ByDanJohnson.com

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has announced a successor to current president Mark Baker, who is set to retire at year’s end. In his place comes Darren Pleasance. The association notes that this is only the sixth president in its history, dating back to 1939. Baker has been on the job for more than 11 years. Somebody buy that man a beer!

AOPA notes that Pleasance has more than 8000 hours in 50 different types and currently owns three airplanes: A Piper Meridian, a Van’s RV-6 and a Progressive Aerodyne SeaRey.

“I’m honored with the opportunity I’m being given to help steward AOPA forward into the future, and I’m inspired by the role AOPA will continue to play in protecting our freedom to fly,” says Pleasance. “I’m grateful for the privilege I’m being given to lead this incredible organization that has had such a positive impact on my life and the lives of all of us who love aviation.”

Pleasance joins AOPA at a time when there are pressures across the spectrum, from finding a leaded-fuel replacement to rapidly rising aircraft-ownership costs. But there are opportunities, too, such as with the MOSAIC program expected to become a reality sometime in 2025.

For his part, outgoing president Baker says, “I’m confident that Darren is the right person to lead AOPA into its next chapter. He is a pilot’s pilot with a genuine passion for flying. He combines that excitement about aviation with leadership experience at some of this country’s top consulting and tech firms, giving him the right balance of business skills and kinship with our members.”

Compress Post ...

(Photo: AOPA)

In the previous article, I explained how high levels of flight activity can make access more affordable and, for most people, how that would likely be achieved only through some form of shared ownership/use. The use of the term “shared ownership/use” is deliberate because not everybody really wants or feels the need to “own” something they use but, perhaps, believes that there is no other realistic or safe alternative.

This article is based on a close examination of the reasons people give for not being open to any form of sharing and looking at how those barriers might be removed. It will also try to address the second, less discussed, part of affordability, which is “accessibility” to shared use aircraft. There is little benefit to being able to afford what does not, essentially, exist. A good, but somewhat parallel, example of this has been the original iteration of Light Sport Aircraft and Sport Pilot Licenses. Both had huge potential to improve affordability of learning to fly and then being able to continue afterwards, but, widespread accessibility and, dare I say it, acceptability, was never achieved. My article on MOSAIC, referenced this so I am not going to repeat that here, other than to say that if, as hoped, we see a substantial growth in the makes and models of models designed under the new standards allowed by MOSAIC, they could be the perfect conduit for the type of expansion of accessibility, safety, technology and affordability people are seeking.

When it comes to shared ownership/use, both AOPA (Flying Clubs – You Can Fly) and EAA (Flying Club Resource Center) offer great resources on how to find, set-up and manage flight clubs, partnerships etc. Indeed, using their guides and explanations should be very high on everybody’s list of first steps when it comes to exploring these options.

Looking at the different clubs out there, it becomes clear that there is a wide variety of purposes and motivations behind each of them. Sometimes it springs from an individual who has a plane and simply wants to spread out the costs of operation with a few new friends and other times it involves clubs that have professional management, decades of experience and tens of planes available to hundreds of members. The point being, that while the mechanisms to create and manage clubs is very well covered by AOPA and EAA there is really no coordination at state, regional or national levels so the net result is a somewhat random.

Cade Halle, the Manager of AOPA’s Flying Clubs Initiative, kindly shared some information on their progress. “Currently AOPA recognizes 1112 registered clubs of which 254 were formed directly with AOPA’s assistance and are recognized as ‘AOPA Network Clubs’ (clubs that adhere to FAA regulations on the proper way of operating a flying club).  At any given time, we are working roughly 50 leads of newly forming clubs in various stages of formation.  In terms of rate of growth, it’s really quite cyclical as with anything in aviation, but there is no shortage of people interested in joining or forming a club.  In 2023, 178 clubs responded to our annual survey.  Of those that responded, the average club size was 32 members with an average of 2 aircraft per club.  Those numbers are pretty on par with the last 4 years. Single engine piston, fixed gear makes up 92% of all club aircraft.  The oldest flying club in the US is the Clemson Flying Club formed in 1927.  Lots of clubs started in the 50’s and 60’s that are still going today.  I don’t have any specific data for each state, but Texas, California, and Florida are the top 3 states with the most clubs based on numbers I could go through.”

The EAA, via Timm Bogenhagen, Member Programs Specialist, reports about 100 clubs with many of them near to EAA Chapters. They do not have hard statistics for members and numbers of aircraft but estimate one to two aircraft per club and 20-30 members per club.

Without solid statistics, we have to resort to making assumptions. It is probable, if not provable, that between AOPA and EAA they have captured at least 50% of all the shared ownership/use groups in the USA. Their combined total comes to about 1200 groups, so, if we double that based on the percentage of clubs linked to one or both organizations, we get to approximately 2400 groups with an average of two planes per group so, perhaps 4800 aircraft in some form of shared use excluding flight schools. Based on the 2022 FAA GA survey data, that would suggest that less than 4% of the aircraft designated as “Personal” (141,600) in the survey are in any form of shared use. Consequently, given the average hours per aircraft flown of 58 quoted in the first part of this article, it would not be a stretch to conclude that the overwhelming majority of personal planes are not providing their owners with cost efficient flying.

What emerges from AOPA, EAA and personal experience, is that there is an unquantified, and unsatisfied demand at some level, for access to affordable aircraft. How much of that pent-up demand comes from frustration at the lack of any, or decent, rental aircraft in their local area, is also unclear. With the very large increase in demand for flight training, the availability of aircraft for other purposes is potentially more constrained than it has ever been as the same aircraft are in demand for shared ownership/use as those being used in flight schools.

Well established, and geographically limited clubs confirm emphatically both the favorable economics of sharing through volume but, with such limited penetration, clearly have not established a universally winning model of success. AOPA and EAA have contributed valuable insights and assistance to already motivated people on how to create and run such clubs, but widespread adoption has possibly been held back by the lack of a “for profit” business model. Owning and operating high volume aircraft requires investment, infrastructure, management, experience and continuity that often goes beyond the realm of voluntary organizations. The profit motive may well be what is needed to take shared ownership to the next level but, entrepreneurs and their money like to see clearly defined markets with standards that can be met. At the present time there is neither a clearly defined market nor a clearly defined path to reach customers.

What role does standardization play?

In the first article, the emphasis was on making the case for how effective high volume of activity is in bringing down costs. However, there are clearly other factors that should also be considered when trying to create a sustainable business model. Possibly, the most important of those factors is the choice of aircraft. Current shared ownership/use aircraft likely encompass a very wide range of makes and models, ages, condition, capabilities and installed equipment. The beauty of this is that pilots can, at least in theory, align their desires and budgets with specific local options. A key practical downside is that the “dating process” between pilots and available options means that few “marriages” actually result for a variety of reasons. This takes us to the thorny question of whether trying to create a standardized offering (i.e., combination of aircraft and access to those aircraft) could open up opportunities, or simply lead to more disagreements over personal preferences. The balance of the discussion here will be that, in addition to volume and a profit motive, creating a standardized offering is essential if progress is to be made. The combination of all these three factors would go a very long way toward removing the barriers of acceptability that can be cited as reasons not to share, and that were explored in the first article.

By not having a defined standard for aircraft or how the planes are managed, prospective users/owners are faced with having to make a wide range of decisions without necessarily having the skills or experience to sort through them meaningfully. This complexity and the high risk of making a “bad” choice undoubtedly has some effect on whether people even start on the process, let alone, complete it. This is where MOSAIC comes into the equation because it is an entirely standards-based process when it comes to the proposed new Light Sport definitions covering both aircraft and Sport Pilot privileges. Additionally, it opens up the option for four-seat planes to everyone including Sport Pilots and allows manufacturers to use the ATSM’s standards to bring down their costs and adopt new technology.

Taking this to its next logical step would be to have a standard for shared ownership/use aircraft that clubs, or entrepreneurs, could operate to. For example, one such offering might be presented as follows with a goal of covering as many prospective needs as possible.

The challenge with all of the above is that it does not really provide a clear path forward or even a vision as to what might be. A possible description of how the future could look is presented below as a catalyst to generate ideas and not as an exact prescription for success.

So, lets dream and look five to 10 years into the future:

• The final version of MOSAIC has been implemented and this has generated a wide variety of new models being offered into the market at significantly lower price points than the legacy and semi legacy companies of today. They take maximum advantage of the standards based processes and benefit from avionics and engines that meet those standards.
• Local, regional and national entities have signed up to a franchise model offering only one make and model of shared use plane enabling a chosen manufacturer to produce large volumes efficiently and cost effectively. This has flow through effects on all the suppliers who can also benefit from longer product runs and improved component reliability.\
• There are four parts to the distribution chain:
  • The provider who rents/manages the shared use fleets. They access the aircraft via leases rather than direct purchases. They follow a standard model for management of the aircraft, insurance protocols, currency of users, scheduling, maintenance etc using a franchise type process.
  • Leasing companies buy the aircraft from the manufacturer and lease them to the providers. Their key role is to try and balance the supply of aircraft with demand and work directly with the chosen manufacturer on support, spare parts etc.
  • Individual or corporate investors lend to and/or invest in the leasing companies but do not take any active management role. The only difference between these investors and others is that they have explicitly bought into and support the concept on a macro level rather than seeing each aircraft purchase as a new investment. This creates a far more fluid and cost-effective process by cutting down on duplicative bureaucracy.
  • The aircraft manufacturer has committed to a standard product and very competitive pricing knowing that they can expect certain volumes of aircraft on an ongoing basis.
• Flights schools have also bought into the concept of an affordable standard product for their training operations making the transition for graduating students into the shared use fleet seamless.
• Pilots can sign up at the local level and be approved to use the standard aircraft model with varying levels of commitment while benefiting from lower prices than traditional rental options and no administrative or ownership burdens. In many cases their provider would also be the local flight school or FBO. Being well equipped, professionally managed and full of technology has gone a long way towards the removal of many barriers to people’s willingness to share.
• Average flight hours per active aircraft are up twenty-fold contributing both to more affordable flying while offering everyone in the chain a good profit potential.
• More pilots are active and current which, when combined with access to modern aircraft, has created a far safer operating environment for all.
• The planes remaining in personal ownership tend to be more specialist and higher end.

In summary, bringing costs down to “affordable” levels depends on finding ways to scale up hours flown per aircraft, accepting the concept of a standard product and being open to using planes that are professionally managed, maintained and owned by others. Some, but not all, of the elements needed to make this a reality already exist. The biggest challenge will be to convince people that it is possible to reshape the way access to planes is managed. Trying to reverse the trend of increasingly expensive planes that leave the majority of pilots scrabbling for 50 year old hand-me-downs is not going to happen without disturbing a lot of established industry customs and practices, so will likely face stiff opposition.

Compress Post ...

In the normal order of things, a successful product will probably remain in production until demand slackens, technology changes or it can’t be built effectively. But there are other reasons, some not so obvious. Case in point? Kitfox Aircraft. Since 2009, when the company began selling the Series 7 Sport, it’s cranked out roughly 40 of the factory-built LSAs, with sales always outpacing the company’s ability to produce for the first few years. Eventually, Kitfox began selling the S7 Sport with various engine options, up to the Rotax 914. Sales over the last few years have slowed to a relative trickle, but not really for reasons you’d think.

First of all, the company’s bread-and-butter is the kitbuilt side of the market, so when the factory buildings are busy and full to overflowing and the order book is growing, company owner John McBean elected to prioritize the kit side of the business over the ready-made side. He describes it as a balancing act but understandably so; you want to keep your core customer happy. And so this partly explains why Kitfox is quietly putting the SLSA business on hold.

But it’s not the only excuse. According to McBean, the simple fact is that today’s customers demand better equipped airplanes. They want really nice paint. They want two-screen EFISes and the most powerful engine available, which, today, is the 160-hp Rotax 916. They want nice interiors and all the options.

Such niceties add not just cost but weight. And in the SLSA rules, there’s a minimum useful load of 430 pounds, which means an empty weight of 890 pounds or less. In the robust Kitfox, you can get there with a lightweight avionics package and the lighter-weight Rotax 912 ULS or iS, but once you start ticking off the options boxes and pop for the 916, it’s much more difficult to do. And the simple fact is that a fully equipped, highly optioned airplane is what customers want.

So what’s McBean’s solution? Shift those resources from the SLSA whole-build to a program of factory builder assistance, much like some of the other types where the builder comes to the factory to participate in the build. The resulting Experimental/Amateur-Built aircraft has a lot more flexibility in content and maintenance.

What of MOSAIC, you ask? The current Kitfox Series 7 models all are engineered for a 1550-pound maximum gross weight, which would fall well into the current MOSAIC proposal, and so would the stall speed. There are no reasons the highest-spec Series 7 won’t be a good MOSAIC airplane to be flown by Sport Pilots under the new rules. Whether Kitfox resumes building SLSA models is more a matter of what the market demands than what can be produced out of the Homedale, Idaho, factory.

Compress Post ...

Like X (formerly Twitter), my favorite fall airshow has altered its name. Actually, it changed subtly over 16 years of operation but is now called the Midwest Aviation Expo, or MAX.

The major airshows have changed, too. EAA AirVenture Oshkosh was formally just “Oshkosh,” unless you live in Oshkosh, in which case it’s merely “EAA.” In Lakeland, Florida, Sun ‘n Fun Aerospace Expo is widely known simply as “Sun ‘n Fun.” Few pilots will use the longer title.

MAX is Midwest Aviation Expo. Maybe it took 16 years, but that is one snazzy, snappy marketing handle for the main event of the light aviation crowd. The big shows apparently like long, descriptive, all-inclusive names, but “MAX” handily outshines them, IMHO.

MAX 2024

A few aircraft vendors who committed to exhibit space have challenges arriving each year. That happens at the big shows, too. MAX follows AirVenture by a month and the huge Wisconsin event strains both staff energy and company finances. In some cases, a supplier may have sold all their aircraft and have nothing to display.

Nonetheless, “I counted 32 exhibitors that arrived for the show,” said airport manager Chris Collins. He also noted a few other statistics. “Just over 600 aircraft operations were conducted (see FlightAware graph) — a new record!”

In other comparisons, Chris noted, “We sold 733 gallons of mo-gas — up 67% from 440 gallons in 2023, another new record!” He also identified that 118 transient visitors arrived in their own aircraft. That number does not include airplanes in exhibits.

Bathawk seen on the flight line of MAX ’24. —many photos here by Vickie Betts

Of course, the number of pilots attending MAX 2024 is far different than the enormous throngs that attend the two major events. Yet that isn’t a useful measurement because visitors get a different experience in Mt. Vernon. At MAX, an interested pilot can likely ask the seller all the questions he or she has. Even better, you can probably get a demo flight in one or more aircraft that truly interest you.

Right Time of Year

From its first year in 2009, Chris and team have subtly shifted the dates, seeking the right combo that is not on a major holiday yet provides accommodating weather. Clearly, the Mt. Vernonites found the magic.

MAX partner, Jana Filip excitedly noted, “We had great weather, all three days! Zero rain. Aircraft were flying all day long, every day!” That is indeed the magic for attendees looking to check out an aircraft they hope to purchase.

“It was a most exciting year for Midwest Aviation Expo,” continue Jana. “With a name change, formerly Midwest LSA Expo, now Midwest Aviation Expo — hence ‘MAX’ — the operation functioned seamlessly.”

Since I’ve long stressed the value of demo flying, let’s make a comparison. At Sun ‘n Fun, LSA and Sport Pilot kit aircraft suppliers can fly from the Paradise City turf runway with great ease. They do exactly that, with many demo flights taken. One downside is that so many are operating from that runway that it can become congested and pilots must watch a wide variety of traffic very closely.

At AirVenture, the Fun Fly Zone airstrip is also busy but even less accommodating of demo flights partly due to an awkward approach to landing. EAA has longer-term plans to completely alter this. While that will be most welcome, it will take time and then every vendor starts again to pick the right location for their display.

Conversely, MAX offers the #1 easiest place to demo fly that I have ever seen. During the event, the airport “belongs” to the light aircraft crowd. The runways are wide and long. Congestion is never a problem. If you plan well, you could take several demo flights — most vendors have a schedule and you should get on them if you want to get the most out of your visit.

MAX “concentrates, encourages, and rewards for demonstrations flights during the three-day sport aviation event,” observed Jana. “Our new motto is, ‘Fly it! Buy it!’. And they did…”

“To encourage the promotion of demonstration flights,” Jana continued, “the Midwest Aviation Expo hosts daily Dance Cards for the Daily Demo Derby.” Event organizers started encouraging exhibitors to book their demo flights during AirVenture as MAX follows only five weeks later. Clearly, they followed the advice and filled their slots for 2024.

Does the Daily Demo Derby work? With that kind of airport encouragement, you bet it does. Vendors compete vigorously. It’s a triple win: customers get aloft in aircraft of interest; vendors qualify more potential customers and get to show off their flying machines; the airport gets lots of activity (graph).

Already lined up for MAX 2025 is sponsor RT Aviation, representing Aeropilot and Atec. Airport manager Chris Collins (L) poses with the RT team.

And, yes, winners emerge. “On Thursday RT Aviation won with Rans close behind,” noted Jana. “On Friday Piston Aviation won the Derby with their fleet of four Bristell LSA. Piston repeated on Saturday; their Chief Demo Pilot gets big kudos,” Jana exclaimed!

What do these winners accomplish? On Saturday, Piston Aviation and their Bristell fleet delivered 18 demo flights, the most ever by one exhibitor on a single day. Total demo flights recorded at KMVN over three days was 98. “This was way up over years prior,” Jana said.

That leads to the final magic. Organizers reported 16 sales were made over three days and my regular surveying of aircraft sales at events suggests at least an equal number could follow in a few months afterward.

By any measure MAX has become a solid success. The aircraft sales put wide smiles on the faces of pilots and that’s a value that’s hard to beat.

Still to Come
from MAX ’24

In addition to this overview, I am planning a report on Future Vehicles Dingo and the Atec 212 Solo sold by RT Aviation. Thanks to Vickie Betts, I also secured enough video footage to complete a video interview with Rans’ Michele Schlitter shot at last year’s event. I hope you’ll return to read or watch these upcoming stories.

Finally, in a way to show the maturity of MAX, they already have a lead sponsor for the 2025 event. The team from RT Aviation will take that honor. It was provided for this year’s event by Daniela and Jeremy Knoll (nearby image) in their new enterprise of Rotax Service Center, Advanced Powerplant Solutions.

The 2024 event was dedicated to my longtime partner, “Videoman Dave” Loveman. One of the most vocal supporters of the Mt. Vernon show, Dave never missed until he succumbed to health challenges in fall of 2023.

Airshows Can’t Happen
Without Volunteers
(or Sponsors)

Volunteers and vendors alike help make MAX one of the friendliest and most helpful of airshow events.

Keeping safe operations flowing freely is this group of airside volunteers. Thanks, fellows!

Aircraft broker Eric Evans is a regular volunteer at MAX; he operates from KMVN airport. The annual fish fry was supported by Banterra and served by volunteers.

Financial services provider, Banterra, was a sponsor of MAX ’24 as well as the LAMA dinner sponsor at Sun ‘n Fun ’24. Thanks for great support!

Compress Post ...

(Graphic: FLYING magazine)

For most pilots, the FAA Airmen’s Medical Certificate is a fundamental requirement for flight. This certification guarantees that the pilot meets the medical standards necessary for safe operation of an aircraft. But there are exceptions, and understanding them is crucial, particularly for pilots facing challenges with their medical certification.

Medical Qualifications: Contention and Controversy

Discussions about medical qualifications often lead to disagreements and controversy. Even though I am not a member of the FAA FAASTeam, I regularly attend WINGS seminars. These discussions consistently arise at the end of many presentations, regardless of whether the presentation is related to medical issues.

The typical statement is usually something this: “A Sport Pilot does NOT need an FAA Medical NOR BasicMed.” They are usually referring to the to the use of a U.S. Issued Driver’s License to exercise Sport Pilot privileges. While this is true at a surface level, the answer is more nuanced and not for the reasons many pilots mistakenly believe.

On the general topic of Medicals and Medical Qualifications, the FAA is very clear and states the following:

FAA AIM 8-1-1-1.a.1:  “All pilots except those flying gliders and free air balloons must possess valid medical certificates in order to exercise the privileges of their airman certificates.”

FAA AIP ENR 1.15.1.1.1:  “All pilots except those flying gliders and free air balloons must possess valid medical certificates in order to exercise the privileges of their airman certificates.”

Sport Pilots and Medical Disqualifications

Many people mistakenly believe that Sport Pilots are not required to have sufficient proof of medical fitness. However, this is not true, except for gliders and free air balloons, which are the only exceptions to this rule. There is no mention of Sport Pilots or Light Sport Aircraft exceptions in the regulations. However, there is a difference for those exercising Sport Pilot privileges in terms of what constitutes a “sufficient proof of medical fitness” under the regulations, due to a special exception by the FAA for Sport Pilots.

A person exercising Sport Pilot privileges can satisfy the “sufficient proof of medical fitness” requirement for Sport Pilot privileges in one of three ways, ranging from most senior to most junior. For illustrative purposes only, let’s categorize these as Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3. A failure or revocation at a higher (senior) level prohibits the use of an item from a lower (junior) level.

• Standard FAA Airman Medical (Level 1): 1st, 2nd or 3rd Class Medical Certificate issued by an AME or other FAA authorized authority.
  • If a pilot’s most recent FAA Medical Certificate was denied, suspended or revoked or if any Special Issuance was withdrawn, the pilot is NOT eligible to operate any type of aircraft until the issue(s) have been resolved and a current and valid Airman Medical Certificate is issued.
• BasicMed (Level 2):  Certification by a U.S. State Licensed Physician using the official FAA BasicMed Exam form, plus an online self-certification course.
  • If a pilot’s most recent FAA Medical Certificate was denied, suspended or revoked, or if any Special Issuance was withdrawn, the pilot is NOT eligible to operate any type of aircraft until the issue(s) have been resolved and a current and valid Airman Medical Certificate is issued.
• U.S. Issued Driver’s License (Level 3):  For the purposes of Sport Pilot privileges only, a valid U.S. Issued Driver’s License may be used to fulfill the “sufficient proof of medical fitness” requirements.
  • If an adverse action has occurred with either a Standard FAA Medical or BasicMed issuance listed above, those conditions must be cleared, and recertification must occur, before using a U.S. Issued Driver’s License to satisfy the “sufficient proof of medical fitness” requirement.
  • Sport Pilots must comply with all restrictions and limitations on their U.S. Issued Driver’s License, as well as any judicial or administrative orders pertaining to the operation of a motor vehicle.
  • The pilot must “self-certify” that they have no medical conditions nor ingesting any medications that prevent the safe operation of an aircraft.

The FAA allows U.S. Issued Driver’s Licenses to be used for Sport Pilot privileges without the pilot holding an FAA Medical or BasicMed for a specific reason. This is because each U.S. state, territory, or district’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) mandates a basic level of medical fitness for operating a motor vehicle. In this case, the DMV essentially serves as the medical certifying authority in place of an Aviation Medical Examiner (AME) or a U.S. licensed physician. Therefore, even though the pilot does not have an FAA Medical or BasicMed, they are still being medically qualified by a certifying authority (DMV).

If a pilot’s physicians have informed the pilot that they are medically unfit to operate an aircraft due to medical conditions and/or medications, or if the pilot becomes aware of any medical conditions and/or medications that make them medically unfit to operate an aircraft, the pilot is no longer able to “self-certify” and may not continue to operate an aircraft. This applies to any type of medical certificate or driver’s license.

Denials May Not Be Permanent

There is still a chance that you may be eligible for an FAA Airman Medical under Special Issuance. Just because your application was initially denied, it doesn’t mean that you’ve reached the end. You may still qualify for a Special Issuance Medical Certificate.

This is a quote from the FAA: “The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (ultimately) denies only 0.1% of medical certificate applications. The FAA processes over 400,000 applications each year.” The FAA will require a substantial amount of testing and documentation, but as long as you provide what they ask for, in many cases your chances of a Special Issuance are 99.9%!

The FAA has a “one percent rule” for Airman Physicals that goes something like this: The “1 percent rule” would result in a pilot being denied a medical certificate if their risk of a (acute/sudden) medical incapacitation (e.g. heart attack, convulsion, stroke, faint etc) is determined as being greater than 1% during the year (annual period). If you and your Aviation Medical Examiner can prove that you fit inside this box, you stand a reasonable chance of being one of the approved 99.9%!

Aviation Medical Examiner as a Consultant

It’s not widely known, but many Aviation Medical Examiners (AMEs) will provide consultation services before conducting your official medical examination. In this capacity, they are working for you and not the FAA. If your AME doesn’t offer this service, they can likely refer you to another AME who does. They can advise you on your medical status before you submit your FAA MedXpress application and physical and help you with any necessary pre-exam testing and documentation required for a Special Issuance application.

Have your Aviation Medical Examiner arrange the necessary pre-exam testing and secondary exams with your Primary Care physician to obtain a “medical clearance”. Inform your Primary Care physician that you need a “medical clearance” and they can coordinate the process. You will require at least an EKG, which can be costly if done at the AME’s office. However, many of your medical pre-exam testing and secondary exams may be covered by insurance or Medicare if ordered by your Primary Care physician for a “medical clearance”. I have gone through this process and found it to be more cost-effective.

Glider Operations: A Potential Pathway

If all else fails, there’s a ray of hope to fly once more for pilots facing medical disqualifications. Under certain circumstances, it’s possible to continue flying as a Sport Pilot or Private Pilot, even if your FAA Airman Medical has been denied, suspended, revoked or a Special Issuance has been withdrawn.

The key lies in adding the Glider Category rating to your existing Sport Pilot or Private Pilot certificate. Adding this category to an existing certificate can be accomplished in as little as three flight hours. Of course, you have to fly an aircraft in the Glider Category. If you prefer powered flight, you can train in and fly a Motor Glider (self-launch), like the Pipistrel Sinus. This particular model is equipped with a Rotax engine and a front propeller, essentially making it an airplane with 50-foot wings.

The Glider Category add-on will involve additional training and possibly both practical and written testing. If you meet the necessary requirements and demonstrate your fitness to fly gliders, you may regain the joy of flight. Of course, you’ll always want to consult with an Aviation Medical Examiner to ensure that you are flying safe and legal.

Medications and Flight: A Critical Consideration

Regardless of your medical certification status, pilots must be vigilant about the medications they take. The FAA prohibits operating an aircraft while taking certain medications, and there are no exceptions, even for Sport Pilots or Glider Pilots. While the FAA doesn’t maintain an official list of prohibited medications, the Aviation Medicine Advisory Service provides a helpful resource.

It’s always best to err on the side of caution and consult a certified Aviation Medical Examiner before taking any new medications, especially if you plan to fly. Your AME can offer personalized guidance and help you understand any potential impact on your flight eligibility.

Conclusion

Flying without an FAA medical is a complex subject with few straightforward answers. If you face challenges with your medical certification, it’s crucial to understand your options and make informed decisions. Remember, safety is paramount, and seeking advice from an Aviation Medical Examiner is always the best course of action.

Additional Resources:

Fitness For Flight (FAA AIM)

Medical Facts for Pilots (FAA AIP)

(14 CFR Part 61) Subpart J – Sport Pilots (FAA)

Facts About BasicMed (FAA)

Aviation Medicine Advisory Service (database)

Compress Post ...

I was inspired to write this article by a comment made on a previous article I wrote on MOSAIC. I had indicated that MOSAIC had the potential to bring new aircraft to market at half the price of current legacy offerings. The commenter made the point that even at half the price, this would still not make it inherently “affordable” to most people.

This topic will be covered in two articles. The first will discuss how shared ownership is able to bring down the costs of accessing an airplane and thus, making it potentially more affordable to a wider pilot demographic. The second article will detail two proposals on how some form of shared ownership could be expanded into a regional or national model.

How the Numbers Add Up

Affordability is really not a single quantifiable number that can be used to judge a product. There are simply too many other factors such as income, lifestyle and geographical location that have to be taken into account while, of course, no two people see their life priorities the same way. How that product is accessed will also have a significant effect on its affordability. The simplest examples being the purchase of a house or a new car. If they all had to be paid for in cash, there would be very limited home or car ownership. In these examples, the ability to spread the purchase cost over an extended period of time makes an unaffordable/inaccessible item affordable. To some extent this would be true for a plane but, for most people, a house or car are considered essential while a plane is typically seen as a luxury so access to loans to buy them are somewhat restricted and expensive due to the relatively small market.

Trying to determine what it costs for an average person to own a plane is challenging for a number of reasons including the value of the plane, where it is located, the financial situation of the owner and how many hours it will actually be flown in a year.

The FAA produces an annual general aviation survey, the most recent one being for 2022. Using the total number of hours flown and categorized as “personal” (8.2 million hours) divided by the number of planes categorized as “personal” (141,600) we get a figure of just under 58 hours per year per plane. Personal planes and hours include rotorcraft and fixed wing single and multi-engine. Another part of the survey indicates single engine piston planes fly less hours per year on average than both multi engine planes and rotorcraft, so the 58 hours average is probably an overstatement, but we will use it here for convenience.

What About Costs?

Table 1

Here, we really have to make some assumptions, so these are mine based on 34 years of ownership, operation, aircraft management, from multiple FBOs and flight schools in Virginia and Florida.

Two types of cost are used when creating a forecast, fixed and variable. A fixed cost is one that is not usually going to change irrespective of the hours flown, a good example being insurance. A variable cost is one that is going to apply to every hour flown, a good example being fuel. Some variable costs cover future expenses such as an engine overhaul and are not cash being spent every year but is money you have to put to one side to save up for the eventual expense. These are called reserves. Aircraft ownership comes with a very heavy dose of fixed costs. Total annual cost of ownership is the addition of fixed plus variable costs. The cost per hour of flight is the total annual cost divided by the hours flown.

Table 2

In our example we are going to look at a plane that cost $80,000, was purchased with a 20 year loan at 7% annual interest. The detailed numbers are in three tables at the end of the article. I will just provide a simple summary here, so as to maintain simplicity.

In our example:

Fixed costs per year (Table 1): $19,056 (hangared) or $15,456 (tied down)

Variable cost per hour (Table 2): $98.10 ($65.00 Cash and $33.10 reserves)

At the “average” flight hours of 58 per year, this comes to $427 per hour (hangared) and $365 Per hour (tied down). Both being significantly higher than if a similar plane was being rented from the local airport.

Table 3

However, where the magic starts is as the total numbers of hours per year start to increase (Table 3):

This table highlights some key information:

• Five people owning the plane with each one using it for about 58 hours (292 hours) reduces the cost per hour by $264 (hangared) and $214 (tied down).
• Fly 900 hours per year and the cost per hour falls to $119 (hangared) and $115 (tied down).
• At 58 hours per year the recovery of fixed costs comes to $329 per hour (Hangared) and $266 (tied down).
• At 292 hours the fixed costs make up $65 (hangared) $53 (tied down).
• At 900 hours the fixed costs make up $21 (hangared) and $17 (tied down).
• As the number of hours increases the differential between keeping the plane hangared and tied down reduces dramatically.
• The rate of decrease in cost per hour slows down considerably as the total hours increase suggesting an optimum number of hours per year.
• The clear lesson here is that higher volumes have the potential to turn an unaffordable luxury into something significantly more accessible and affordable. Consequently, when you look at these figures it is difficult to see why people would actually want to own any aircraft rather than rent, as all but the most frugal would save money. This also explains why the main cost saving model people have adopted is that of shared ownership through partnerships, flying clubs and managed ownership.

Typical responses given to this question might include:

• The rental aircraft are just not available when I want to fly
• I can’t go off on a long trip in a rental plane
• They are not kept in good enough condition
• Always down for some reason or another’
• Too expensive
• Does not have the type I like to fly
• I like the freedom of making a spur of the moment decision
• Planes get too much use, don’t trust the maintenance
• Not enough of the model I like to fly
• I never share anything
• There are surely many more.

Some Typical Forms of Shared Ownership

Each of these solutions brings with it a different set of constraints. The biggest issues with partnerships come down to personality and attitude conflicts. It is very difficult to ensure that you get the right blend of people together who have shared values – anything broken will be fixed, aircraft will be kept clean with fuel after every trip etc. That is without even touching on the challenges of everybody wanting to fly at the same time and what happens when the plane is down for an extended annual, upgrades or repair.

Flying clubs can bring more discipline to the whole concept of shared ownership/Shared use and even add the attraction of multiple aircraft but, with a multiplication of shared owners/users the potential for conflicts also multiply. There are some great examples of flying clubs that have been around for many decades. These tend to have more formal rules than partnerships but are usually set up as not for profit and are run by volunteers with a common interest so the ongoing quality of the experience can be highly variable over time.

Professionally managed ownership got a significant boost about 18 years ago spurred on by the excitement generated by Cirrus which led to a number of fractional ownership programs being created and sold. However, these were being created as a way to sell more Cirrus aircraft and promoted by people looking to make very substantial profits from the programs. They ultimately failed because they did not really aim to bring costs down for the owners through volume and there were too few customers looking for such a high-end experience. Nevertheless, the concept did take off it many different forms for turbine aircraft where the costs of professional management are not a major obstacle to the high net worth individuals and companies who are customers as their alternatives could be even higher cost charter or sole ownership.

Ultimately, the key takeaway from all of this is that volume is what brings down costs and makes aviation more affordable but, it does not necessarily address the challenges of accessibility. Accessibility only comes from there being a plentiful supply of aircraft, and organization to put the aircraft where the demand is.

MOSAIC, the subject of a prior article that I wrote, has the potential to offer aircraft with much lower variable operating costs than legacy aircraft but, with potentially higher fixed costs as they would be newer and likely much better equipped. With high volumes bringing down the fixed costs per hour plus lower variable costs, the overall economics could well place new aircraft within the reach of many more people.

The second article in this series will cover some of the potential solutions to accessibility to shared ownership/usage aircraft.

Compress Post ...

Here at the ByDanJohnson.com site, we get questions all the time related to aircraft whose companies are defunct or have gone on to something else. “Where can I find this part?” “How do I get documentation?” Sometimes we have the answers and sometimes we don’t. But it’s something we talk about every week, so in this video we discuss tactics for owners and potential owners of “rare” LSAs. What are the resources available to you? How can you get those parts you need?

Let’s discuss!

Compress Post ...

Christophe Gonin and Lucien Angrand, intrepid trans-Atlantic flyers.

Adventurers Christophe Gonin, from La Tour, France and Lucien Angrand, from Ornex, France braved North Atlantic waters to fly from France to Oshkosh to attend the 2024 Airventure. Planning for their journey began two years ago when Christophe, a Magni Gyroplane pilot, set a goal to fly to Airventure in a two place gyroplane.  First, he had to research the equipment necessary to make such a trip.  He needed a gyro that had a range of at least 300 miles (for the longest over water legs) and that was reliable enough to prevent an unscheduled swim between landing sites.  He settled on the Argon GTL (Grand Touring, Long) because it met all those specifications (with some modifications) and because it was long enough to accommodate their gear and survival equipment.  The Argon is manufactured in Europe, with about 90 flying world wide (12 in the U.S.).

The intrepid pair left France on April 15, 2024 and made a stop at the Friedrichshafen Airshow in Germany before setting out for the UK.  After Scotland and Faroe Island, they landed in Heidi, Iceland.  They tooled around Iceland for a while before once again donning their exposure suits to set out across the North Atlantic for Greenland.  The gyro landed at Kulusuk, Greenland and then explored the icy island by visiting Narsarsuak, Nuuk and Sisimiut before visiting Baffin Island and then mainland Canada.  They crossed over to the United States at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.  They reached Oshkosh on July 14 after three months of fun flying and adventure.  Although they would not trade their flight for the world, they are flying back to France on a commercial airliner.

Compress Post ...

A phenom in the ultralight world, the Badland made news at last year’s AirVenture by rolling out its single cylinder 460cc, 39 hp Thumper engine married to its sturdy chrome molly airframe. This year, Badland unveils two major developments, a nosewheel and carbon fiber ribs.

The Badland nosewheel design is an homage to the Vans RV-8A original nosewheel and is very robust for its size. The nosegear assembly is welded 4130 steel, holding a 4.00×6 nosewheel. The mini tundra tires for the Badland are actually fabricated in house, giving the aircraft its STOL competitor look.

To make up for the added weight, Badland’s founder, Chris Deuel, and his team designed and fabricated light but extremely strong wing ribs using carbon fiber and high-density foam composites. The CF ribs are attached to the aluminum spars using epoxy to provide both a strong bond and isolation from the aluminum and to prevent corrosion.

The base price of the Badland ultralight is $17,000, firewall aft. The tricycle gear and carbon fiber rib upgrade will run an additional $3500. For more information, visit the company’s website.

Compress Post ...