On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 10:06:55 -0700, "Richard Isakson"
wrote:

(ii) 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms) for aircraft not intended for operation on
water; or

Cool...almost a hundred pounds higher than they originally were talking
about. This lets the Ercoupes in. If you look at EAA's old "These planes
don't qualify" section on this page...

http://www.sportpilot.org/lsa/standard_certificate_aircraft.html

....you'll see there are some Aeroncas, T-Carts, and even a J-3 model that
now qualify.

(4) A maximum stalling speed or minimum steady flight speed without the use
of lift-enhancing devices (VS1) of not more than 45 knots CAS at the
aircraft's maximum certificated takeoff weight and most critical center of
gravity.

Cool, too...they got rid of the "39 knots in landing configuration/45 knots
without deployment, etc." criteria.

(7) A fixed or ground-adjustable propeller if a powered aircraft other than
a powered glider.

Guess I'll give up on a cockpit-adjustable prop for the 'ol Fly Baby.

And from 61.23 Medical certificates: Requirement and duration

(2) A person using a current and valid U.S. driver's license to meet the
requirements of this paragraph must--

(ii) Have been found eligible for the issuance of at least a third-class
airman medical certificate at the time of his or her most recent application
(if the person has applied for a medical certificate);

(iii) Not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate (if
the person has held a medical certificate) suspended or revoked or most
recent Authorization for a Special Issuance of a Medical Certificate
withdrawn; and

(iv) Not know or have reason to know of any medical condition that would
make that person unable to operate a light-sport aircraft in a safe manner.

That's a bit irritating. I'm sure we all know guys who were hoping to be
able to step back into the cockpit with a "Driver's license medical". Then
again, there's the enforcement issue...if one is ramp-checked, all one
needs to show the guy is a driver's license. Inspectors are not likely to
have a list of folks who have lost medicals in the past. If someone
crashes, of course, the FAA will then find out.

I suspect dropping the medical requirement entirely was farther than the
FAA was willing to go. It may be, after some years of Sport Pilot
operation, that the EAA may be able to petition to have the rule amended
(which should be a LOT easier than having the basic process instituted in
the first place.) Unfortunately, they're just as likely to have a batch
of statistics pointing the OTHER way-- "...accident pilot was taking
medication for [heart problems, depression, diabetes, etc.] and was
operating illegally under the Sport Pilot provisions...." Too many of
those, and the FAA will probably re-institute the Class 3 medical
requirement.

On the whole, though, I'm pleased. This is a rule for the *future* of
aviation... we'll get a lot more young folks into the sport, with
lower-cost airplanes and, for newcomers at least, "a drivers-license
medical." But like most of us, I have buddies who'll be disappointed.

I'm trying to decide whether I'll bother to renew my 3rd class, when it's
due. The consequences of not passing are pretty severe. Then again, I
have to rent a plane for a BFR every two years. Won't be able to get a 172
and instructor unless I *do* have a medical, unless the local flight school
has LSAs in the line by the time I'm due....

Ron Wanttaja