Expanding Drivers License Medical

RotorAndWing said:
He can sign bills all day. Funding them is a different matter.

Looked at your photo on you pilot certificate? How many years ago was that signed and the FAA is still waiting for the funding.
Click to expand...

How much funding does it take to file fewer medical certificates?
 
Palmpilot said:
How much funding does it take to file fewer medical certificates?
Click to expand...

If it's $1 that money has to come from somewhere. Right now the FAA is short on funding in a lot more areas that are more pressing than this.

The regulation has to be rewritten, that takes time and money. A new process has to be implemented, that takes time and money.
 
jbarrass said:
You're right in the sense that it's all about the money.

But generally, The Pilots Bill of Rights, the Small Airplane Revitalization Act, and elimination of the 3d class medical allow the FAA to do less, not more, so it's an easier implementation.
Click to expand...

Regulation rewrite, new procedures= money.


jbarrass said:
Congress is an absolute mess generally, but compared to the FAA bureaucracy, they have been very good to GA the last couple years.
Click to expand...

Not really. While congress has passed bills they have not appropriated the proper money so many items are still pending.
 
I'm certainly no expert in appropriations or spending, but even I can see the savings by turning this legislation into an FAR, and saving a few headcount at FAA aeromedical. Of course, the will have to wait until all the current guys retire or die, cause sure as hell the feds will not downsize as needed.
 
PPC1052 said:
Those statements don't go together. The non-pilot congresscritters won't understand Vne, knots, gross weight, etc. They won't really care. All they need to know is it reduces regulation for small non-comercial private pilots, and will allow the FAA to focus more on the commerical carriers where the real headlines are. So don't worry about asking for too much this go-round. They won't know the difference.
Click to expand...

Well, they do in this regard. The public has been conditioned to be fearful. Too big a jump means the public relations of a 6,000 pound airplane going 200 knots into my house, verses a little two seater that goes slower.

This whole thing is going to be more about public relations than facts. And perception rather than data. A big jump from a third class to nothing with high speed heavy airplanes with five passengers. A little less of a jump if it's more limited to start. More size means more fear unless you know the facts.
 
RotorAndWing said:
He can sign bills all day. Funding them is a different matter.

Looked at your photo on you pilot certificate? How many years ago was that signed and the FAA is still waiting for the funding.
Click to expand...

The testimony that the Director of Flight Standards Service presented to congress in June mentions several reasons that the photos are not yet on certificates - lack of funding wasn't mentioned:

http://testimony.ost.dot.gov/test/allen1.htm

The testimony implies funding will come from pilots, so the lack of congressional funding does not appear to be a valid argument, but rather development of standards for additional biometric data that is to be on the cards per the 2012 reform act has held things up:

"The cost of this transition has not yet been determined, but analysis of the costs and benefits of various alternatives to meet the statutory mandate is underway.
To justify imposing a new cost on pilots, we must carefully consider the benefits of improved pilot certificates. If pilot certificates with embedded biometrics are intended to permit airport access or increase security, we must coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the TSA, which develop standards for airport access and security."​

Soon enough we'll be forced to pay for fancy ID cards....
 
Jim Logajan said:
If pilot certificates with embedded biometrics are intended to permit airport access or increase security, we must coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the TSA, which develop standards for airport access and security."
Click to expand...
Jim Logajan said:
Soon enough we'll be forced to pay for fancy ID cards....
Click to expand...

If my pilot's certificate will get me through TSA checks at the airport, I'd gladly pay a few extra dollars for that. I won't get my hopes up, though.
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
Do we REALLY need MORE laws?
Click to expand...

In a word, NO!

Let's get rid of some of the laws we already have, like the one this thread is about.

It's about time we start getting less regulation

Yeah, I'm a libertarian :goofy:
 
RotorAndWing said:
If it's $1 that money has to come from somewhere. Right now the FAA is short on funding in a lot more areas that are more pressing than this.

The regulation has to be rewritten, that takes time and money. A new process has to be implemented, that takes time and money.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, processing / reviewing / tracking thousands of medical applications, special issue applications, letters back and forth, etc. etc. etc. is free.
 
Jim Logajan said:
The testimony that the Director of Flight Standards Service presented to congress in June mentions several reasons that the photos are not yet on certificates - lack of funding wasn't mentioned:

http://testimony.ost.dot.gov/test/allen1.htm

The testimony implies funding will come from pilots, so the lack of congressional funding does not appear to be a valid argument, but rather development of standards for additional biometric data that is to be on the cards per the 2012 reform act has held things up:

"The cost of this transition has not yet been determined, but analysis of the costs and benefits of various alternatives to meet the statutory mandate is underway.
To justify imposing a new cost on pilots, we must carefully consider the benefits of improved pilot certificates. If pilot certificates with embedded biometrics are intended to permit airport access or increase security, we must coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the TSA, which develop standards for airport access and security."​

Soon enough we'll be forced to pay for fancy ID cards....
Click to expand...


The Administrator will just put those plastic certificate printers and supplies on his MasterCard and wait for the user fees to be reimbursed. Right.
 
skyking3286 said:
Too big a jump means the public relations of a 6,000 pound airplane going 200 knots into my house, verses a little two seater that goes slower.
Click to expand...

To the general public, small airplane = small airplane. 2 seats or 6 seats, it doesn't matter. They are all small, dangerous, and fragile. This is a non-factor.
 
While I am very excited that this bill was brought up by Congress, I do wonder what would happen to the LSA and Sport Pilot Industry.

If this bill passes, and if obtaining a sport pilot or private pilot licenses suddenly only requires a drivers license medical, I am wondering if student pilots would still want to obtain a sport pilot license in areas where the cost of flight training is more expensive?

For example, when I used to train in the 162 at Lincoln Park, NJ for sport pilot I remembered the 162 costs $139/hr to rent and $65/hr for the instruction, while a G1000 172 costs upwards of $185/hr (I think, I don't really remember) and $65/hr for the instruction. If that 162 is still there at Lincoln Park Airport today and if they still have the sport pilot program, would student pilots still go for it, rather than draining their income on a very expensive 172 and expensive PPL, for that flight school?
 
N918KT said:
While I am very excited that this bill was brought up by Congress, I do wonder what would happen to the LSA and Sport Pilot Industry.

If this bill passes, and if obtaining a sport pilot or private pilot licenses suddenly only requires a drivers license medical, I am wondering if student pilots would still want to obtain a sport pilot license in areas where the cost of flight training is more expensive?

For example, when I used to train in the 162 at Lincoln Park, NJ for sport pilot I remembered the 162 costs $139/hr to rent and $65/hr for the instruction, while a G1000 172 costs upwards of $185/hr (I think, I don't really remember) and $65/hr for the instruction. If that 162 is still there at Lincoln Park Airport today and if they still have the sport pilot program, would student pilots still go for it, rather than draining their income on a very expensive 172 and expensive PPL, for that flight school?
Click to expand...

I'm sure the value of my LSA will tank if this passes.

But, why would you use the 172 for your private if the 162 costs less? (Unless you are Joe Lardass and the FAA is going to be after you anyhow.)
 
N918KT said:
If this bill passes, and if obtaining a sport pilot or private pilot licenses suddenly only requires a drivers license medical, I am wondering if student pilots would still want to obtain a sport pilot license in areas where the cost of flight training is more expensive?
Click to expand...

You'd still need a medical to get your private because of the night flights. So aside from the reduced hours to get your sport, the dividing line would essentially become Sport: Day VFR, Private: Night VFR. There are also a few things in the private curriculum that aren't in the sport, VOR navigation, a few hours of instrument training, longer cross countries.

So people will still want to do both. If anything I'd think more people will choose sport now.
 
Last edited:
JeffDG said:
Odds are fairly long for a few reasons:
Sponsor (Rep. Rokita, R-IN4) is not what you would call a "heavy hitter" He doesn't serve on any of the committees with jurisdiction over the FAA (like Transportation or Appropriations). The co-sponsor (Graves, R-MO6) serves on Transportation, but seems far more focused on road/rail than air for his priorities.

The fact that both sponsors are Republicans is another strike against it. Having bipartisan sponsorship is a big plus.
Click to expand...

Sam Graves is a pilot and sponsor of an annual air show in Tarkio, MO. He will do everything in his powers to see this through.
 
mrdavedpg said:
You'd still need a medical to get your private because of the night flights. So aside from the reduced hours to get your sport, the dividing line would essentially become Sport: Day VFR, Private: Night VFR. There are also a few things in the private curriculum that aren't in the sport, VOR navigation, a few hours of instrument training, longer cross countries.

So people will still want to do both. If anything I'd think more people will choose sport now.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is a night VFR restriction for the proposed drivers license medical bill. I think both day and night VFR operations are included under this bill.

Plus, there is no language in the proposed bill that says student pilots would still have to get a medical to become a PPL. The language says "individual". That could mean student pilots too maybe, right?
 
N918KT said:
I don't think there is a night VFR restriction for the proposed drivers license medical bill. I think both day and night VFR operations are included under this bill.

Plus, there is no language in the proposed bill that says student pilots would still have to get a medical to become a PPL. The language says "individual". That could mean student pilots too maybe, right?
Click to expand...

You're right, I stand corrected. I thought I read somewhere it was day VFR only.

I suppose some people might still choose it due to the reduced training time and requirements.
 
mrdavedpg said:
You'd still need a medical to get your private because of the night flights. So aside from the reduced hours to get your sport, the dividing line would essentially become Sport: Day VFR, Private: Night VFR. There are also a few things in the private curriculum that aren't in the sport, VOR navigation, a few hours of instrument training, longer cross countries.

So people will still want to do both. If anything I'd think more people will choose sport now.
Click to expand...

No solo night is required, so you would never be required to be PIC at night in order to receive your private.
 
jsstevens said:
Just got this email from AOPA:

A paragraph:
The General Aviation Pilot Protection Act would allow pilots to use the driver's license medical standard for noncommercial VFR flights in aircraft weighing up to 6,000 pounds with no more than six seats. That includes virtually all single-engine airplanes with six or fewer seats, including Beech Bonanzas, as well as many light twins like the Piper Aztec, Beech Baron 55 and 58, and Cessna 310. By way of comparison, most large SUVs on the roads today weigh more than 6,000 pounds and can carry six to seven passengers, making them larger than the aircraft that would be operated with proof of a valid driver's license under this new bill.

Full article:
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...s-license-medical.aspx?WT.mc_id=131211special
Click to expand...


:idea::fcross::fcross::fcross:
 
N918KT said:
While I am very excited that this bill was brought up by Congress, I do wonder what would happen to the LSA and Sport Pilot Industry.

If this bill passes, and if obtaining a sport pilot or private pilot licenses suddenly only requires a drivers license medical, I am wondering if student pilots would still want to obtain a sport pilot license in areas where the cost of flight training is more expensive?

For example, when I used to train in the 162 at Lincoln Park, NJ for sport pilot I remembered the 162 costs $139/hr to rent and $65/hr for the instruction, while a G1000 172 costs upwards of $185/hr (I think, I don't really remember) and $65/hr for the instruction. If that 162 is still there at Lincoln Park Airport today and if they still have the sport pilot program, would student pilots still go for it, rather than draining their income on a very expensive 172 and expensive PPL, for that flight school?
Click to expand...

Cessna has already pronounced the Skycatcher a fiscal failure for the company.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
But, why would you use the 172 for your private if the 162 costs less?
Click to expand...

Because the 172 is a lot more comfortable to fly than the Flycatcher, has a full panel, and is the kind of plane most PPs intend to fly once they're released into the wild.

Dunno what LSA you have, but you may be overlooking the advantages that it has over the Skyhawk -- such as a flight envelope which is more suited for FUN flying, for instance.

I know that I wouldn't trade my 150 for a 172. If this passes, this will bring life back to a lot of 150s that are sitting, ignored and unloved.
 
Hows the GA Pilot Protection Act coming along? Is there any movement in Congress lately?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
I'm sure the value of my LSA will tank if this passes.

But, why would you use the 172 for your private if the 162 costs less? (Unless you are Joe Lardass and the FAA is going to be after you anyhow.)
Click to expand...

The price of most lsa,s aren't even close to the price of the new 172. And as the lsa aircraft get older the used price will be competitive to a similar aged G/A aircraft. When you compare a 30 + year old 150 to a four or five year old lsa your doing apples and oranges.
 
frfly172 said:
The price of most lsa,s aren't even close to the price of the new 172. And as the lsa aircraft get older the used price will be competitive to a similar aged G/A aircraft. When you compare a 30 + year old 150 to a four or five year old lsa your doing apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Yes and if you look at the artificially inflated prices of LSA qualified classics they aren't that much higher than those that do not comply due to gross weight. Despite the fact that a lot of old codgers started flying Sport due to medical reasons that's not the reason the category was created. When it comes to the production of new Light Sport Aircraft there's much more to it than just the pilot's training and medical requirements, there's also the certification and maintenance advantages (supposedly)
 
I signed up for updates and since Feb 6th, it has gained 9 more cosponsors. Four of them yesterday. So, not dead yet.
 
According to most of the guys I talk to, it's already a done deal. No need to add an LSA to our flying club lineup, hell, we'll all be flying with no medical soon.

:rolleyes2:

I hope the bill gets passed, I sincerely do. I don't expect it to, but I hope it does. I have zero faith in the FAA to comply in a timely manner, though. The whole thing is in the "I hope I live long enough to see it happen" category.
 
DaleB said:
According to most of the guys I talk to, it's already a done deal. No need to add an LSA to our flying club lineup, hell, we'll all be flying with no medical soon.

:rolleyes2:

I hope the bill gets passed, I sincerely do. I don't expect it to, but I hope it does. I have zero faith in the FAA to comply in a timely manner, though. The whole thing is in the "I hope I live long enough to see it happen" category.
Click to expand...

+1 when has the FAA ever done what they didn't want to do,in a timely manner?
 
I'm a Sport Pilot. If this makes it through and I don't need a medical to train for PP, I'll use my CTSW to get my private, just to open up some options. But I'll keep my CTSW because it does what I need it to.

It may take a value hit, but I'd rather see aviation grow and thrive, and more pilots that can keep flying the airplanes they love, than see that money in my pocket.
 
It'll pass, I'm buying up C-150/152 futures.:D
 
All the way up to the Turbo Baron 56 at 5990 GW. Wait, was there a 'no twins' clause? I fergit.
 
docmirror said:
All the way up to the Turbo Baron 56 at 5990 GW. Wait, was there a 'no twins' clause? I fergit.
Click to expand...

Does not appear to be any restriction RE: number of engines. Of course the final bill may look nothing like the proposal.
 
Yur funny Dale. :) Twins price pick up. good one. (hoping there's truth in the humor though)
 
Its not gonna happen. Too many jobs in OKC and all the AME infrastructure and regulatory red-tape to protect. Just enough discussion will happen to look like progress.
 
I wonder if any of the bill writers or cosponsors have worked up how many tax dollars would be saved if this were passed. Contrariwise, I wonder how much it will cost to implement the changes. Lawyers will have a heyday rewriting and updating FARs.

If it were to pass, would the Sport Pilot program just go away, or would it remain on the books like the Recreational Pilot? I can't see any reason to have either one, sport or rec.
 
I doubt the value of newish LSAs would change all that much if said bill becomes law. They're spanky new airplanes that have always demanded a premium. I suspect vintage LSAs will loose quite a bit of value, but that was created artificially by the SP rules in the first place.
 
QuiQuog said:
I wonder if any of the bill writers or cosponsors have worked up how many tax dollars would be saved if this were passed. Contrariwise, I wonder how much it will cost to implement the changes. Lawyers will have a heyday rewriting and updating FARs.

If it were to pass, would the Sport Pilot program just go away, or would it remain on the books like the Recreational Pilot? I can't see any reason to have either one, sport or rec.
Click to expand...
If they killed sport what would they do with powered parachutes and weightshift aircraft?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top