The insurance industry is finding that this is not true and the LSA's are not safer than heavier planes. They are cheaper to repair and there are not more than 2 injured/killed occupants to pay for so financially Avemco is continuing to cover them. They are finding that the more experienced pilots have a worse safety record than the novices. Dan C
On Jul 4, 2010, at 12:16 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Aircraft weight has a lot to do with safety. The slow stall speed and gross > weight limits for LSA make the airplanes much safer and more survivable in an > accident than a Bonanza A-36 or Piper Saratoga, for instance. > And the limit of 2 place for LSA minimizes the exposure too. > We have to remember that LSA had its beginnings with the FAA wanting to get > some measure of control - aircraft and pilot certifications primarily, over > what had become the "heavy" ultralight world. > Jerry E. > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > From: "heavensounds" <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 10:12:39 -0500 > To: <[email protected]> > ReplyTo: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] Re: FAA Caves on Sport Pilot > > > > Jerry > > Good comment. > > My beef is with the FAA using rules based on questionable safety limits > (aircraft weight, medical certificate) to artificially create market > segments. Rules should be the minimum necessary to fix real problems, not to > artificially create market segments, not even to promote technical > innovation. Technical innovation should be driven by market needs, not by > arbitrary rules. > > In my humble opinion, private pilots should not require medical certificates > at all. Commercial and above (where you could be taking passengers for hire) > should. > > If the ASTM standard is considered less safe than FAA certification, then it > should be limited by the number of people it exposes to the decreased safety > (2 or 4), not by a weight limit. However, I will accept that choosing 1320 > lb. and matching the 600 kg standard previously set elsewhere has some > practical value... > > Just my humble opinion. > > Eliacim > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 8:11 PM > Subject: Re: [ercoupe-tech] Re: FAA Caves on Sport Pilot > > > I am glad that some Coupes, Luscombes, Champs, et al. qualify for sport > pilots to fly them. That makes a nice alternative for those who wish to fly a > classic, basic airplane. > But if Cessna 150s were included we'd have thousands of them depressing not > only the classic market, but completely stifling any new innovation. > I like flying the Tecnam Eaglet we have at our FBO. For a x-c flight of 300 > miles the glass cockpit and full autopilot sure makes the trip nice. Going > 125+ mph is nice too. > But for a trip of 35 miles to have lunch, my general manager and I flew his > LSA qualified T-craft today. > Different airplanes - different missions. Each has its place. > Jerry E. > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > From: "Donald" <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2010 00:33:12 -0000 > To: <[email protected]> > ReplyTo: [email protected] > Subject: [ercoupe-tech] Re: FAA Caves on Sport Pilot > > > > Well, I may not be the brightest bulb in the string, I waited until the price > of a C peaked (I think, but am not sure of that). Regardless, I am still very > happy with my choice. > > > > > >
