Folks: Be careful kicking a sleeping dog. I had no personal involvement in the development of the LSA and SP rules, but have friends who did.
First, consider the real reasons behind the entire SP rule - it was mainly to give FAA some oversight of the perceived problems in the ultralight industry, particularly with "heavy ultralights", which were plainly illegal, and also over the two place ones used for training under the exemption granted to USULA. FAA wanted to get these aircraft "certified" somehow, and get the pilots at least a minimal license with minimal training requirements. The same applies to weight shift trikes and powered parachutes - get the pilots at least a minimal license, and get some guarantee about the engineering behind the aircraft. Be eternally thankful that the rule got expanded to allow "real" airplanes to be operated by sport pilots. It could well have been limited to what had been ultralights, trikes, and powered chutes. For one, I think the rule is fine as is. The tremendous investment made by dozens of manufacturers to create new airplanes under the 1320 weight limit would be wasted if older aircraft, like later model Coupes, C-140s and 150s, later derivatives of the Champ and Cub, etc. were to be included in the planes allowable for operation under the LSA rules. Companies like Cessna aren't going to support any weight increase, and we need these powerhouses of the industry behind us, not opposed to us, to keep SP viable and growing. If you recall, AOPA petitioned FAA to extend the "driver's license medical" to recreational pilots, who can fly aircraft up to 180 hp and without speed or weight restrictions. The petition was quickly rejected. As one person said, if the general public knew that pilots with pacemakers, repeated cardiac events or procedures, etc. were out there flying around with just a driver's license, you know what may well break out; all hell. Someday we may see the elimination of the 3rd class medical requirement for private pilot privileges in single engine, day VFR flying, but it will be a long time coming. Pushing now for expanded operational privileges for SPs may only be the kick that may awaken the sleeping dog that then bites us. We need years, if not a couple of decades of statistical data to prove what we all know, that a medical is little, if any, increase in safety. But you can't just say it, you have to prove it. Jerry E. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 7:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] RE: [ercoupe-flyin] Re: Keep Your FIngers Crossed! All, The stall speed numbers for the Alon A-2 from the manual are: Stall Speed (Power On) 38 MPH (33 KTS) Stall Speed (Power Off) 48 MPH (42 KTS) As far as changing the light sport regs to include more airplanes goes, I think we should all be trying to get them to include every airplane that we possibly can. We need to increase the pilot population if GA is going to survive another 10 years, and there are a whole lot more potential LSA pilots who might buy an old C-150 for $25,000 than there are who might buy a new LSA for $100,000. The current regs are great for a handful of LSA manufacturers and for a few very wealthy LSA pilots. If they included all of the light, low performance,simple, 2 seat airplanes in LSA, we'd have a heck of a lot more people flying the existing fleet, and that would result in more business for everyone in aviation all the way up and down the food chain. Just my opinion. I'm for GA in general. I could care less what the rules do to the value of my Aircoupe. It's not for sale anyhow, so what it's worth makes no difference. Best Regards, Wayne DelRossi Alon Aircoupe N5618F "Life begins at 50...... knots." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.
