Potential LSA Expansion

Pilot Fighter

Well-Known Member
#41
You already don't need a medical to fly s 172. They're not falling out of the sky.
BasicMed still requires a physical and that's a higher standard than nothing.

Time will tell. One prominent LSA crash and Sully's congressional testimony is all it would take for the policy to be revisited.

I'm not encouraging such a change and don't think it's warranted but struggle to ignore my observations.

Years ago we all flew overweight ultralights and nobody cared. Even today, there's been no crackdown on two-seat (former) ultralights that continue to be flown.
 

Murdoughnut

Well sized member
#45
I'll be really curious to see how it impacts a situation such as mine - I can't get a medical due to a medication I take, and am also outside the 10 year window for Basic Med. Could I, with my instrument rated PPL, start flying a 172 again? At night? IFR? In IMC?
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
#47
Seriously though, nothing I’ve seen in...10 years of doing aircraft maintenance suggests to me that giving MORE owner/pilots freedom to do their own work is a good idea.
So you need an lsrm(or more) to do light sport mx. But a lsrm cannot do mx on say a j3, even though a sport pilot can fly one. Lsrm cannot work on anything part 23 or car x or E-AB even if it conforms to lsa.
Truth is most a&ps are clueless when it comes to rotax and the like.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
#48
I'll be really curious to see how it impacts a situation such as mine - I can't get a medical due to a medication I take, and am also outside the 10 year window for Basic Med. Could I, with my instrument rated PPL, start flying a 172 again? At night? IFR? In IMC?
All a big pile of no.
The solution for you is motor gliders. Look at pipistrels offerings.
 

z987k

Well-Known Member
#50
Those things are way cool - I saw one at HEF a couple months back and I was fascinated.
You can pretty much build about anything and call it a glider. Retract, constant speed, any weight. No medical, no speed limits.
That one they have does like 160ktas on 2.5gph. Its crazy.
What's real interesting is you also dont need reserve fuel, because they assume you have none to begin with.
 
#54
Source? Because I don't think this is true.

Do you know how F-ed up you have to be to not be able to get a 3rd class medical?
Lol. That was a joke, right? He just told you there was no source.

We do know that lots of oldsters were unable to get 3rd class cards before the FAARP event kept them on the roads... er, in the skies. I suppose that puts them squarely in your "how F-ed up" group. We know also that before FAARP, many septa- and octogenarians were able to maintain medical cards.

What seems to be effed up is the apparent variability of the exams, or perhaps more likely, the variability or capriciousness of the examiners. I've done lots of medicals over the years, and they have varied considerably (sometimes outrageously) across different examiners. I've heard similar stories from others. So, I think it's fair to consider that at least sometimes, denial of a medical could be more related to the examiner than to the exam or the examined.

We also know that proficient practitioners at most endeavors don't suddenly lose abilities at some given age. However, on average, there is a loss of specific faculties as humans age. Reflexes, hearing, sight, etc. do degrade with age. But they do not degrade similarly for individuals in a population.

It seems to me that the system used to recognize individual differences and act accordingly. Lard-assed smokers often lost their cards at age 55 or 60, whereas other folks kept flying into their nineties.

It seems now that we are applying the "everyone's-a-winner-and-gets-a-ribbon" mentality to what should be a hard-science-based decision. And why? The populist front of FAARP members out there who don't want to be denied... anything... ever. Still, baring ties, there's only one first place regardless of how many ribbons are handed out. And still, math and science will continue to be the correct way to measure reality, regardless of how many folks have reasons to disregard or malign them.
 
#55
Lol. That was a joke, right? He just told you there was no source.

We do know that lots of oldsters were unable to get 3rd class cards before the FAARP event kept them on the roads... er, in the skies. I suppose that puts them squarely in your "how F-ed up" group. We know also that before FAARP, many septa- and octogenarians were able to maintain medical cards.

What seems to be effed up is the apparent variability of the exams, or perhaps more likely, the variability or capriciousness of the examiners. I've done lots of medicals over the years, and they have varied considerably (sometimes outrageously) across different examiners. I've heard similar stories from others. So, I think it's fair to consider that at least sometimes, denial of a medical could be more related to the examiner than to the exam or the examined.

We also know that proficient practitioners at most endeavors don't suddenly lose abilities at some given age. However, on average, there is a loss of specific faculties as humans age. Reflexes, hearing, sight, etc. do degrade with age. But they do not degrade similarly for individuals in a population.

It seems to me that the system used to recognize individual differences and act accordingly. Lard-assed smokers often lost their cards at age 55 or 60, whereas other folks kept flying into their nineties.

It seems now that we are applying the "everyone's-a-winner-and-gets-a-ribbon" mentality to what should be a hard-science-based decision. And why? The populist front of FAARP members out there who don't want to be denied... anything... ever. Still, baring ties, there's only one first place regardless of how many ribbons are handed out. And still, math and science will continue to be the correct way to measure reality, regardless of how many folks have reasons to disregard or malign them.
My father is in his 70's and is considering the purchase of a hot rod of a plane. When I mentioned he might consider other pursuits as he ages he reminded me that I hadn't flown with him in a couple of years. I reminded him that I've been a passenger in his car pretty recently.
 

Roger Roger

Paid to sleep, fly for fun
#56
Lol. That was a joke, right? He just told you there was no source.

We do know that lots of oldsters were unable to get 3rd class cards before the FAARP event kept them on the roads... er, in the skies. I suppose that puts them squarely in your "how F-ed up" group. We know also that before FAARP, many septa- and octogenarians were able to maintain medical cards.

What seems to be effed up is the apparent variability of the exams, or perhaps more likely, the variability or capriciousness of the examiners. I've done lots of medicals over the years, and they have varied considerably (sometimes outrageously) across different examiners. I've heard similar stories from others. So, I think it's fair to consider that at least sometimes, denial of a medical could be more related to the examiner than to the exam or the examined.

We also know that proficient practitioners at most endeavors don't suddenly lose abilities at some given age. However, on average, there is a loss of specific faculties as humans age. Reflexes, hearing, sight, etc. do degrade with age. But they do not degrade similarly for individuals in a population.

It seems to me that the system used to recognize individual differences and act accordingly. Lard-assed smokers often lost their cards at age 55 or 60, whereas other folks kept flying into their nineties.

It seems now that we are applying the "everyone's-a-winner-and-gets-a-ribbon" mentality to what should be a hard-science-based decision. And why? The populist front of FAARP members out there who don't want to be denied... anything... ever. Still, baring ties, there's only one first place regardless of how many ribbons are handed out. And still, math and science will continue to be the correct way to measure reality, regardless of how many folks have reasons to disregard or malign them.
If only there were a requirement to prove every once in a while that one still possesses the cognitive ability to safely act as PIC. Say, every 2 years. The feds cold even lay out in their documentation some guidelines for what should be covered, and they could have a document showing some pass/fail criteria...
 

ahw01

Well-Known Member
#57
If only there were a requirement to prove every once in a while that one still possesses the cognitive ability to safely act as PIC. Say, every 2 years. The feds cold even lay out in their documentation some guidelines for what should be covered, and they could have a document showing some pass/fail criteria...
Some countries have licenses that expire, the horror...
 

USMCmech

Well-Known Member
#58
If only there were a requirement to prove every once in a while that one still possesses the cognitive ability to safely act as PIC. Say, every 2 years. The feds cold even lay out in their documentation some guidelines for what should be covered, and they could have a document showing some pass/fail criteria...
That's just crazy talk...
 
Top