Helen,
It must be your instructor status, cause my AOPA and EAA did not see fit to inform me of those NPRMs.
R. Williams
---------- Original Message -----------
From: Helen Woods <Helen_Woods@verizon.net>
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 07:47:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes
>
>
> I would dissagree about that. My mailbox was full of requests to respond to the "Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School" rule, actually both of them (there was one that became final this year and another that was an NPRM this year. I got info from AvWeb, AOPA, EAA, and a ton of requests to respond from NAFI and SAFE.
>
> Now back to the business at hand of sorting out this confusing new rule...
>
> Helen
>
> On 1/30/2010 3:21 AM, Richard Williams wrote:
Fellows,
>
> I read the results of the NPRM as published in the federal register.
>
> Most of the results were acceptable, except for two things.
>
> 1) The SP instructors (part H) are still the step children rather than being included in the GA (part K) regulations.
>
> 2) a sport pilot still has to carry around photocopies or pilot logs of all their endorsements, rather than having them included as part of the sport pilot certificate.
>
> It is good that the max altitude limit is now 10k or 2k above the ground, which ever is higher, however; certain commenters gave convincing arguments that it should be anything below class A airspace, especially as rec pilots are not so limited and we are all required to have training in hypoxia, etc.
>
> After reading it twice, i'm still not sure what the final rule is regarding time under the hood for aircraft that can fly S&L at greater than 87knots.
>
> I do think the faa/agency reasoning for their final decision on some of their proposals in the NPRM is very weak.
>
> I noticed the faa/agency ignored several excellent comments, by stating the comments were not within the scope of the current NPRM.
>
> Given the way the commentary of the faa/agency is written, I think they heard plenty of complaint about their phase 'the faa disagrees' and actually responded in a more informative manner.
>
> BTW:
> you may notice the faa now calls itself the 'agency'.
>
> You may also notice that the NPRM was getting all the limelight, while
> "Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School" final rule, (74 FR 42500, Aug. 21, 2009).
> was slipped through behind our backs.
>
> R. Williams
>
>
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: Robert Rankin <onerobertoh@yahoo.com>
> To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:40:41 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes
>
> >
> >
> >
Wow, after all the adds and deletes, you need an interpreter to determine the actual changes.
> >
> > --- On Fri, 1/29/10, Jerry <jself1@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Jerry <jself1@carolina.rr.com>
> > Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Final Light Sport Rule Changes
> > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups. com
> > Date: Friday, January 29, 2010, 9:37 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > The FAA has published the final Light Sport Rules Changes in the Federal Register.
> >
> > http://federalregis ter.gov/OFRUploa d/OFRData/ 2010-02056_ PI.pdf
> >
> > Jerry in NC
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment