Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.240.18.37; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <4D9F8321.9060703@nc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 17:50:25 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100623)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Tracy's RV-8 Wings  -  LSA RV-4
References: <list-4940872@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-4940872@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Charlie England wrote:
>> I never understood the fascination with limiting the top speed 
>> anyway.  As long as you're not approaching the structural limits of 
>> the craft, speed, altitude and horsepower are valuable insurance.  Is 
>> there ANY pilot EVER that was upset that he got above the trees 
>> sooner, or had to many options after being turned into a glider?  
>> Setting a minimum landing speed is pure genius if the goal is to 
>> maximize safety,  but I can't fathom how limits on the other factors 
>> is anything other than bureaucratic brain freeze.
>> I would very much like to be enlightened on this.
> Consider yourself enlightened: It's Politics As Usual, USA style. The 
> numbers were set the way they were set to minimize the effect on 
> existing manufacturers of light a/c & make sure that only those who 
> couldn't otherwise fly (for Medical reasons) would find Sport Pilot 
> privileges attractive. The existing manufacturers don't lose any 
> existing potential revenue stream, and might even gain one if they 
> start building their own versions of Light Sport. You can bet that 
> they paid well to get the rules written the way they currently exist.
That doesn't help, Charlie.  I was looking for an excuse to not feel bad 
about the bureaucratic idiocy that is the FAA as it relates to GA 
aircraft.  You just made it worse.