Thanks Ron, you're always the best at "polishing" things up.

This is a keeper for anyone who has it in mind to lend assistance to the cause. 
 A primer, if you may, of what to expect.  Talks about politics, back door 
stuff, opinions, etc.  The letter may look discouraging, but it's mere 
composition shows that the path can be lighted and unlit and can bend and turn 
as need be.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: ronblackink 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:01 AM
  Subject: [ercoupe-flyin] How the Real Rules came about for Sport Pilots


  Earl Lawrence from EAA posted this to the Luscombe Yahoo Group. They 
  have the same issues as do 'coupes with LSA. It is interesting to 
  see how one must finesse to get ANYTHING done. The frontal assault 
  seems not to work at all. 

  Herewith - Earl's Letter:

  "This is a good question and you have not seen an answer because the 
  answer is; "Because that is the way it is."

  Of course there is more to the story and I will share my opinions as 
  an individual who worked with the FAA on this rulemaking from 1994 
  until today. But, I must stress it is just that my 
  opinion/perspective 
  not necessarily the facts, not because there are not facts but 
  because 
  with many things in life there are many perspectives of the situation.

  First when looking at your question you need to remove yourself from 
  any current realities or perspectives of the rule as it is today. You 
  need to look at the rule from how it was proposed, or the "selling 
  points" needed to get a new rule.

  Foremost in looking at this question, one must understand that the 
  new 
  rule has NOTHING (I cannot stress this enough) to do about a simpler 
  pilot certificate. You read that correct. The proposal has nothing to 
  do at all about a simpler pilot certificate or a no medical 
  certificate.

  If one had proposed rulemaking on a simpler easier pilot certificate 
  the FAA, the DOT, NTSB, and most pilot groups would have opposed the 
  proposal (including pilot and instructor associations). There are 
  many who still believe that there should not be a sport pilot 
  certificate and everyone should get a private pilot certificate.

  Now do not get me wrong. EAA did see the potential of this new rule 
  to get more people in the air, but if we have used that point at all, 
  the SPLSA rule would have NEVER been considered.

  If you notice, during the years we worked on the proposed rule, there 
  were lots of pictures of very open ultralights shown in magazine 
  articles and other promotional materials. This was by design. 

  The campaign to get the rule was about getting "these untrained and 
  undocumented dangerous ultralight pilots out of the air." This was 
  an argument that FAA, NTSB, DOT, Homeland Security and Congress was 
  very interested in. 

  The sport pilot rule was written to create a pilot certificate for 
  ultralight pilots because they were unregulated at the time. If we 
  had shown pictures of aircraft with closed cockpits, the powers that 
  controlled the process would have said "that is a REAL airplane" and 
  they need a "real" pilot certificate. 

  So those of us who were trying to get the new rule passed spent time 
  convincing the authorities that the new Sport Pilot was not going to 
  be flying a "real" airplane, so that we could get the rule passed.

  Also, we needed to convince the government that this was NOT about a 
  pilot certificate without a medical. We had to be able to show that a 
  large number of current pilots were NOT going to drop their medical 
  and fly as sport pilots as that would be "a reduction in safety" and 
  FAA, DOT, NTSB would oppose such a move.

  The original proposal was for aircraft that were no more than 600 
  pounds, then over time the weight increased to 900, 1,232, and 
  finally 
  1,320. The last change was literally in the dark of night by friends 
  of EAA and sport aviation who understood that we really did want a 
  alternative to the private pilot license, but we could not say that 
  publicly or even to our fellow pilot associations as it would have 
  been opposed.

  One has to understand that EAA had to work VERY hard to get the 
  industry associations to not oppose the Sport pilot rule. Many of the 
  traditionalists saw the rule as a threat and a step backward for 
  aviation.

  So the argument all along was to create a pilot certificate and 
  aircraft certification category to regulate the "illegal ultralights 
  and pilots."

  _If the industry or many in government had understood our alternative 
  reasons for the rule, the proposal would have been dead on delivery_. 

  We have sport pilot today because we have good friends in the FAA, 
  particularly the Administrators that oversaw this effort, and EAA 
  could manage to keep industry from opposing the effort. We did this 
  by campaigning on an "increase of safety and regulation for 
  ultralights," not a reduction of safety for current pilots and 
  aircraft. (note: To many in government Regulation and safety is one 
  in 
  the same)

  Because of these arguments and the need to separate this rulemaking 
  effort from "reducing regulationsafety of current pilots and aircraft"
  and convincing everyone that this was an "increase of 
  regulationsafety for ultralights," it was necessary to ensure that 
  no large groups of existing aircraft would fall into the new category.

  The sport pilot certificate was sold on the basis that an 
  "ultralight" pilot was going to use this certificate to fly an 
  aircraft with no radios and no instruments, day VFR, in G airspace, 
  carrying one passenger.

  So it was necessary to exclude as many current pilots and aircraft in 
  order to get the regulation passed. (Blame it on politics, but that 
  is 
  the real world.)

  Regarding affordability, current pilots say that the new regulation 
  did not result in any improvements in affordability. The facts are 
  the new aircraft are less than half the cost of a comparative new (It 
  is not fair to compare a 1950 aircraft with a 2007 aircraft) type 
  certificated aircraft and the sport pilot certificate is less than 
  half the cost of a private pilot certificate. So for the new person 
  getting involved in aviation has become more accessible.

  The big problem today is access to a Light Sport Aircraft. EAA 
  understands this, but we had to start somewhere. Every day more light 
  sport aircraft are produced and sold, which means everyday there is 
  more opportunity to own one. 

  There are currently over 50 models of new light sport aircraft for 
  sale. Used aircraft are starting to come up for sale at considerable 
  lower cost than new aircraft.

  It is expected that Cessna will soon start to produce a light sport 
  aircraft. Cessna pilot centers will start to have aircraft to train 
  new sport pilots in, and like it was in the 1970's, these aircraft 
  will be sold after a couple of years to the students at much reduced 
  costs as used airplanes as the Centers must purchase new aircraft 
  every two years.

  As you may noticed, this is all about the future. The rule was 
  written about the future and not current pilots and aircraft. Again 
  if that had been the proposal, there would be no new rule.

  For existing pilots, sport pilot does not offer a tremendous amount 
  of 
  benefit as they have already made the investment in training and 
  possibly in an aircraft purchase. This is about the future and 
  getting 
  new pilots and new aircraft into the system.

  I hope this helps with understanding how we arrived at the current 
  situation.

  Sincerely,

  Earl Lawrence
  EAA VP Industry and Regulatory Affairs"



   

Reply via email to