How about six seats, under 6000lb, day or night on a driver's license?

[FlyingMonkey]

Some in Congress decided to take the driver's license medical proposal out of FAA's hands since they dragged feet on it so long...

 

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/December/11/new-bill-would-expand-drivers-license-medical.aspx?CMP=ADV:1

 

It's like a wish list for sport pilots and guys worried about their medical.

[Andy]

Probably not helpful to Light Sport, per se, but could open the door back to standard category airplanes for Private and higher certificated pilots to fly LSA's and everything else they were in on a DL (up to 6000 lbs)..as well as night flying. If it makes it into law, wonder how long it will take to get it integrated in the regs? Light Sport's been here since 2004 and the regs still aren't fixed from that impact. Since the law is being passed because the FAA couldn't even act on one petition on this subject over the last two years (and that's not even mentioning the two word fix proposed in another petition by EAA and AOPA to let CFI-S dual time count toward the Private that's been out there that long ), I ain't holding my breath....

[FastEddieB]

Here's hoping.

 

It would give me a lot more options.

 

Though I'd almost certainly stay with Experimental Light Sport - the ability to do my own maintenance, mods and annuals is a huge plus.

[Tip]

Five gallons an hour at $3.75 a gallon is tough to beat in GA.

[S4Flier]

All depends on the mission. I like a stall speed below 45 kts, cruise above 110kts, designed and built in this century, chute, and relative ease at upgrading equipment (as compared to certified). Also, much lighter controls and, for me, more fun to fly than the Pipers and Bellanca's I've flown. Others will value more traditional, used choices from Piper, Cessna, etc that have their own advantages.

 

To each their own -- and let's hope whatever passes gets more people in the air!

[Rich]

Here's hoping is right!

 

I hope night flight is incorporated in the Bill.

 

As a PP operating under the LS rules, I'd like, once again, to be able to fly at night.

That's something that I really miss.

 

Last weeks video of the night flight over Columbus OH reminded me how much I've missed it.

 

[WmInce]

False analysis.

A used Cessna compared to a NEW light sport at the high end is apples to oranges. Lets redo it properly:

FD CTLSi $150,000

Cessna 172 $330,000

Difference $180,000

CTLSi 3.5 GPH Mogas ($3.40 x 3.5 = $12/hr)

C172 7.5 GPH 100LL ($6.40 x 7.5 = $48/hr)

The Cessna isn't even in the ballpark. You pay a LOT for the extra two seats. Cessna stopped making ALL their two seaters, 152, 162 etc.

 

For a real nice C-172, you don't have to spend $330,000 . . . or even come close to that.

And that includes a lot of up to date avionics.

And . . . as an added bonus . . . it's aluminum!

[S4Flier]

Rich,

 

The bill is only 2 pages long and would allow a PP flying an LSA to:

 

* Fly VFR over a cloud layer

* Fly at night

* Fly in furtherance of a business

* Fly up to 14K feet (no mention of 'or 2K AGL whichever is higher)

[WmInce]

It will be a revelation in general aviation.

I love the CT, but for me, it opens up a whole new set of possibilities.

The questions now are . . . will it pass through and become law . . . and once passed, how long will it take to be implemented.

 

The FAA could take years to implement "their version."

[WmInce]

and fly planes up to 6000 pounds, up to 5 passengers, retractable gear, variable pitch props, multi-engine.

 

I seriously doubt all that. There certainly will be some major tweaking.

Personally, I would settle for a lot less than that.

[S4Flier]

It will be a revelation in general aviation.

I love the CT, but for me, it opens up a whole new set of possibilities.

The questions now are . . . will it pass through and become law . . . and once passed, how long will it take to be implemented.

 

The FAA could take years to implement "their version."

Current bill gives the FAA 180 days to implement.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Flying in pursuit of business, on top, at night and up to 14,000' are all things I want. Trading up from 120kts @ 5gph to 155kts @ 10gph and going from light to heavy controls not so much. Then again there are those flights where light sport is just a bit too light.

[Doug G.]

At this point, it looks like it only has two sponsors - Republicans in the House. That in itself may be an issue. I am also a bit concerned about having congress micromanage aviation. It opens things up for problems in the future.

[Doug G.]

Yup, sorry, I missed that paragraph and I see one of our MN representatives is included.

[S4Flier]

Get the GA Caucus aligned, like the pilot bill of rights, and some form of this has a good chance of being pushed through.

[FlyingMonkey]

It will be a revelation in general aviation.

I love the CT, but for me, it opens up a whole new set of possibilities.

The questions now are . . . will it pass through and become law . . . and once passed, how long will it take to be implemented.

 

The FAA could take years to implement "their version."

 

Exactly my thought. Even if it cut the resale value of my CT in half, it would be entirely worth it for the great advantages all pilots would gain. I'd happily take that hit, keep flying my CT, get my private certificate, and open up new possibilities for myself. I would probably keep my CT, but it would be nice to have the option to fly bigger planes if I wanted to down the road. And with the BRS, I can't imagine a safer single engine airplane to fly night VFR in.

[Doug G.]

My concern with this is, what happens if we get a congress that decides small planes are not of particular value - like the space program - and they decide to direct the FAA to make rules that really hurt?

As bad as the FAA sometimes is (actually not my experience), congress could be much worse.

(I am not sure if our MN representative has the good of GA in mind or if it has more to do with Cirrus and re-election.)

[Rich]

Dave,

Thanks for that info.

[Adam]

Imagine a world with a bill like this signed into law, in conjunction with a vastly revamped part 23 that allows manufacturers to bring new designs to market quickly and with less cost. Pinch me, I must be dreaming! I hate it when I drool in my sleep!

[paul m]

The combination of the two would make it very tough on LSA makers. If only medical petition/law passes, I think there is still a business case for LSA because you can buy a new one for less than half the cost of Part 23 planes and you can add more advanced components such as Dynon Skyview for much lower cost and time than certified avionics. If the Part 23 rewrite realizes its promise, that advantage goes away. I really hope the C4 project is successful and guarantees FD's long term viability. And don't forget...this is a U.S. issue. Those LSA makers who have a substantial business outside the U.S. should still survive.

[FlyingMonkey]

My concern with this is, what happens if we get a congress that decides small planes are not of particular value - like the space program - and they decide to direct the FAA to make rules that really hurt?

As bad as the FAA sometimes is (actually not my experience), congress could be much worse.

(I am not sure if our MN representative has the good of GA in mind or if it has more to do with Cirrus and re-election.)

 

That's always a danger, nothing has changed in that regard. We are always at the mercy of busybody lawmakers and regulators.

 

That said, politicians are by nature cowards. They like their power and want to get reelected to further that power. As a result, very few would be willing to go to their districts and try to explain why they need to kill a bunch of jobs at FBOs, flight schools, etc as well as the reduced local income from people flying into the area. No Congresscritter wants to be seen as harming any industry, ever.

[Tom Baker]

With the part 23 rewrite and the medical going away would hurt LSA. The thing that it does open up is airplanes like the CTLSi becoming new part 23 airplanes with maybe a 1500 pound gross weight. Now a 120-125kt 2 place airplane with good useful load and only burning 4 GPH, that would be something.

[FlyingMonkey]

The combination of the two would make it very tough on LSA makers. If only medical petition/law passes, I think there is still a business case for LSA because you can buy a new one for less than half the cost of Part 23 planes and you can add more advanced components such as Dynon Skyview for much lower cost and time than certified avionics. If the Part 23 rewrite realizes its promise, that advantage goes away. I really hope the C4 project is successful and guarantees FD's long term viability. And don't forget...this is a U.S. issue. Those LSA makers who have a substantial business outside the U.S. should still survive.

 

I think the LSA will continue to be cheaper than equivalent Part 23 aircraft, even with the new rules changes. So for somebody wanting a two seat airplane with good performance and a reasonable useful load, the CT would still be a strong contender in that space. I don't think LSA would die off exactly, but the manufacturers on the margins would probably not survive. You'd end up with a few stout survivors that can compete with similar certified airplanes like Flight Design, Cub Crafters, maybe Pipestrel.

 

The Sport Pilot Certificate would for practical purposes cease to exist. When you can get a private with no medical and have much greater flexibility than the SP for only marginally more training cost, that's a no-brainer. The only SPs left would probably be legacy guys who never want to fly anything larger, at night, or above 10,000 feet.

[FlyingMonkey]

With the part 23 rewrite and the medical going away would hurt LSA. The thing that it does open up is airplanes like the CTLSi becoming new part 23 airplanes with maybe a 1500 pound gross weight. Now a 120-125kt 2 place airplane with good useful load and only burning 4 GPH, that would be something.

 

That is a good point, if FD would retroactively agree to increase gross weight on any FD airplane individually that requested it (taking it out of LSA), there would be dancing in the streets. But I don't know if the CTs will meet the new Part 23 certification standards or not, and it might not be worth it for FD to re-certify existing airplanes when they could just introduce "enhanced" models with bigger payload to draw in new buyers.

[Anticept]

In my personal opinion, Flight Design will largely be unaffected by the change in law. They are an international company, and they don't market their planes by using LSA as a crutch; they instead focus on trying to make a quality product. This and with the C4, and possibly the simplification of part 23, it would actually make their company stronger.

 

What this will hurt are little training organizations like mine that love using light sport aircraft. It won't put us out of the game because we advertise LSA as being about enjoying a well built plane, but a lot of people come to us because of the medical problem. If we get them in the cockpit for an hour, people keep coming back, but it's that initial hump that is high.