One must question statistics of such things. Many old bold pilots of my age and experience choose to self insure their LSA (I am not in that group). That means the insurance industry actually knows nothing about our performance, good or bad. Neither does he FAA! Obviously those that feel lesser qualified will more likely choose to insure which skews the figures even more. (That sounded wrong, I did not intend to imply that only us dummies insure our planes.)
--- In [email protected], Caliendo Dan <djcalie...@...> wrote: > > 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, jeichenber...@... 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" <heave...@...> > > 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: jeichenber...@... > > 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" <dongen...@...> > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > >
