>This means that if there is any question of eligibility for a medical
>certificate, it may become worthwhile to schedule an "aeromedical
>consultation" or "aeromedical office visit" with your AME before you fill
>out an actual application for a medical certificate.

I like the word "consultation". Do you have any suggestion of how
such a consultation should go? How open should one be? Seems to me
there is a danger that I might put ideas into the AME's head!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

I'm not sure what was gained with the Sport Pilot rule. This Catch 22 on
the medical seems to have wiped out the primary advantage of this new
rule while placing more flyers under FAA regulation. All this with AOPA
and EAA "looking out for us".

Seems like the only option now is to go to a regular doc for a "pre medical"
to make sure you're up to Part 67 standards before you go for the regular
one.


"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
...
>
> A major topic of discussion at Oshkosh has been the new Light Sport Pilot
> rule. Based upon some discussion among AMEs at Oshosh, there are some
> interesting implications of this rule which may be of interest to all
> pilots, not just potential sport pilots.
>
> The new Sport Pilot rule allows a pilot to fly a Light Sport Airplane with
a
> valid state driver license and self-certification in lieu of a medical
> certificate. However, there is a catch -- if a pilot has previously
applied
> for and been denied a medical certificate, then he may NOT self-certify
with
> a driver license for sport pilot privileges unless he successfully obtains
a
> Special Issuance certificate at least once after the denial.
>
> This means that if there is any question of eligibility for a medical
> certificate, it may become worthwhile to schedule an "aeromedical
> consultation" or "aeromedical office visit" with your AME before you fill
> out an actual application for a medical certificate. There are situations
> where your AME might "Recommend Sport Pilot Operations" yet if you fill
out
> an application for a medical, the AME then has no choice but to send the
> form into the FAA for processing and possible denial.
>
> --------------------
> Richard Kaplan, M.D., AME, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

Personally I think we got a lot. While the number of people who have
been denied a medical, or had one suspended isn't smal, neither it is
huge. I think the FAA said something on the order of 1-2% of
applications get turned down, and many of those just because the
proper paperwork never ended up getting filed.

I think a lot of people who know they might be 'iffy' for their next
third-class medical will simply forgo it, and fly LSA. Additionally,
given how ****ed many people seem about it (and the EAA as well), I'd
expect that there will eventually be some kind of 'accomodation' where
a person having been denied a medical before can see a general
physician, who can certify that the person is 'safe to drive' and the
FAA will accpt that. Given how swamped the Aeromedical Division is
right now, I can't imagine much appetite in the FAA to add 50% more
applications to their workload.

To me, the primary advantage of the new rule isn't the medical
stuff(altho that is nice). It is the dramatically decreased cost of
earning a relatively useful license (i.e. decent XC rules, and the
Recreational Certificate prohibition on the use in furtherence of a
business seems to have been dropped as well), as well as the expected
increased availablity of inexpensive LSA planes. Rans is already
selling a 'turn-key' plane that compares very favorably with a Cessna
152 for under $50,000. As more people enter the market, I expect
prices to go down.

Even though the medical thing may take a while to get resolved, I
can't see how the possibility of owing a $40,000, 120 knot,
650lb-useful-load, brand new two-seater that costs $30 an hour to fly
can be a *bad* thing.

Cheers,

Cap


"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message >...
> I'm not sure what was gained with the Sport Pilot rule. This Catch 22 on
> the medical seems to have wiped out the primary advantage of this new
> rule while placing more flyers under FAA regulation. All this with AOPA
> and EAA "looking out for us".
>
> Seems like the only option now is to go to a regular doc for a "pre medical"
> to make sure you're up to Part 67 standards before you go for the regular
> one.
>
>
> "Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > A major topic of discussion at Oshkosh has been the new Light Sport Pilot
> > rule. Based upon some discussion among AMEs at Oshosh, there are some
> > interesting implications of this rule which may be of interest to all
> > pilots, not just potential sport pilots.
> >
> > The new Sport Pilot rule allows a pilot to fly a Light Sport Airplane with
> a
> > valid state driver license and self-certification in lieu of a medical
> > certificate. However, there is a catch -- if a pilot has previously
> applied
> > for and been denied a medical certificate, then he may NOT self-certify
> with
> > a driver license for sport pilot privileges unless he successfully obtains
> a
> > Special Issuance certificate at least once after the denial.
> >
> > This means that if there is any question of eligibility for a medical
> > certificate, it may become worthwhile to schedule an "aeromedical
> > consultation" or "aeromedical office visit" with your AME before you fill
> > out an actual application for a medical certificate. There are situations
> > where your AME might "Recommend Sport Pilot Operations" yet if you fill
> out
> > an application for a medical, the AME then has no choice but to send the
> > form into the FAA for processing and possible denial.
> >
> > --------------------
> > Richard Kaplan, M.D., AME, CFII
> >
> > www.flyimc.com
> >
> >