Phil Boyer has served as president of AOPA since 1991.
Early in May, your association filed comments to a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled "Certification of Pilots, Aircraft, and Repairmen for the Operation of Light Sport Aircraft." AOPA spent considerable time analyzing this rulemaking with the interests of our current and future members top of mind. As the title implies, it covers a great deal of ground, from aircraft to pilot certification, and is a credit to the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) which has been working for some time on getting the rulemaking to this point.
First and foremost, AOPA believes this action can have a meaningful, positive effect on the cost of learning to fly by fostering new entrants and attracting lapsed pilots. Many in this latter group have quit flying because of aircraft rental and ownership costs as well as the expense and ability to maintain current medical certification. With the "cost of flying" being a number-one concern of all pilots, our response to the NPRM has centered heavily in that arena.
The sport pilot rule would establish a new class of aircraft and airman. The proposed two-place aircraft would have a gross weight no greater than 1,232 pounds; a single, nonturbine powerplant; a stall speed of 39 knots; fixed gear; and a maximum airspeed of 115 kt. Light sport aircraft categories are: airplane, weight-shift-control, powered parachute, gyroplane, glider, balloon, and airship. A major element of FAA support was to have some degree of regulation over ultralights and other aircraft types that have previously been outside the rules. AOPA commented specifically on the aircraft section, emphasizing the more traditional three-axis control airplanes. While these airplanes will have an airworthiness certificate, they will not have production type or production certificates. The manufacturers of these new light sport planes, either kits or fully assembled, would be governed by a set of "consensus standards" to be developed under the auspices of ASTM, International. ASTM is a not-for-profit organization that provides a global forum for the development and publication of voluntary consensus standards for materials, products, systems, and services. AOPA has and will continue to attend the meetings relative to the development of these standards, which could take some time.
With regard to the airplanes, AOPA indicated that further comments should be taken once a standard has been reached. How can we agree to something now that has no specifics? Regardless, however, we felt the aircraft produced under this category should be labeled on the exterior as "light sport aircraft," just as experimental aircraft are today. We also asked that the accident statistics of this new category be tallied separately by the FAA and NTSB, as opposed to immediately placing them in the general aviation category.
Initiatives surrounding pilot licensing, however, hold tremendous upsides for new entrants and lapsed pilots. AOPA has requested that the FAA accelerate issuing and implementing a final rule on the airmen portion of the rule, and not wait until the lengthy consensus project on ASTM certification has been completed. Presently, seven fully certified aircraft fit the description of a light sport aircraft as defined by weight and other criteria. Planes such as a Piper Cub or Aeronca Champ would retain their standard airworthiness certificate and therefore not be subject to more relaxed light sport pilot maintenance rules, but could be flown by a sport pilot. Twenty hours of training would be required under the proposed regulation for a new entrant, and a simple checkout for an existing or lapsed private pilot. In reality, like a private pilot certificate, the average length of time might be as much as 50 to 100 percent greater. But the real key is that an airman operating as a "sport pilot" would not need a current medical certificate, but would merely have to possess a valid driver's license.
Sound familiar? For years AOPA has advocated a driver's license in place of the third class medical. It seems ironic that in publishing this rule in the Federal Register the summary states: "The FAA believes, therefore that medical conditions are not a significant cause of accidents in aircraft that are used for sport and recreational purposes." With that in mind, we have further asked in our NPRM comments that the FAA extend this "no medical" policy to the existing recreational pilot certificate, established a decade ago, and encompassing planes up to 180 horsepower. This would allow a rec pilot (no medical) to fly airplanes such as a Cessna 172 and Piper Warrior. And since the FAA states it wishes to harmonize the sport pilot rulemaking with the recreational pilot regulations, we have supported the use of an instructor endorsement to allow access to Class B, C, and D airspace with a passenger.
In no way am I doing the full rulemaking justice in the short space reserved for my monthly column, but I did want you to know what AOPA feels are the significant comments relative to the majority of our members. A full and complete description of the categories, maintenance benefits, flight instructor qualifications, and our complete seven-page letter to the FAA are available on AOPA Online ( www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/regsport.html). Your association has tracked this rulemaking from the beginning, and will continue to work on this initiative to ensure that the final product from the FAA has all the safety, cost, and freedom from regulation benefits that have been proposed.
Related Articles
