Jump to content

Change SLSA Rules


gbigs

Recommended Posts

Once the PBOR2 medical reform expands what a person can fly on a drivers license....it becomes appropriate to also change the definition of Sport Pilot and SLSA rules.

 

SLSA should be allowed to expand to 6000lb gross, seat up to five, fly to FL18, have up to 200hp all under current SLSA category and type...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the pilot only has a sport license then it won't happen. He didn't get the same training or have to take the same test as a PP that just let his medical go.

 

That is part of the point.  If both private and sport pilot are flying on a DL the delta is negligible.  Any Sport Pilot can simply add night flying.

 

SLSA restictions for gross weight and horsepower and ceiling should be lifted.  And give every licensed Sport Pilot a one time waiver on the written, a requirement to pass the one time AME exam and fly the larger planes as long as they complete the 3 hours of night, consisting of 1 cross-country flight  and 10 takeoffs and landing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That is part of the point.  If both private and sport pilot are flying on a DL the delta is negligible.  Any Sport Pilot can simply add night flying.

SLSA restictions for gross weight and horsepower and ceiling should be lifted.  And give every licensed Sport Pilot a one time waiver on the written, a requirement to pass the one time AME exam and fly the larger planes as long as they complete the 3 hours of night, consisting of 1 cross-country flight  and 10 takeoffs and landing."

 

 

 

Under PBOR 2 the Private Pilot won't be 'flying on a DL'. The PBOR 2 specifically details the medical requirements. The pilot must have had a valid medical within the past 10 years, visit his physician every four years to assure fitness to fly, record that visit in his logbook, and undergo bi-annual on-line course reviewing pertinent medical issues. The pilot must not know of a medical condition which could affect his/her safe operation of an aircraft or their license.

 In addition, the pilot must possess a valid DL for his state. This point is often overlooked in discussions about PBOR 2.The DL's medical aspect under PBOR 2 isn't as important as it is for the sport pilot, but it does require it to be current and not suspended or revoked for DUIs etc.

 In this regard not having a valid DL grounds both a sport pilot and a PBOR 2 PPL, but it doesn't mean that the PBOR 2 PPL is 'flying on a DL', it just must be valid for the pilot's state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"That is part of the point.  If both private and sport pilot are flying on a DL the delta is negligible.  Any Sport Pilot can simply add night flying.

SLSA restictions for gross weight and horsepower and ceiling should be lifted.  And give every licensed Sport Pilot a one time waiver on the written, a requirement to pass the one time AME exam and fly the larger planes as long as they complete the 3 hours of night, consisting of 1 cross-country flight  and 10 takeoffs and landing."

 

 

 

Under PBOR 2 the Private Pilot won't be 'flying on a DL'. The PBOR 2 specifically details the medical requirements. The pilot must have had a valid medical within the past 10 years, visit his physician every four years to assure fitness to fly, record that visit in his logbook, and undergo bi-annual on-line course reviewing pertinent medical issues. The pilot must not know of a medical condition which could affect his/her safe operation of an aircraft or their license.

 In addition, the pilot must possess a valid DL for his state. The DL's medical aspect under PBOR 2 isn't as important as it is for the sport pilot, but it does require it to be current and not suspended or revoked for DUIs etc.

 In this regard not having a valid DL grounds both a sport pilot and a PBOR 2 PPL, but it doesn't mean that the PBOR 2 PPL is 'flying on a DL', it just must be valid for the pilot's state.

 

 

Not correct.  PBOR2 has no medical requirement other than a single AME exam for new pilots or one within the prior 10 years for existing pilots.  Getting medical exams at a private doctor has no connection to the FAA and no private doctor is privy to medical conditions that would make a pilot a risk to fly.  The entire process of taking online courses and making logbook entries are 'honor' system only, no FAA verification of a given pilots medical fitness.

 

The lack of verification is the EXACT same thing as flying on a drivers license because if you are medically unfit to drive a car you cannot fly a plane either (blindess, alzheimers etc).

 

Which begs the bigger question.  If pilots flying with no medical verification by the FAA can fly 6k pound aircraft, why can't SLSA be widened to fit all pilots needs?  The restrictions placed on sport pilot flying are moot once you take away the medical exams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not correct.  PBOR2 has no medical requirement other than a single AME exam for new pilots or one within the prior 10 years for existing pilots.  Getting medical exams at a private doctor has no connection to the FAA and no private doctor is privy to medical conditions that would make a pilot a risk to fly.  The entire process of taking online courses and making logbook entries are 'honor' system only, no FAA verification of a given pilots medical fitness.

 

The lack of verification is the EXACT same thing as flying on a drivers license because if you are medically unfit to drive a car you cannot fly a plane either (blindess, alzheimers etc).

 

Which begs the bigger question.  If pilots flying with no medical verification by the FAA can fly 6k pound aircraft, why can't SLSA be widened to fit all pilots needs?  The restrictions placed on sport pilot flying are moot once you take away the medical exams.

 

"Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. Inhofe, who introduced the Pilot’s Bill of Rights 2 earlier this year in efforts to push the FAA for the medical exemption, said the bill as it stands now would require pilots to do three things:

 

1) take an online aeromedical course every two years,

 

2) make logbook entries certifying they’ve seen their personal doctors at least once every four years (and received any needed treatment for medical conditions),

 

and  3) what Inhofe described as “a comprehensive medical review by the FAA” for new pilots.

 

Pilots without medicals for more than 10 years also would need the one-time certification. Pilots with current medicals or those lapsed within 10 years would be exempt."

 

You should direct your question to those in Washington DC that are currently putting PBOR 2 through the legislative process, as well as the FAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entire process of taking online courses and making logbook entries are 'honor' system only, no FAA verification of a given pilots medical fitness.

 

 

 

The online aeromedical course, taken once every two years, would be a requirement to keep your flying privileges. It would be free of charge to all pilots, whether or not they are AOPA or EAA members. We believe education is more effective than regulation, and this is the best way to get the important health information to everyone. It also would include information on how over-the-counter medications can affect our fitness for flying. The course will be run and maintained through the GA community’s communications channels, such as the AOPA Air Safety Institute. The FAA would only approve the content of the online course. If we as a flying community fail to show that we can be responsible for educating ourselves, more regulation will be put upon us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a Catch 22 for me. I have never had a medical and have always been a Sport Pilot. ("Always" meaning about 3 1/2 years.)

If I want to go Private under PBOR2 I would have to take the initial medical and take a chance on failing and losing my Sport License. There are times when a PP ticket would be nice, but not that often, for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a Catch 22 for me. I have never had a medical and have always been a Sport Pilot. ("Always" meaning about 3 1/2 years.)

If I want to go Private under PBOR2 I would have to take the initial medical and take a chance on failing and losing my Sport License. There are times when a PP ticket would be nice, but not that often, for me.

Doug,

 

 Each level of pilot certificate has it's own medical requirement. For instance ATPL/CPL requires each eye to be 20/20 or better, or correctable. PPL requires the same but 20/40. My state's DL requires 20/70. So just using this example if you knew your eyesight couldn't meet ATPL or CPL why would you apply only to be turned down? Well, unless your heart's desire was to fly at that level in which case you might do something medically to be able to qualify for the eyesight requirement.

  Similarly, if your personal flying 'mission' isn't anything to do with ATPL/CPL then why would you bother?

 

If you really wanted to fly PPL under PBOR 2 then you should ascertain beforehand if there is any medical issue you have that would risk denial before you actually apply. For instance if your eyesight was too poor to meet the standard for PPL but okay for sport flying. If you really want to fly under PBOR as a PPL then you can do what's needed to make sure you meet or exceed the requirement. 

 

Or settle for what you have now and enjoy your current 'mission'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a Catch 22 for me. I have never had a medical and have always been a Sport Pilot. ("Always" meaning about 3 1/2 years.)

If I want to go Private under PBOR2 I would have to take the initial medical and take a chance on failing and losing my Sport License. There are times when a PP ticket would be nice, but not that often, for me.

I feel the same...I guess I'll wait until the FAA figures out the third class adds no value. Shouldn't take long after PBOR2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the same...I guess I'll wait until the FAA figures out the third class adds no value. Shouldn't take long after PBOR2.

 

 Isn't the FAA's position that the 3rd Class medical would provide, in their view, a 'baseline' medical from which the pilot moves forward with a meeting with his physician every four years  and the on-line course etc?

 For a new pilot a 3rd Class now, and for others at least a current medical within the past 10 years?

 

 There hasn't been much explanation of the reasoning behind the new rules leaving us to guess. On the other hand, after PBOR 2 passes, if the FAA has a look at some pilots records as to compliance, through ramp checks or accident investigations, and pilots are found at fault, it could eventually lead to implementation of more onerous rules down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the same...I guess I'll wait until the FAA figures out the third class adds no value. Shouldn't take long after PBOR2.

 

Just to keep the terms straight.  PBOR2 is now in the Senate.  If it passes the Senate and the House it goes to Obama to be signed.  The FAA will have one year to change the rules.  The effect of the rule changes are to reduce 3rd class AME exams to once for new pilots (or a sport pilot upgrading to private) and not again for lapsed med pilots who have had one within the ten years from the time the FAA finishes the rule change  (at least a year a more from now).

 

At that point for those who are now licensed sport pilots nothing changes and you are still restricted to LSA as the rules exist now.  For those flying as sport pilots now with lapsed medicals not more than 10 years old will be eligible to fly LSA and aircraft up to 6k lbs gross, seats five, below FL18, IFR & VFR in low level Victor airways, speed of 200 IAS. 

 

So it makes sense that SLSA and LSA be expanded to allow the higher gross, more seats, higher ceilings, IFR capability and higher speeds since the pilots restricted to LSA now will be allowed to fly the larger, faster aircraft..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ctdriver2015

Actually, that's not quite correct.  The PBOR2 will become law when President Obama signs it into law.  The FAA will then need to put the new rules in place.  If they aren't in place within one year of enactment, we can begin flying without a 3rd class medical anyway. Presumable it won't take one year, but we'll see. So, the wait will be a maximum of one year, not a minimum of one year.

 

Also, the 10 year look-back begins when the PBOR2 becomes law.  That will be when President Obama signs it, not when the FAA puts the new rules in place.  Also, the 10 years is back to the last time your HELD a medical, not when the medical was issued.  So, if you had a 2 year medical, it's really a 12 year look-back.  If you were issued a 24 month medical certificate in January 2004, it expired 1/31/2006.  You will be covered if President Obama signs the bill into law by 1/31/2016.

 

The PBOR2 has nothing to do with Sport Pilots.  They can already fly without a 3rd class medical, so there is no reason it would.  A Private or higher will still be required to fly other that LSA.  There is no reason this would change because the training, experience, limitations, and privileges for a Sport Pilot are not affected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had hoped for the same driver's license rule that Sport Pilots are under. Like I said. It wouldn't change my life much, just let me rent planes in occasion, and fly at night.

I honestly don't think the purpose of Light Sport came anywhere near what it was supposed to. It didn't end up cheap, and for pilots leaving their Private behind it did not make sense to take them out of their 172s and put them in something they are not used to and in many cases are harder to fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think I'd be perfectly happy if they added a night endorsement for Sport Pilots.  Maybe once thousands of pilots are flying at night with no medicals that idea will gain traction.

 

But I'm with Doug...I'd like to have the added flexibility a PP certificate brings, but not enough to want to get into the medical system and take even a slim risk of being busted down to flying only ultralights and gliders/motorgliders.

 

I've flown across large swathes of the country as a Sport Pilot, in all types of airspace (except class A!) and never felt particularly restricted by the rating.  Night and high altitude endorsements would be nice and add little danger to SP pilots or others in my opinion, but without them I'll be just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, that's not quite correct.  The PBOR2 will become law when President Obama signs it into law.  The FAA will then need to put the new rules in place.  If they aren't in place within one year of enactment, we can begin flying without a 3rd class medical anyway. Presumable it won't take one year, but we'll see. So, the wait will be a maximum of one year, not a minimum of one year.

 

Also, the 10 year look-back begins when the PBOR2 becomes law.  That will be when President Obama signs it, not when the FAA puts the new rules in place.  Also, the 10 years is back to the last time your HELD a medical, not when the medical was issued.  So, if you had a 2 year medical, it's really a 12 year look-back.  If you were issued a 24 month medical certificate in January 2004, it expired 1/31/2006.  You will be covered if President Obama signs the bill into law by 1/31/2016.

 

The PBOR2 has nothing to do with Sport Pilots.  They can already fly without a 3rd class medical, so there is no reason it would.  A Private or higher will still be required to fly other that LSA.  There is no reason this would change because the training, experience, limitations, and privileges for a Sport Pilot are not affected.

 

No.  The FAA will have one year to change the rule.  It does not become effective until the FAA does it's part.  Congress cannot change the FAR.

 

The sport pilot discussion is about logic.  If those flying as sport pilot now with those restriction are suddenly allowed into the larger aircraft, then SLSA, LSA and sport pilots should also follow and be allowed to grow into the same specs.  The only difference is night flight and 20 questions on a written for those licensed as sport pilot.  Trivial difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once the PBOR2 medical reform expands what a person can fly on a drivers license....it becomes appropriate to also change the definition of Sport Pilot and SLSA rules.

 

SLSA should be allowed to expand to 6000lb gross, seat up to five, fly to FL18, have up to 200hp all under current SLSA category and type...

 Are you saying that SLSAs should no longer be restricted to 1320lbs and 120kts, 2 people, day VFR below 10k?  Are you saying just SLSAs or are you including ELSA and EAB as well?

 

Are you suggesting they just fold the sport pilot rules into PPL?

 

Are you suggesting that sport pilots now fly under the same PBOR 2 medical rules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.  The FAA will have one year to change the rule.  It does not become effective until the FAA does it's part.  Congress cannot change the FAR.

 

Congress CAN change the FAR; the FAA is a legislative agency. They don't though, because it creates a lot of its own problems. For one, regulatory agencies have a process that they MUST follow. Congressional action sidestepping it would cause a huge amount of headache.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congress CAN change the FAR; the FAA is a legislative agency. They don't though, because it creates a lot of its own problems. For one, regulatory agencies have a process that they MUST follow. Congressional action sidestepping it would cause a huge amount of headache.

 

Actually, having an enforcement function, FAA would be part of the executive branch, in that they execute the laws put in place by Congress.  Of course what you said is completely correct in that Congress can change any law affecting enforcement at any time.  Congress makes the rules, the agencies just interpret and enforce them.  If Congress makes rules with no room for interpretation, FAA's hands are tied on enforcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, having an enforcement function, FAA would be part of the executive branch, in that they execute the laws put in place by Congress.  Of course what you said is completely correct in that Congress can change any law affecting enforcement at any time.  Congress makes the rules, the agencies just interpret and enforce them.  If Congress makes rules with no room for interpretation, FAA's hands are tied on enforcement.

 

Actually, it is the NTSB that is an executive agency. The FAA is legislative. It's backwards, I know!

 

If you get fined by the FAA, you can try to take it before an NTSB judge, who have the power to overturn it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it is the NTSB that is an executive agency. The FAA is legislative. It's backwards, I know!

 

If you get fined by the FAA, you can try to take it before an NTSB judge, who have the power to overturn it.

 

That is backwards...and wrong.   ;)  

 

This website lists FAA as an executive agency under the Department of Transportation (also an executive agency):

 

https://www.loc.gov/rr/news/fedgov.html

 

 

The "NTSB judge" appeal process is actually "administrative law" not criminal law.  That is how disputes over non-criminal regulatory violations are handled.  

 

Several FAA actions have been undertaken by direction of the President through executive orders; EOs can only be issued to executive components of government, since the President has no rule-making authority to either the Legislative or Judicial branches.  By definition an EO is a directive on how an executive function is to be carried out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are also several cases in history where congress had excercised oversight of the FAA. Maybe it would be best not to try and draw a line between the agencies, since administrative law does act differently than brancjes of government. As for EOs, I don't know of any, but I am too busy right now to go researching, so I will admit defeat and accept your points for now :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are also several cases in history where congress had excercised oversight of the FAA. Maybe it would be best not to try and draw a line between the agencies, since administrative law does act differently than brancjes of government. As for EOs, I don't know of any, but I am too busy right now to go researching, so I will admit defeat and accept your points for now :P

 

Yay, I win!   :lol:

 

Seriously though, part of the issue here is a tangled bureaucracy that makes distinctions difficult for folks who are not lawyers.  I'm guessing that was not how our system was originally conceived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay, I win!   :lol:

 

Seriously though, part of the issue here is a tangled bureaucracy that makes distinctions difficult for folks who are not lawyers.  I'm guessing that was not how our system was originally conceived.

I just remembered who told me the FAA was legislative. A bunch of other things they said were wrong too. So I am siding with you on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...