Sport Pilot ever going to happen?

DOT took considerably longer than their allotted time but passed it!



Leon McAtee wrote:

(Joepole) wrote in message
. com...
Didn't the DOT sign off on it on December 23rd, meaning the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has 90 days to sign off and return it to
the FAA?

Isn't today (March 22nd) 90 days after December 23rd?

That's the way it was explained to me, or at least my understanding of
the explination. NPRM - comment periond - FAA aproval - then off to
DOT for 30 day review - then off to OMB for their review. If DOT or
the OMB didn't approve in the alloted time then we start all over with
another NPRM.

Could be working days not calander days? Or maybe the OMB didn't like
it and killed it with the equivilant of a "pocket veto"?

===================
Leon McAtee
Believe it when I see it..as long as the vision is confirmed by an
independent observer.

Cool man, Thanks for the info man,
Scrappman

SadlerVampire18 wrote:

Sport Pilot is not on hold, See the comments just publiched on the USUA
site. - Bartman
From http://www.usua.org

03/23/2004: Sport Pilot Rumors Abound; And They Are Just That -
RUMORS

As Sport Pilot/Light Sport Aircraft weaves it's way through the
regulatory process, much anticipation and concern is felt by all who
will be affected by the new rules. Under these circumstances, rumors
and misinformation can be interpreted as truth.

Recently, at the Virginia State Ultralight Safety Seminar, at which I
was privileged to attend, it was reported by FAA that Sport Pilot was
sent back to FAA for a re-write, and that the rule was effectively on
hold. This information was given by the local Richmond FSDO Safety
Program Manager, so much interest was given to his statement.

After hearing this, I immediately contacted Sport Pilot Program
Manager Sue Gardner for verification and clarification. Ms. Gardner
replied directly to me via phone, just minutes ago, that this
information was NOT CORRECT. She stated that the rule was NOT SENT
BACK TO FAA FOR A RE-WRITE, AND THAT IS WAS INDEED STILL AT THE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET PROGRESSING AS EXPECTED. She would
give no time frame to expect the rule to be released, however it is
safe to expect release later this year.

For those of us hungry for new information concerning this very
important regulation, it is sometimes easy to fall victim to any
rumor that may provide insight into what to expect. USUA cautions
everyone to wait until information is provided from the highest
levels of FAA before jumping to any conclusions. USUA is in direct
communication with persons in those offices, and will post only
confirmed updates.

United States Ultralight Association, Inc.
Dale Hooper
Executive Vice President

Why would anybody NOT want Sport Pilot to pass?? Would that be a GA Pilot
barking because HE went the GA Way and now doesn't want anybody to enjoy
flying unless they go HIS way?

Propbuster
"Scrappman" wrote in message
...
I just got a forward message, from one of the U.L. e-mail lists, hope its
bull,,,,,,, here it is,

Hi All,
It was announced at our ultralight safety seminar today by the
local FSDO that sport pilot rules is on hold. The rule was found to
have problems that need further reform after a recent review by FAA.
It will not be announced at Sun-N-Fun and possibly not at Oshkosh
this summer. Hurray, a reprieve for at least another year.

Wonder if its B.S. , anyone else attend this meeting, it was posted on
the 20th,,,
Scrappman

TaxSrv wrote:

"Joepole" wrote in message
om...

Didn't the DOT sign off on it on December 23rd, meaning the Office

of

Management and Budget (OMB) has 90 days to sign off and return it to
the FAA?

Isn't today (March 22nd) 90 days after December 23rd?


I think I found the rule, just an Executive Order - #12866. OMB has
90 calendar days to complete review, but it can by mutual agreement be
extended another 30. After that and with no disputes to resolve, I
can't find anywhere in 5 USC (law governing agency rulemaking ) that
says how long an agency (FAA) has to publish the final.

Also, the criteria under which OMB reviews the rule appear to be
things which are not involved in Sport Pilot (e.g., excessive
regulation; conflict with other agency rules). So it's likely just a
matter where, in the grand scheme of things a rather minor rule, all
the parties use the full time given to tend to more important
rulemaking matters.

Fred F.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 02:59:34 GMT, "Checkursix"
wrote:

Why would anybody NOT want Sport Pilot to pass?? Would that be a GA Pilot
barking because HE went the GA Way and now doesn't want anybody to enjoy
flying unless they go HIS way?

No, I think you'll find it the other way around. Some people in the
ultralight community are concerned that it's the first nail in the coffin
for Part 103. IIRC, one big objection is that it takes the two-seat
ultralight trainers and requires them to be licensed.

Ron Wanttaja

"Checkursix" wrote in message
...
Why would anybody NOT want Sport Pilot to pass?? Would that be a GA Pilot
barking because HE went the GA Way and now doesn't want anybody to enjoy
flying unless they go HIS way?

Propbuster

No, I haven't heard of any GA comment against
Sport..
Most of the negative Sport people are pure ULers.
Many don't want to loose the 2 place exemption.

Hey, it's too late for official comment anyway.

Skyking

"Skyking" wrote:
No, I haven't heard of any GA comment against
Sport..
Most of the negative Sport people are pure ULers.
Many don't want to loose the 2 place exemption.

Hey, it's too late for official comment anyway.

If you would, clue me in on something. I consider myself a pure UL'er -
103 is not going away is it? If not why as a pure ul'er would I care?

I am somewhat interested in moving to SP when it happens tho.

Thanks,
Jim

(www.JimWilliamson.net) wrote in
:

"Skyking" wrote:
No, I haven't heard of any GA comment against
Sport..
Most of the negative Sport people are pure ULers.
Many don't want to loose the 2 place exemption.

Hey, it's too late for official comment anyway.

If you would, clue me in on something. I consider myself a pure UL'er
- 103 is not going away is it? If not why as a pure ul'er would I
care?

I am somewhat interested in moving to SP when it happens tho.

Thanks,
Jim


103 is alive and well and is not currently scheduled to change.

It's the way 2 place UL's and "FAT" (read "illegal") UL's are handled
that will change. All 2 place UL's will have to be converted to LSA's
after the grandfathering period the way I read it. "FAT" UL's (one
place UL's that are over weight) were never legal anyway and SP will
give them a shot a flying legally...

It's the BFI with a 2 place that has given 500 "lessons" but never
solo'd a student that is against it... why? I have no idea....

--
ET


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

a pure Ultralighter wouldn't care about Sport Pilot would they?
An Ultralight is 254lbs or less
--
You may be an Ultralighter if........
http://www.flyinggators.com/news/Bill%20Cook/Bill.htm
--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/



"Skyking" wrote ..
No, I haven't heard of any GA comment against
Sport..
Most of the negative Sport people are pure ULers.
Many don't want to loose the 2 place exemption.

Hey, it's too late for official comment anyway.

Skyking

In article ET,
writes:
It's the BFI with a 2 place that has given 500 "lessons" but never
solo'd a student that is against it... why? I have no idea....

Actually, most of the real BFI's I've talked to are against it. The
reason is, if I understand it correctly, that it takes your currently
usable training aircraft and regulates it out of use in 3 years, and
forces you to buy a factory built aircraft to teach in instead. I know
that I won't be able to make that kind of financial stretch to keep on
teaching - it simply won't pay back - and resent being forced to when I
have a perfectly serviceable aircraft now. I expect most other BFI's are
in the same situation.

So in 3 years many of the current BFI's will be forced out of business.
That means fewer people to train new pilots, and more expensive training
if you can find it. It's not even clear whether many manufacturers will
even be willing to sell completed aircraft for training use, with the
potential liability issues there. So you may be forced to train in GA
aircraft and then self transition into lighter UL types. Less training
and training in a different class of aircraft than you are actually going
to fly in probably won't do good things for the accident rate. :-(

And if you buy a factory built aircraft, you can't do your own work and
repairs on it, so it has to go to an AP, again increasing costs to the
BFI, and thence to the student. Too high a cost is what has shrunk the
American flying public from about 800,000 at it's peak down to the
current 500,00 or so.

IMHO - Sport Pilot could be ok, IF they left the 2 seat training
exemption in place, and just bumped up the UL empty weight limits to 350#
for part 103 and 600# for 2 seaters under the training exemption. But as
we last saw it, it looks like it's intended to screw the current BFI's
out of existance and force all training to the existing GA CFI's. I'd
rather have what we have now than that.

Kevin

Current online message from EAA :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FAA TEMPORARILY RETRACTS SPORT PILOT PROPOSAL
Action Allows FAA to Answer OMB Questions


March 25, 2004 - FAA Administrator Marion Blakey ordered an
administrative move on Wednesday, March 24, that keeps the sport
pilot/light-sport aircraft rule on track for final approval this spring. She
withdrew the proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
answer several final questions about the rulemaking package.
That maneuver saves the rule from facing a potential significant delay
in its approval. By bringing the proposal back to FAA, Blakey can address
OMB's questions in the most expeditious manner and return it quickly for
final approval. FAA will return the rulemaking package directly to OMB
without another complete review by the Department of Transportation.

March 24 marked the end of OMB's 90-day review period. Had FAA not
retracted the rule, OMB could have rejected it, severely delaying issuance
of a final rule.

While expressing disappointment in the 11th-hour development, EAA
President Tom Poberezny commended FAA's decision and acknowledged it as the
best way for the agency to address OMB's questions and secure a final rule
as quickly as possible.

"This is a temporary timing setback," he said. "EAA continues to
champion and support the sport pilot/light-sport aircraft rule, as evidenced
by the considerable resources we've dedicated to developing programs and
services for our members, including the introduction this week of EAA Sport
Pilot & Light-Sport Aircraft magazine." Poberezny also noted an upcoming
announcement regarding a major sport pilot and instructor training program.

FAA officials confirmed to EAA that answering OMB's questions about
the proposed rule is a top priority.





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Gilan" wrote in message
.net...

Only 24 days, 1 hours, 56 minutes, and 59 seconds left until Sun n Fun
I wonder if Sport Pilot will ever come out???

--
You may be an Ultralighter if........
http://www.flyinggators.com/news/Bill%20Cook/Bill.htm

--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/