It is interesting that aviation is increasingly being regulated far
more stringently by the insurance companies than by the FAA. The term "Self
Regulation" does not quite apply except in the very general sense that the
regulation comes from within the aviation industry, so I guess we could more
accurately call it "Market-Based regulation", or even "Insurance-Based
regulation".

Hmmm...insurance companies have driven a good deal of choices
in all walks of life. Motorcycle helmet laws, airbags,
mandatory seat belts, etc. were strongly
lobbied by insurance in CA to reduce variability of claims.

Recently, I was told auto-tow would not be allowed
at a public airport which averages 7 operations a day, due to
liability. At least two local airstrip owners within the past
five years have changed their minds and won't allow
aerotow out due to liability.

Recently, a group of three men bought a 1955 Cessna 310,
only to find that they could not be insured until they had 100+
hours in the plane. Finding an instructor with that many hours
was challenging too...

When I bought into our PW-5 syndicate, the insurer would
only insure pilots with a glider PPL. No solo students allowed...

I personally like the insurance way of evaluating things, but
I abhor their involvement lobbying in politics. Fortunately,
although I've seen insurers muck with auto laws (the
helmet law), I've seen no action on their part to
try to change glider regulations...

One thing the insurance companies have NOT done to glider
pilots for insurance is require a medical exam. They'd have
the power to ask for this despite the regs. I think the
actuaries have found that glider accidents caused by
medical conditions (aside from drugs/alchohol) are quite rare...
This was a bit of a help to the folks who were trying to
make sport pilot happen for power (since there was already some
positive glider data). This also seems to indicate to me that
the insurance company (non-political) policies are quite good...

As far as sport pilot goes, I'm hoping that after the
first round of approval, a second set of endorsement possibilities
will appear. I'm hoping a sport pilot may fly at altitudes higher than
10,000 if they get oxygen system training and aeromedical
training from a CFI, for example. Or perhaps night flight
endorsement after 3 hours of dual at night. Reduced visibility
endorsement (equivalent to the VFR PPL vis and cloud clearance minimums)
by completing 3 hours of simulated or actual IMC. Etc...
The change to make ground-launch an endorsement vs. a flight test
shows precedent. I hope this becomes true for Sport Pilot
also. Otherwise, with the 10,000 ft altitude restriction,
Sparrowhawk is unlikely to want to make a Sport version (at
least that was one downside that Greg Cole communicated to me).

This seems really reasonable and efficient to
make these limitations removeable by endorsement, because it
then would nicely also dovetail into a PPL...

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA