the limited range of products.
3. - With the removal of the One Passenger only requirement of LSA right now, this means that people that wanted a family airplane again could not only get and fly one but could take their family with them.

Remember that this is not for LSA Licensed Pilots but for Licensed pilots of Private Pilot level and higher currently flying LSA due to not possessing a FAA Medical Certificate.

I would also support anything, but like this as I was actually thinking about buying a Cherokee 180 or a Cessna 172 with a 180 HP conversion, when I already own a C-182 and a cessna Twin, both that I would be allowed to fly again without a second pilot sitting next to me with a medical. Will never give up having an Aeronca though.

This one is much more attractive to me.

Bob

Agreed Bob,
I just hope it doesn't make a reason for scrapping the whole thing. I'm for anything that eliminates having to jump through the medical hoop. Only seems like common sense to me.
Mike

Mike, And there is the rube: common sense verses government bureaucracy. Bureaucracies, by nature, build empires. Although I agree 100%, I can't help but be skeptical.

Dennis

As one who came out of education after working as a diesel mechanic and a shop manager for several years I have to agree. Everyone wants to build their 'ivory tower'. When I first started teaching at the community college I would do all my curriculum updates every year along with student followups, placement, new technology updates, etc. After about 20 years the school hired a "curriculum specialist and manager" so I had to submit all my work to him so he could approve it and send it back to me for incorporation. All this even though I was already doing it . Of course there were dozens of emails flying back and forth to justify the position. I think the government and FAA is kind of like that: build a beaucracy so it looks like something is being done and justifies the position.

I think most of us on the plus side of 65-70 worry that some minor glitch is going to pop up on a medical exam and ring the bell down in Oklahoma and we become long time 'pen pals' and wind up jumping through a bunch of medical hoops ($$$$) when there really wasn't anything wrong. I've seen it happen to friends a couple of times.

Mike

I have to smile about all of this stuff.
In the 1920's the Commerce Department spent huge resources to regulate all of these "Barnstormers" and make the flying public safe. The FAA continued to regulate all of these "safety" items. How funny, that we now need to lobby for regulation that returns us to a pre-regulatory condition. You just gotta love these guys.
Paul