Second Skycatcher crash

[Brad Brady]

[I think the 120 is very close to coming in under the weight limit for LSA as well as some Luscombs (sans electrical), some of the old (little) Piper ragwings, Taylorcrafts and some Ercoupes. The problem is "Tail Draggers", not the weight or mechanical superiority - it is the ominousness (*) of conventional gear that scares away pilot wannabees. Also the age and short supply of the airplanes presents potential maintenance problems

(* Bruce put that in your diXshonary of seldomenessly used words)[/quote]
Ole Gar,
Do Not calculate on juvenile poultry until the proper process of incubation has been fully materialized.......Brad

[GAHorn]

Exactly! (Well.... except for that $%#%^&@ idea to require 2nd class med for night or ifr.)
Open letter from Ralph Fisch, first pub'd in AvWeb:

"I have been actively involved in aviation since my first flying lesson at age 14 and am now 51 years old. Aviation is in my blood, and, like many others at my age, as an active pilot and aircraft owner, the concern about maintaining my medical and being able to continue to fly my RV-6A is always in the back of my mind.

I believe the whole genesis of the LSA industry has been primarily an attempt to have an avenue for folks like me to continue flying, if some day they can no longer qualify for their medical. I believe that is fundamentally flawed.

Cessna's most recent crash of their 162 "trainer" validates my point. Why not just step back and take a look at the entire medical certification process? Instead of trying to create an industry designed to allow folks with potential medical problems to continue flying, how about simply modifying our existing system to recognize how aviation and our pilot population is changing? Modernize the venerable Cessna 150/152 series and allow for conversion of all the Skycatcher orders over to that airframe, then build it in Wichita with the same experienced labor pool that did it the last time. Then modify the third-class medical certificate to be equivalent to a driver's license — and only for daytime, VFR only.

If you want to fly IFR (or at night, instruct, etc.), that would require a second-class medical or better. I do not fly "hard IFR" anymore and recognize that in another 10 or 15 years, I might not want to fly at night. Physically, I can easily meet the standards of a first- or second-class medical, but as time progresses and I age, I will scale back on my flying to manage risk to myself and to my passengers accordingly.

The new LSAs are wonderful, but forcing them to meet unrealistic criteria based on a pilot/buyer base that continues to diminish is short-sighted, at best. Let's look at what our system is now, make the best of it, and allow Cessna, Piper, and any others to design a safe, modern airplane — or update existing and proven airframes without being constrained by some arbitrary weight limit (T-Craft, Luscombe, et. al.). Chances are, we will not have any more Skycatchers destroyed along the way.

Ralph Fisch

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

The Sport Pilot License is a lot more than the type of medical required. It is a different level of training as well. All designed to get people into the air in the simplest of airplanes at the least amount of training cost. If you want to do more like fly IFR or at night or even into a controlled airfield then more training is required and the cost goes up accordingly.

Now it didn't take long for folks to want to push the simple Cub or T-Craft idea to the limit of the rules and of course why use old technology when new exotic materials and electronics are available. Next thing you know your New Cub with the glass cockpit cost $130K and people bought them and the new plastic airplanes developed in Europe arrive and people bought them again at $130K.

Cessna decides to jump into the new market and instead of just putting out a good new old product they decided to develop a new new product to compete with the higher dollar sleek European designs with new technology. That is why they are developing the 162.