Well, call me an optimistic fool, but I actually think this one has a chance of making it through. I won't be surprised if it does get rejected by the FAA, though.
From what I have read, previously, the AOPA and EAA have submitted NPRMs for this sort of thing. Those are rule changes, and we all know how much the FAA loves rules. It is very difficult to get them to rescind an existing rule. I think I read somewhere that the AOPA and EAA has submitted this particular rule change about 30 times between the two of them. Obviously, that approach wasn't working.
This time around they have changed their strategy based on success in other areas of working with the FAA. First, they are working together. That gives "our" side more people and resources to help push this through.
Second, and I believe most importantly, instead of asking for a rule change, the EAA and AOPA are asking for a rule "exception." This leaves all the existing rules in place as they are, which as we know, the FAA likes.
Finally, they are being much more strategic about this effort this time. They have figured out who all the various gatekeepers are in the FAA. These are the people that can say, "No," and stop the whole process. In their proposal, they are trying to "give" something to each of those people. That is why they are proposing some "training" for those who want to fly with only a drivers license medical. Someone if the FAA has told them that pilots don't know how to self certify, and that is the AOPA/EAA response to that person's concerns.
I also think that is why they "pre-announced" this effort. To give people at the FAA a "heads-up" that this is coming, so any concerns can be addressed before the proposal is submitted. I know several people at EAA/AOPA have been meeting with the FAA both before and after the announcement. From reading the AOPA forum, I have learned that Dr. Chein (who several on this forum are acquainted with) has been personally meeting with the Aeromedical group at the FAA about this proposal. From what I gather, this seems like a real and concerted effort to try and make this happen.
I also believe that the requirements (one passenger, 180 HP, fixed gear, etc.) are ones they have been identified that there is at least some comfort level at the FAA with. I read a lot of complaints on the interweb about the need for a wider range of airplanes, but I think that is part of the strategy, too. If this basic level of airplanes is allowed the exemption, then over time, you slowly increase the requirements of the exemption. Finally, once you have the majority of planes and pilots under the exemption, plus years of experience without any major problems, you then submit an NPRM and have the rules changed. This is definitely a long-term strategy here.
The LSA manufacturers may not like it, or they may. Companies like Cessna and Piper also would like to see this rule change, as it may mean more sales for them. If we are "following the money," then I would bet there is more money at Cessna and Piper than there is at CTLS or Remos, for example.
So, I'm optimistic, but it might not make it through. As far as the value of our planes go, I don't think it will make much of a difference. There are a lot of planes available under 180 HP that can hold one passenger.
