I also agree.
Bill
I also agree.
Bill
This is too bad. What does the weight have to do with safety IF the aircraft meets the stall and top speed requirements?
I am looking hard at a SS but can't see rating it to 1320 and having no more capacity than my Zenith 601. I am considering jumping up to rec pilot if the medical rule change goes through. If it passes, I suspect that many sport pilots will also get a PP medical once and fly under rec pilot.
Again, it's a shame that weight is a factor at all if the low stall speed and top speed rules are met.
Last edited by TahoeTim; 03-18-2012 at 11:34 AM.
I think the weight consideration is more about potential for damage/harm to others. Since the way it was created no medical is really required you have a potentially higher risk for issues where an incapacitated pilot could cause damage to people or property. The weight limit would theoretically limit that. Not bashing old people, just saying what I think the FAA is thinking. Also, doesn't mean I like the feds or their bureaucracy either.
Last edited by Geowitz; 03-18-2012 at 11:44 AM.
Yeah, but we allow old people like me to drive rv's through the mountains with a DL.
My current plan is to roll the dice that the new 180 hp - any weight plane - - rec pilot - no medical rule goes through.
Jeez, I could fly a Pitts or Lancair without a medical under that proposal. What's the big deal about a 1500lb plane at 120kts when I could be in a rocket at 12500 lbs?
I am actually shocked about the giant gap between the rules. If it goes through, it will be goodbye to my sport pilot license and a whole new world of planes I can fly...
Can't say I disagree with that!
Has anyone ever heard why the 1320# (1450 amphib) limit was set? Seems like a number just pulled out of somebodies behind.
I thought that it may have been a European/metric reference (almost 600 kg - 598.75 kg to be exact), but I've never seen reference to that.
Seems to be a number perfect so that most certified 2-seaters won't work...
There's quite a bit out on the forum as to the theory. Some claim it was designed to knock out existing GA aircraft. But I've always wondered why the engine mfrs didn't lobby for more weight so they could sell more of their existing heavier engines into new planes. I am guessing that most didn't think the sport pilot and LSA rules would result in much more impact than rec pilot did.
I am predicting that the new rec pilot rule will swing it back the other way with guys like me that are happy with day VFR and one passenger will move up to rec pilot to fly less restrictive and cool planes. Any sport pilots out there ever dream of flying a Skybolt, Pitts, Beech, twin, Lancair, etc without needing to maintain a medical? There are thousands of GA planes out there under 180 hp. There are some really sexy experimental under 180 hp.
The used GA plane market is going to get hot and the used LSA classifieds are going to grow if I am right on this one. Most LSAs are too damn small and too damn expensive and most have "exotic" engines or auto conversions.
I have no direct knowledge of why 1320 was selected as the weight, but I have heard this explanation:
1. The primary purpose of LSA and Sport Pilot was to get better control of what were known as "fat ultralight" aircraft. They had no intent to make a lot of currently available certified aircraft LSA legal.
2. The secondary purpose of LSA and Sport Pilot was to support a (then) small struggling industry of new light aircraft constructed of composites and plastics. New aircraft that would cost $120,000 or so, needed a market where they were not in competition with used certified aluminum aircraft like the C-150 and C-152 selling for $20,000 or so.
3. The certified aircraft that fit in the definition of LSA, were essentially an unintended but necessary result of purpose 1 and 2.
4. The above is why I suspect the change to 180 HP for Rec Pilot without a medical, is unlikely to be approved.
Last edited by DBVZ; 03-18-2012 at 03:33 PM.
Dwight B. Van Zanen
Maple Valley, WA and
West Columbia, SC
PP/ASEL/IA
Avid Mk 4 Aerobat
1430 for floats...
Lets not forget that the proposed max gross weight for Light Sport was 1232. When the rule was published with the 1320 max gross it was a suprise to many, the increase was mostly based to allow the use of the heavier "certified" engines like the Lycoming O-235 and the Continental O-200. So we were told.
I think it was to allow for some of the Taylorcraft's, J3's, Aeronca's, etc...
Last edited by jdmcbean; 03-18-2012 at 06:07 PM.
Good catch. I recently saw an ad for a plan on floats with max gross of 1450, and thought....WHY? Perhaps they wrote the paperwork without knowing the right number. Or before the LSA rules were out. Bad in any case.
Dwight B. Van Zanen
Maple Valley, WA and
West Columbia, SC
PP/ASEL/IA
Avid Mk 4 Aerobat