Jump to content

Change SLSA Rules


gbigs

Recommended Posts

At 66, I must admit my night vision is not what it once was, so I might voluntarily restrict my night flying anyway.

 

But I'd like to have the option of going over 10,000' on rare occasions.

 

And the "visual reference to the surface" requirement has limited me once or twice - and seems silly for someone with an instrument rating, albeit not current.

 

But overall, I'm just glad to still be in the air!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I pulled down an actual copy of the bill and went through it this morning.  It is not even as much of a "pass" as it's been portrayed.  The requirement for medical education every 24 months and a doctor's exam every 48 months must be met BEFORE flying under the act AND there is a checklist (composed of items off the FAA medical form and not yet constructed by the FAA) and exam items the doctor must cover, ending with the doctor signing a statement that he/she considers you safe to fly an aircraft. (Again, all before you fly under the act.) So, in essence, you will be required to get what amounts to a third class medical by someone who is not an AME and that doctor must be comfortable with signing you off to fly an aircraft even though they are not aviation trained. I think that could be a huge problem and essentially just transfers the 3rd class requirement to your local physician instead of adhering to the philosophy that pilots' self-certification is really the best and only real safeguard.  Additionally, when you complete the educational course, you agree to allow the FAA to contact your state's DL division and go through their information on you.

 

I was hoping not only to be able to start flying over a layer as Bill mentioned, which is actually legal for any VFR pilot, instrument rated or not, flying under Private Pilot rules or better.  (I consider "VFR on top" an IFR term; overflight of a broken or overcast layer could be legal for light sport if it had not been groundruled out by FAR 61.315.c (13).)  Like Bill above, I am also an instrument rated pilot and; while I understand the reasons the requirements of 61.315.c (12) and (13) are there, I also think they're silly and unduly restrictive for pilots with higher ratings and experience flying under light sport rules. The FAA could have chosen to exempt Private Pilots and above from both of those but decided to make us all toe the line for picking light sport. I was also thinking about going for my full CFI; but, frankly, after looking at what's actually being passed, I'm not going to pursue it as actively as I had planned under what I thought the bill was going to look like.  Got an exam already on the schedule with my doc just before mid-year and if the "checklist" is ready and my doc indicates she is amenable to signing me off, then I'll take advantage of it...if the bill has been signed into law.  But, frankly, I've got more freedom to manage my own medical situation and keep flying within light sport, so I'm nowhere near as jazzed about the bill as I was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The restrictions for sport pilots was based on the aircraft that the FAA thought sport pilots would be flying. I don't think the current crop of new LSA's are what the FAA envisioned when they were implementing the rule. I think flying over a layer in something like a Quicksilver would be a bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug,  my thoughts are that the FAA wanted to get a handle on all of the two seat and heavy "ultralights" that were flying about. I think their vision was aircraft like those being brought into the fold and people getting real training to fly them. I don't think they were planning on airplanes with 10" synthetic vision, multiple GPS's, and autopilots flying around at 120kts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...