FAA Docket Number FAA-2012-0350 

From: Jim Jordan 

105 Kemp Ct. 

Folsom, CA 95630 

'I 1 

• ! !_ .. ,:-_,.;l ) r: :-) ,• . ~ t i. ~) 0 

I support the AOPA I EM Medical Exemption Request. I believe the FM has a dual mission related to 

General Aviation. First and foremost they are responsible for the regulating the General Aviation 

Industry to ensure aviation safety. However, a secondary mission is to do their part to ensure General 

Aviation Industry is financially healthy. The reason that a financially healthy General Aviation Industry is 

part of the FM mission is that the healthier the Industry, the more likely that all those involved in the 

Industry will be able to·continue to afford innovation and good training, which has and will lead to great 

strides in aviation safety. 

How this relates to the AOPA I EM Medical Exemption request is that the greater the number of pilots 

involved in General Aviation the greater the opportunity for a financially healthy Industry. When I speak 

with former pilots who have stopped flying, their first comments is always the cost. A second comment 

usually relates to the necessity to take flight physicals every few years, which takes them away from 

their jobs for a half day and usually costs more than $100.00. No other hobby has this type of 

requirement. 

I am a pilot who holds a Commercial Pilot License for Single and Multi Engine land Aircraft and Glider. 

hold an Instrument Rating and a Flight Instructors Rating, I fly a little over 120 hours per year in my 

Aviat Husky A-lB, and have accumulated over 2,800 hours total flight time. My Husky is used for 

personal transportation. 

When one considers my Husky, it would be very difficult to show that medically there is any aspect of 

flying my 2,000 pound maximum gross takeoff weight (MGTW), two seat, 180 horse power (HP) Husky 

aircraft that would make in more physically demanding than flying any of the typical Light Sport Aircraft 

(LSA). At least one LSA has a 180 HP engine, and LSA aircraft equipped for water operations can have a 

MGTW of 1,430 pounds. This leads to the conclusion that the concern is not the physical aspects of 

flying the aircraft, which concerns the FM. Therefore, it must relate to the risk from a crash to either 

the occupants or the folks on the ground. 

Since LSA Regulations already allow for carrying one passenger, the concern must be related to the 

damage done on the ground. Unfortunately, there have been a number of worst case accidents 

involving General Aviation aircraft crashing in the confines of big cities. I think detailed analysis of these 

events would show two things: first is aircraft that would be covered by this exemption do no more 

damage than a typical automobile and just as important, it would be impossible to distinguish between 

the damage caused by an LSA flown under Regulations approved by the FM, and the aircraft that would 

be able to be flown under the proposed exemption. 

Finally, the proposed educational course included in this exemption would make the typical General 

Aviation Industry pilot better informed and more likely to be able to avoid flying when unfit. I strongly 

support the exemption as proposed.