Personally, I completely agree with you.

Assuming that Cessna really did that lobbying, which is very likely, they
were fools. Flight schools, flying clubs, and nearly anyone who puts enough
hours on an aircraft to justify it, nearly always buy new and retire the
equipment while it is still recent vintage--simply because it makes economic
sense to do so.

Peter


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
...
Hi Ron! Glad to see you're still here.

IMHO, the C-150/152 class of aircraft was excluded from LSA for
political reasons. I'm sure Cessna lobbied hard to keep those
aircraft OUT of the category, since -- with many thousands of them in
the fleet -- they knew that would kill their hoped-for entry into the
field.

Of course, as it's worked out, the Skycatcher hasn't been the hot
seller they hoped for anyway -- but that's more related to the economy
than any regulatory rules.

The LSA rules WRT to Ercoupes are completely absurd. My E model,
identical in every way (except for paperwork) to a C/D model, can
NEVER be LSA. Funnier still: C models that have been STC'd for the
higher useful load (because, remember, the plane's are identical --
it's only a paperwork "mod") can NEVER be "un-STC'd". They are
FOREVER banned from the LSA category by that single sheet of paper.

No, this has nothing to do with "common sense" or "logic". The fact
that the FAA refuses to even look at these problems illustrates the
REAL problem.
--
Jay Honeck
Port Aransas, TX
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856


On Oct 27, 10:08 am, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On 10/26/2010 11:58 PM, Jay Honeck wrote:



I have to say, I can't find too much wrong with their logic.
Especially when combined with the fact that the FAA has applied the
LSA rules completely arbitrarily (Examples: Why is an Ercoupe 415-C
LSA, while a 415-E is not? Why is a C-150 not LSA, but a Champ is?
Etc., etc.), it's hard to argue with an old guy who just wants to fly,
and isn't risking anyone else's life or property.

*Any* selection of limits would be arbitrary. Their original limit was
1200 lbs, and they got talked into raising it. If they'd picked 1600
(allowing Cessna 150s), SOMEbody would point out a plane with a 1650
gross weight and complain that the rules were stupid and arbitrary. It
was a no-win situation for the FAA.

I thought the explanatory document the FAA put out at the time Sport
Pilot was announced was pretty clear. The LSA limits and Sport Pilot
were *not* instituted so that older pilots and planes could have a few
more years in the sun. It was intended to make it easier for new people
to learn to fly, and to encourage the production and sale of new,
ready-to-fly aircraft.

I agree it is tough on the guys who had failed their medicals prior to
Sport Pilot, and can't qualify under the new regs. But if you take the
long view (and rare it is that any government person DOES take the long
view) this is a problem that will correct itself over time. Anyone
flying now knows that flunking a medical will keep them from going Sport
Pilot. I haven't taken an FAA medical since the rules were instituted.

Keep in mind, though, that Sport Pilot DOES have medical requirements.
If you have a medical condition that would cause you to fail a Class III
medical, you cannot legally fly as a Sport Pilot.

However, I do agree with Jay on one point: Single-seat aircraft...up to
a limit...shouldn't require any sort of medical.

The question is, what *is* the limit? Should a pilot be able to fly an
unlimited racer without a medical? How about an F-104?

And it you put a limit in...sure as heck, someone will complain that it
was arbitrary and stupid....

Ron Wanttaja