Driver's License Medical option

From the EAA
"The request for exemption would allow pilots to fly airplanes of up to 180 hp during daylight VFR carrying no more than one passenger even though the airplane may have up to four seats."



Relating this to the experimental RV world:
Example, you have a 2 seat RV with an engine over 180 HP, what would prevent dialing back the RPM on the governor to a level where the developed horsepower is <180 and meet the proposed standards?

Nothing except long-standing precedent. I don't think they'll buy it.

who sets hp?

I appreciate that they have to draw some kind of line....but with hp...it raises the question, if I build up my own engine, put in FI and high compression pistons, or turbo it, who's to say what the actual hp output is????
Just because I started with an 0-360 doesn't really mean squat.
..and auto conversions are pretty much impossible to quantify unless dyno'd.

In the E-AB world, I believe if you build up an engine it then becomes an experimental engine even if it wasn't before. In that case, you are the manufacturer and can state the capacity of the engine as you please - but I'm guessing we would have to put rpm or MP limitations in the ops limits to fit within a power restriction.

The petition hasn't been made yet - but

I think the planned petition seems intended to follow the regs for the Recreational Pilot Certificate based on the information that's out so far (see FAR 61.101 - http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...iv8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2.4.1.6&idno=14). That would be 180hp or less, no more than 4 seats, no more than 1 passenger, fixed gear, single engine. Many RV's would fit into this definition. Those that don't would likely fall out due to engine power.

My further guess is that if you have an engine that puts out more than 180 on an aircraft that's flying, just putting a placard on the panel limiting the power isn't going to do it; if you are still building and put the placard on the panel before certification, were you open it up, you'd be outside the Operating Limitations.

You could probably modify the engine to detune it and argue a permanent reduction to 180 or less. Probably would require notification to the FSDO and a return trip to Phase I for a time.

Just a guess.

Dan

medical

I guess I'm alittle out of the loop here. I've heard talk of doing away with the medical for private pilots but just thought this was wishful talk. Is this really in the works? I was going to build a light sport just for when I might have to have one but I sure rather keep flying my 6. What's up?

RErivers Lic

???????????????????? I don't get the rational.

Can't go higher than 10K (I live in Utah)......no high horse power (why 180).......no night flying ( I have to admit I like to fly at night but will not do so for safety reasons)......no IFR (IMC) (so lets see you have spent a good many years earning that ticket and have kept it VERY current but now what) ...... not for business( this maybe makes sense unless you are just flying to another state to sell some of your property...even in this market!!!!!!!) ...... And finally you can only carry one passenger ( so lets see you can be OK to put two folks lives on the line but not more?????)

If they want to save money well......

Now if the case is we are sneeking up on the good folks at the FAA. First Rec. pilot, then sport pilot, then limited 3rd class use, and then maybe 5 years down the line go hog wild and just allow a person with 3rd class to do all that a 3rd class can do on the old drivers lic. .... It maybe makes sense otherwise help this poor old pilot understand AOPA/EAA/FAA rational for the proposal and it's limitations.

Frank @ 1L8 ... RV7A ...

1Oldguy said:

I guess I'm alittle out of the loop here. I've heard talk of doing away with the medical for private pilots but just thought this was wishful talk. Is this really in the works? I was going to build a light sport just for when I might have to have one but I sure rather keep flying my 6. What's up?

Click to expand...

Here is the thread

The Rationale

Just a couple of thoughts.

The proposed petition doesn't seem perfect. But it strikes me as pretty good.

As pointed out, no night, no IFR, 10,000 / 2,000 AGL limit, etc. But from what I can see, this will help keep some pilots active and pave the way (hopefully) for more latitude as good experience builds up. (Apart from this forum, aircraft like Piper Cherokee 140 / 180 and Cessna 150 / 152 / 172 will become eligible. Potentially a lot of flying that might otherwise just drop by the wayside.)

For those reasons, I'm supportive of the idea.

Dan

I read that the proposal also has a 130 knot maximum speed.

9GT said:

I read that the proposal also has a 130 knot maximum speed.

Click to expand...

If it follows the Rec. Pilot rules, then no retractable gear, 180 HP max, 10,000 ft max, but no mention of top speed - that's in the classification for LSA aircraft.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...iv8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.1.2.4.1.6&idno=14