What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Medical reform: good for Cessnas, bad for RV12s

dmasys

Member
The surprising rapidity with which the Medical Reform legislation got rolled into the FAA reauthorization and passed by Congress didn't really give us a chance to think much about what it would do to the value of all Light Sports. But unless I am missing something here, the stock of ancient spamcans just rose (or will rise momentarily when the Prez signs the bill to keep the FAA from shutting down tomorrow) and the value of our perky little RV-12s just took a dive. Why have speed limit and gross weight and seating limits when you can go fly just about any GA aircraft with your 'medical within past ten years' and a drivers license?

Dan Masys
RV10 N104LD - 910 hrs
RV12 N122LD - 320 hrs
 
There are a good number of Sport Pilot Certificate holders out there who will still be limited to the LSA category. I do agree with you, and the slowing decline in the LSA market just shifted into overdrive. On a positive, maybe my RV's value just started to increase?
 
The RV-12 has a great combination of handling, performance, economy and wonderful visibility. As a Cessna owner I have a lot of respect for that airplane regardless of whether or not I can keep flying my Cessna.

Dave
C-180 flying
RV-3B building
 
I don't know. Most people have been hoping for/anticipating the rule change for a long time, and there are still an awful lot of guys left out in the cold, so to speak. And it's not like the LSA manufacturers have been cranking out airplanes like it was 1946.

I'd expect the market value of '46 Champs and Ercoupes to drop some, and maybe the S-LSA manufacturers will need to re-evaluate their production numbers. I doubt the LSA market will tank entirely. Many are E-LSA, with all the good things that brings.
 
I hope my Cessna 172 will take a bit of a bump in value. Then I can sell it and just fly my RV-12. It is nice being able to take more than one person flying in the 172 but I do like the RV-12. The cost of upkeep on the Cessna is way more than the RV-12.

I am sure the LSA manufacturers did a little lobbying to keep the medical from passing.
 
Ive given a lot of thought to see if the PBOR2 change would benefit me.

The reality is...Light Sport, and in particular my RV-12 SLSA, provides me more excitement, more speed, more economical operating costs and is technologically superior to...most of the airplanes I'd consider switching to.

So I go and take the baseline Third Class medical and then I can look at Cessna 172s or Archers. Like both but no way I'd afford a new one and I sure don't want an old one. I'd give a LOT of consideration to a refurbished 172 or even a 152 as per the AOPA and Sporty's refurbished planes options.
On the other hand my personal 'mission' is mostly solo flying on local or regional 200+ mile flights. I like being able to operate and refuel the airplane myself and the maintenance and servicing, so far, has be minimal and routine...and economical.

If I won the lottery I might reconsider...heck I'd buy a Cessna Caravan just because I'd like one..but I'd always keep the RV-12.

There are guys who've not been flying at all that ;might' go back. Those that have been flying Light Sport I'd wager will be like me and figure that LSAs are more fun and better overall. The only area where a move up to GA would make sense is to carry more passengers, more luggage, fly IFR or nigh or even fly a twin...in that case their mission isn't light sport anyway.
 
I am one of those that fought for the bill, and now find it does NOTHING for me. I would have liked to move up to a Cherokee maybe, but cannot now. I think there are a lot of pilots like myself who gain nothing from this passage, but I am not crying in my beer - I think I can be quite happy with an RV12 or similar plane..
 
The surprising rapidity with which the Medical Reform legislation got rolled into the FAA reauthorization and passed by Congress didn't really give us a chance to think much about what it would do to the value of all Light Sports.

Wouldn't have been worth the time. With all due respect, any debate would be like three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. LSA owners are waaaay outnumbered by certified GA and (dare I say) traditional RV owners.

Me? I want to keep flying my -8, and the new rules remove a biannual PITA where somebody hunts for a medical issue. Under current rules, the wrong answer to "Does your wife say you snore?" can get you grounded. It's like asking "Do you fart?"....everybody does.

If I get the opportunity, I will be personally thanking legislators at OSH.
 
I don't believe the values will tank. I own/fly a Rans S19, we'll equipped and like the RV12, a ball to fly. As I have had open heart surgery within the last year and a half, I would have to get a special issuance one time. Not likely I would have a problem as I am healthy, but if I failed I could not longer fly LSA. Not worth even the minimal risk. As an A&P IA maintenance costs for a certified airplane are not much of an issue for me.
The better performance of LSA well as the availability of better equipment will keep me flying light sport.
 
Have you seen the condition of those ancient derelicts littering our airports' tiedowns (I mean the planes, not the pilots). If someone gave you one of those old spamcans for free, you would be hard pressed to get it minimally airworthy and recover a portion of your investment. I prefer my brand-new/state-of-the-art RV-12 ELSA which I can repair and maintain on my own. It's relatively fast, carries a good load, and is cheap on fuel -- it is a pleasure to fly. I have owned some dozen planes over the past 50 years (certified and experimental) and can attest that there is nothng inexpensive about a cheap-to-acquire old spamcan.

Blast away!
 
I'm a little on the fence about what I think values will do. I definitely believe all of the $10-15,000 C150's out there will go up in value, as well as a lot of 172's and Cherokees. There may be a decrease in demand for new LSA's, but I don't see a great drop in value. What is a new SLSA RV-12 costing? $150,000 or a little less with all options? What is a new Cessna or Piper costing? A lot more than main issue I see is that there are a LOT of old planes out ere that will be potentially getting back into the air, and there are very few SLSA's or ELSA's that are very old (not talking about old planes that Sport Pilots can fly).

My dad is an incomplete quadriplegic. He can only fly LSA as PIC th re are a lot still in that type of boat, and don't expect or want to fly long distances with lots of passengers IFR at night. Simple day VFR local flying once in a while is enough to keep them feeling alive.

Time will tell, but I don't expect drastic changes.
 
Not likely I would have a problem as I am healthy, but if I failed I could not longer fly LSA. Not worth even the minimal risk.
I call that the "aviation death penalty", or "AME Russian roulette". If you pass, you're golden... if you don't you're hosed completely and permanently. So, you have two guys with identical conditions and history. One can fly until he is too old to get in the plane any more, because he didn't even try to get a medical. The other is permanently grounded because he tried. It's like having tea with the Mad Hatter and March Hare.

I honestly cannot think of a factory produced airplane within my ability to buy, feed and maintain for which I would swap my RV-12. I would however readily swap for, say, an RV-9 or RV-7. Maybe even (brace for sacrilege) another experimental of a different sort, if there were any. ;)
 
A rising tide floats all boats.

If all the non LSA values are increased due to an increase in market size (buyers), how would that diminish the 12, specifically? It is hand waving to be sure, but one might expect all the market to get a rise in prices, just due to a larger buyer population. The 12 is still a great performer for the cost/price. Fast and economical.

Fly now worry later. YMMV:D
 
I think the others have pretty well covered it. The new rules don't help me at all. Even if they did, I just love the -12, the way it flies, and the economics. I do not miss those $200 fill ups of my Rocket.

As for the value, I will find out soon enough. My -12 is for sale and it's not cheap, and I'm not in the mood to just give it away. I'll see if I get any attention at AirVenture next week. It's STILL $30K less than the SLSA and you can do your own maintenance. I think it's still a good deal for the right pilot.
 
The original change in rules made old Ercoupes that you could not give away, suddenly come out of the weeds and command big prices, I know, I bought one of those fresh out of the weeds (for $26k). With the arrival of the ELSA and SLSA and those in EAB clothes that price sank - a lot! Back at that time there WAS no alternates to consider. I don't think we will see any appreciable drop in value of the RV12 type planes.
 
As an RV12 owner I have been thinking about this and talking to people for some time.

There are two schools of thought.

1. Single engine piston will go up in value and LSA will go down.

2. There will be several thousand pilots returning to the sky that currently do not have an aircraft. A good percentage of them will be older more wealthy pilots who will want a newer more modern aircraft. A new Sport Cruiser or RV12 will be significantly cheaper that a new 375k 172 not to mention outperform it. So this option suggest the LSA will fit an economical option for a new aircraft with state of the art avionics and autopilot.

I am leaning toward position 2.

My 2 cents
 
Wouldn't have been worth the time. With all due respect, any debate would be like three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. LSA owners are waaaay outnumbered by certified GA and (dare I say) traditional RV owners.

Me? I want to keep flying my -8, and the new rules remove a biannual PITA where somebody hunts for a medical issue. Under current rules, the wrong answer to "Does your wife say you snore?" can get you grounded. It's like asking "Do you fart?"....everybody does.

If I get the opportunity, I will be personally thanking legislators at OSH.

Hey, I don't snore! But Tanya might argue your other postulation vigorously.
 
And don't forget new pilots. As expensive as it is to learn to fly, it seems like the Sport Pilot license might continue to be either a good stepping stone to a higher license or the final step for someone who just wants to get their feet off the ground. LSAs will still have a role for those Sport Pilots.
 
I don't believe this legislation will hurt the-12. So far, all the Cessna drivers who have been in my plane instantly fall in love with it from a number of points...overall handling; but most of all the instrumentation.

The old spam-cans (GA) versions are still FAA controlled as to TSO'ed equipment making the cost prohibitive to upgrade.

How can (GA) compete with $20k for a nicely outfitted dual screen moving map display with auti-pilot, weather and traffic?

What the passing of this bill will do for me is.....remove the altitude and night restrictions...as I will be able to function as a "private pilot" instead of sport...tippy skippy!
 
Last edited:
Having had open heart surgery and mechanical valve installed, I'm in great health now and could pass a medical, but NO WAY I'm going near trying and not passing for some reason and getting grounded forever.

Also, I couldn't afford a larger plane anyways, own, or maintain, so I am SO happy with my RV12! I expect it to serve my needs for many years.








I don't believe the values will tank. I own/fly a Rans S19, we'll equipped and like the RV12, a ball to fly. As I have had open heart surgery within the last year and a half, I would have to get a special issuance one time. Not likely I would have a problem as I am healthy, but if I failed I could not longer fly LSA. Not worth even the minimal risk. As an A&P IA maintenance costs for a certified airplane are not much of an issue for me.
The better performance of LSA well as the availability of better equipment will keep me flying light sport.
 
The need for reform of medical standards for pilots transcends any economic consequences.

It should have been done a long time ago starting with the age 60 retirement of airline pilots which ironically was changed for economic reasons when it happened. There never was a medical reason for age 60 retirement.
 
I primarily see these changes helping out the guy that wants to get back (or stay) in the air but can't afford the $100-150k light sport airplane, but CAN afford the $15-50k bird. So, I can see the value of the Cessna's and Cherokee's maybe going up a little, but I can't see how that's really going to affect any of the light sport aircraft.
 
I call that the "aviation death penalty", or "AME Russian roulette". If you pass, you're golden... if you don't you're hosed completely and permanently. So, you have two guys with identical conditions and history. One can fly until he is too old to get in the plane any more, because he didn't even try to get a medical. The other is permanently grounded because he tried. It's like having tea with the Mad Hatter and March Hare.

That's typical government....rewarding bad behavior and punishing good behavior.
 
I don't think it'll have much effect on RV-12's or RANS S-19's, etc. But it could certainly cause the value of J-3's to fall relative to Cessna 140's.
 
I am building a E-AB Rans S7-S and expect it to be exactly what I want and need to fly off my farm and much better for my uses than the certificated Champ I sold last year.
Short of some windfall, I will keep my ELSA Flight Design CTSW. I already have a panel upgrade on hand and will see if I can get it IFR qualified. Of all the things the new rules will give me is the ability to file IFR up through an overcast and make an approach a couple of hundred miles away. I do some long distances in my ELSA and this will make more trips possible and safer. No, I am not going to fly it in convective or icing conditions, but there are many days when it would get me through a thin, low overcast.
Sure, now I'd like to have my T-210 back, and the wife and I have casually chatted about how nice it would be to have an honest 4 passenger airplane (yes, I know how many seats that takes:) ) but I am not sure I am willing to go back to an A&P now that I've been maintaining my own aircraft.
If Vans had offered a metal, tail wheel, tandem, I'd build one, so sorry for lurking here with other airplanes but you have a good group with very useful information and I do donate so I don't feel too badly about being a stranger in a strange land.
 
Not without a new medical

Joe Dallas
Umm, that has nothing to do with the construction of an aircraft. There is nothing regulatory stopping anyone from using a constant speed prop on an EAB. The concept of a pilot having a medical or not has nothing what so ever to do with the certification of an aircraft. And most certainly it has nothing to do with the capability of installing a constant speed prop on an aircraft.

As the question was stated:
Can I now add a constant speed prop to me 12
The new rules concerning a pilot having, or not having, a medical has no bearing on whether a builder can install a constant speed prop on an RV-12.
 
Constant speed prop

Do I have it wrong?
I can build EAB and still be light sport if the aircraft meets light sport rules
Constant speed prop is not allowed in light sport rules


Joe Dallas





Umm, that has nothing to do with the construction of an aircraft. There is nothing regulatory stopping anyone from using a constant speed prop on an EAB. The concept of a pilot having a medical or not has nothing what so ever to do with the certification of an aircraft. And most certainly it has nothing to do with the capability of installing a constant speed prop on an aircraft.

As the question was stated:
The new rules concerning a pilot having, or not having, a medical has no bearing on whether a builder can install a constant speed prop on an RV-12.
 
Do I have it wrong?
I can build EAB and still be light sport if the aircraft meets light sport rules
Constant speed prop is not allowed in light sport rules


Joe Dallas

The discussion was the Medical reform passage allowing pilots to fly other aircraft other than LSA, without a medical.

So if a pilot holds a Private certificate and was flying an RV-12 as a Sport Pilot without a medical, he could fly an E-AB RV-12 that had been modified with a constant speed prop, under the new rule.

If the pilot has only Sport Pilot he can only fly airplanes that meet Light Sport requirements.
 
Do I have it wrong?
I can build EAB and still be light sport if the aircraft meets light sport rules
Constant speed prop is not allowed in light sport rules


Joe Dallas
The terms EAB (Experimental Amateur Built) and E-LSA (Experimental-Light Sport Aircraft) and S-LSA (Standard-Light Sport Aircraft) have everything to do with how an airplane is registered after it is constructed. An aircraft with anyone one of those designations can be flown by a pilot holding a SPORT PILOT certificate, as long as that registered aircraft meets the construction/performance parameters of the Light Sport rule.

The point I am making is that if a builder were to build what would normally be considered a light sport aircraft in such a way that would prevent it from being flown by a SPORT PILOT (i.e. installing a constant speed prop) and then register it as an EAB they are perfectly in their right to do so, and always have been. There never has been anything in the current regulations of amateur built aircraft to prevent a builder from building non-LSA regulated equipment on an otherwise LSA version of an aircraft as long as it was registered as an EAB. At that point the aircraft would not be considered a Light Sport Aircraft any longer since it now has equipment not authorized for use on a Light Sport Aircraft. However, with the aircraft registered as an EAB it is STILL airworthy and perfectly legal. It is just that the pilot flying that plane must now hold a PRIVATE PILOT certificate to be PILOT IN COMMAND of that aircraft.

There is a specific difference between the certification of the AIRCRAFT and the certification of the PILOT when looking at this issue.
 
Private pilot in a EAB 12

Thanks Scott

That is how I see It

Joe Dallas with a Private pilot certificate

The discussion was the Medical reform passage allowing pilots to fly other aircraft other than LSA, without a medical.

So if a pilot holds a Private certificate and was flying an RV-12 as a Sport Pilot without a medical, he could fly an E-AB RV-12 that had been modified with a constant speed prop, under the new rule.

If the pilot has only Sport Pilot he can only fly airplanes that meet Light Sport requirements.
 
I'm almost 65, and I built my RV-12 as a hedge against the day I might not want to take another medical. I continue to fly both my Cherokee and RV-12, and now With the new rules I have confidence this happy state of affairs will continue for years to come. The 12 is a delight to fly and the gas expense is one third of what the Cherokee costs me. I don't see that the new medical rules will make the RV any less attractive to buyers.
 
I almost agree

I almost agree

However I wish I would have finished my RV10

Joe Dallas

I'm almost 65, and I built my RV-12 as a hedge against the day I might not want to take another medical. I continue to fly both my Cherokee and RV-12, and now With the new rules I have confidence this happy state of affairs will continue for years to come. The 12 is a delight to fly and the gas expense is one third of what the Cherokee costs me. I don't see that the new medical rules will make the RV any less attractive to buyers.
 
Still exceptions you missed. I hold a private pilots license and can fly an EAB RV12 but NOT if it has a constant speed prop since I do not have and cannot get a valid medical.
The new rules do not help me a bit, since it has been about 25 years since my last medical. More confusing and more illogical than ever.
The discussion was the Medical reform passage allowing pilots to fly other aircraft other than LSA, without a medical.

So if a pilot holds a Private certificate and was flying an RV-12 as a Sport Pilot without a medical, he could fly an E-AB RV-12 that had been modified with a constant speed prop, under the new rule.

If the pilot has only Sport Pilot he can only fly airplanes that meet Light Sport requirements.
 
Still exceptions you missed. I hold a private pilots license and can fly an EAB RV12 but NOT if it has a constant speed prop since I do not have and cannot get a valid medical.
The new rules do not help me a bit, since it has been about 25 years since my last medical. More confusing and more illogical than ever.

The discussion was in the context of being able to meet the requirements with the Medical Reform Bill.
If you can't meet those requirements then of course it wouldn't apply to you.
 
I was thinking over the implications of the medical reform, now signed, and realized that I'd be able to hang on to my Cessna 180 - and that I can count on flying the RV-3B I'm building.

For the C-180, the price might stay reasonably high now. I'd expected that I'd be among the many Boomers selling theirs in a buyer's market - and now that might not happen.

And while I still expect to fly the RV-3 a few years and then sell it, there won't be quite the same pressure to do so.

Dave
 
Night flying?

Those of us who fly with a private can now fly up to 18,000 feet at night with our RV-12. LOL, if your latest medical is less then 10 years old :D
 
Yuk, yuk, guys! I still remember the government drone guy in my ROTAX course telling me the 912S powered drones routinely making it into Class A airspace. --- Personally I'm going for astronaut wings!😜
 
If couldn't pass a medical before the new rules you can't pass when they are implemented. If you fly with a condition that prevents a 3rd class medical in a C-172 you will find your insurance not worth the paper it's written on. The new rule also says that if you have a condition that might have cause you to be denied a 3rd class medical you will have to go see your doctor and have him/her sign you off as OK....or you will have to pass an FAA online course on medical restrictions.

In any case, if you are not OK to fly you are not OK to fly.....3rd class med or no 3rd class med.

EBB
 
In my opinion, LSA will be alive and well even after the new rules go into place.
After reading the bill, we still require a medical from any licensed Doctor, as opposed to an AME and it is good for four years as opposed to Two. Plus you have to take the online course every two years.
This is all great since the documents do not go to the FAA, so in case you fail you can Still go LSA, if you choose.
I think a lot of doctors will not want to sign off on the checklist, so most AMEs will still do medicals, for those that don't want a 3rd class, and just operate under the PBOR rules if that's what you want. The checklist is still fairly stringent and if you ask me, a lot of LSA pilots will probably decide to just stick with that and not go through the trouble of getting even the new non3rd class medical.
I still think it is a good thing and I will plan on doing it going forward, but I'm not too worried about the value of my RV12.
too bad my current medical expires at the end of May, 2017. I'll need one more medical! Oh, well.
 
I agree with Steve and EBB. Pretty sure my primary doc would just refer me down the hall to the AME who did my last 3rd class. I doubt he would want the extra responsibility of aviation related medicals. In any case, the doctor who does the non-medical medical can still indicate on the form, "abnormal", or "flying not recommended". In which case you would be legally grounded whether or not it goes to the FAA.
 
Unless I am misunderstanding the new medical ruling - I think if anything this has just re-enforced the need for LSA. You have to have had a 3rd class medical in the last ten years it didn't eliminate the need.

Separately what originally attracted me to the RV-12 is that Vans certified the entire package... I don't have to worry about engine, avionics etc match and to me that give it extra value and extra confidence to a buyer of a used one.
 
Back
Top