Re: [f-AA] Aeronca Digest, Vol 65, Issue 365- EAA medical proposal

[jim price]

Thoughtful summation as to the kinetic energy Jerry. The one and major point that I feel has been left out of the formula is "probability". We can drive the 65mph speed limit on the road in front of my home of which many feel the speed limit is at least 5 over.. so the energy level of 140mph.. i.e. faster than I can cruise. Vehicle after vehicle passing by within a few feet of one another (2 lane highway).. All this is done without a medical. Most plane crashes I've seen are in the middle of a field somewhere. So what is the risk & added exposure for the added proposed planes in the new light sport category? I've seen a friend of mine die that had a class I medical from a heart condition. I'm most concerned for friends who have had a medical issue and are drummed out by the incessant documentation required by the feds after the problem has been fixed. What's the logic of my Super Chief not meeting the Sport Light because of being a few pounds over the gross weight requirements.  I find this a fascinating debate and am hopeful the new requirements got put in place so my plane will fit this wonderful category. Jim Price Super Chief    Be Well! Jim --- On Mon, 1/28/13, aeronca...@westmont.edu <aeronca...@westmont.edu> wrote: From: aeronca...@westmont.edu <aeronca...@westmont.edu> Subject: Aeronca Digest, Vol 65, Issue 365 To: aer...@westmont.edu Date: Monday, January 28, 2013, 3:00 PM Send Aeronca mailing list submissions to     aer...@westmont.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit     http://mail.westmont.edu/mailman/listinfo/aeronca or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to     aeronca...@westmont.edu You can reach the person managing the list at     aeronc...@westmont.edu When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Aeronca digest..." Today's Topics:    1. Re: EAA medical proposal (Jerry Eichenberger)    2. Re: EAA medical proposal (Rich Dugger) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 14:16:14 -0500 From: "Jerry Eichenberger" <jEiche...@ehlawyers.com> Subject: Re: [f-AA] EAA medical proposal To: <aer...@westmont.edu>, <richd...@gmail.com>,    "'Tom Holmes'"     <thomasth...@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <089701cdfd8b$f1691690$d43b43b0$@ehlawyers.com> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii" Rich - The logic, as explained to the consensus standards committee, was safety. FAA knows that accidents will happen, and the "hotter" the airplane, the more challenging it is, especially for the older pilots, who are a good percentage of those exercising sport pilot privileges. Since kinetic energy is a function of mass ( weight ) plus velocity, keeping both the speed and the weight restricted helps lower the kinetic energy in a crash.  As one FAA guy put it "We know there will be some accidents.  Let's keep the wreckage in the attic, and not allow it to penetrate into the house".  Actually profound logic. Jerry