The FAA has sent a nasty-o-gram to a Delta passenger who recorded video of the final portion of a flight that was hit by a bird.  The Delta jet landed safely at JFK.

The passenger, Grant Cardone, admitted using an iPad to record the wing and engine during the landing phase, in violation of regulations prohibiting the use of electronic devices below 10,000 feet.

Of course, it’s a nonsense.  The FAA approves the use of iPads in the cockpit, where the actual gizmos helping to guide the plane are located.  There is scant evidence that electronic devices in the cabin are harmful.

So the FAA sent a letter to Cardone admonishing him and saying the letter “will stay on his permanent record” for two years.  Whatever that means.  The letter is in lieu of a fine.

You know what?  If I was Caronde, I’d reject the letter and tell them to fine me so we can battle this out in their kangaroo court.

Instead of actually dealing with bird strikes, the FAA has decided to embarrass a passenger for videotaping one.

Poor public policy.  And possibly bad law.

A former Marine, Jerry Meekins, purchased a non-refundable ticket on Spirit, but cancelled when his doctor told him he was too sick to travel.  Spirit refused to refund his money.  And, you know what? Sad to say, but  Spirit is correct.

Not to say this isn’t a terribly sad story.  However, the CEO of Spirit, Ben Baldenza, is correct to say that it would be unfair to other passengers who cannot get refunds to refund Meekins’ ticket.  (Spirit eventually backed down– but only after a relentless anti-Spirit PR campaign.)

Here’s the basic deal:  You get the airline you deserve.  If you want better service, fly a better airline.  Spirit is very upfront about what they provide:  a seat.  They may torture you along the way, but most likely they will get you there alive.

Baldenza also scoffed at Spirit’s low customer service ratings.  Who cares, he says?  If people still fly Spirit, they must be doing something right.  If 8 our of 100 people complain, then 92% don’t.  (that’s not to say 92% have a good experience).

Yes, this wasn’t handled well. Meekin deserved a bit better respect.  And the airline should have at least figured something creative out.

What Spirit is doing right is beating the price down as far as they can and offering absolutely nothing more.  Want to use the overhead bin? Pay $100.  Check bags? Pay.  A better seat?  Pay.  It’s all fair since that’s what you’re bargaining for.

If you want better service, you need to pay for it.

You can read one of the reviews by Flying Magazine here.

Still, AOPA and EAA say their medical exemption request has a better chance and they remain committed to it.  We support the groups’ idea- and think it may have the best chance of earlier proposals.  You can decide for yourself or if they are tilting at windmills.

You can read about it here.

The FAA’s response almost mocks the petition.  It noted that of the 1,000 comments, many were about how pilots would “save money” or by able to fly when otherwise not medically fit.  In other words, bad arguments.  However, you can determine for yourself whether Mr. Wartofsky deserved a more thoughtful response.  Not that it was mean, it was just ‘we’re not taking this very seriously.’

While we appreciate Wartofsky’s efforts- and generally support the idea- AOPA and EAA’s petition has more of a shot.  You can read their idea here . It’s hard to read the FAA, but you can either see this denial as meaning it’s ready to consider the organizations proposal or ready to act fast in killing it.  The FAA eludes to the lack of  evidence of safety regarding complex aircraft, which may mean it has the evidence for lighter aircraft due to the success of the LSA medical provisions.

We hope the AOPA/EAA petition gets a serious review and is implemented.  However, we’re not encouraged.

While we understand the need to raise revenue, we urge Congress and the President to reverse course.

Increasing the costs- or decreasing the benefits- of  big ticket purchases doesn’t hurt the super wealthy or large corporations.  It hurts small businesses and workers who rely on these small businesses for their livelihood.  Bonus depreciation is that rare  tax policy where you can draw a straight line from the policy to increased hiring.

Here’s how:

Last spring, Hopscotch Air, the air taxi company I run, acquired two new aircraft from individuals who purchased them, in part, due to the tax benefits they receive.  Now, we don’t urge anyone to buy an airplane just for the tax benefit.  But in these cases, the owners had a need for the planes and we had a need for the planes.

Due in part to this benefit, Cirrus sold two aircraft, creating and keeping jobs in Duluth, Minnesota.

By adding the two aircraft, we hired three additional pilots.  We increased the amount we spend on maintenance, thereby helping the maintenance facility that performs the work, keeping workers employed.  And we increased the amount of marketing dollars we spend on Long Island and Westchester, helping other small businesses that are in the advertising and public relations industry.

In fact, without the two aircraft,  Hopscotch Air would have faced significant financial shortfalls over the summer.

The end of bonus depreciation could also provide a huge sticker shock to businesses in 2012 in the form of higher, unexpected taxes if businesses look to upgrade equipment.

Congress needs to revisit this– as it’s a clear policy that works for everyone.

The first threat is AOPA/EAA’s petition to extend the driver’s license medical to some four seat aircraft.  The organizations are asking the FAA to waive the requirement of an FAA medical certificate for pilots acting, in effect, as ‘recreational’ pilots (without the distance limit).  The proposal is to allow pilots to use their driver’s license in lieu of a medical for four-place aircraft that are less than 200 horsepower.  There would be a limitation to carrying one passenger and day/VFR.

The second threat is the push to raise the overall weight limit of LSA aircraft that could sweep in Cessna 152s and other two-place aircraft.  The FAA is said to be considering this for safety reasons– the light aircraft are proving, well, light and tougher to handle.

In both cases, this is a threat to the LSA industry because a) the industry has been pushing the no-medical provision as a major selling point and b) if the weight limit is increased there are already many, older, less costly aircraft available and ready to fly.

These pages have been a big proponent of the LSA sector and I have flown numerous light sport models.  I leased a Sportcruiser two summers ago and flew it everywhere.  However, I have always noted that if the LSA industry ties its fortunes to the medical issue it would be doomed.  (For those unaware, light sport aircraft can be flown with a driver’s license in lieu of a third class medical).  Building a business around a negative is never a good idea.

LSAs should stand on their own– and some of them do.  Many are innovative, terrific, fun aircraft.  And, for a fraction the price of a Part 23 certified aircraft, you can have a modern, well-equipped machine.  But most manufacturers have been slow to properly market this.

Unless the industry does adapt its marketing quickly, the above threats could do serious damage.  And it would be the manufacturers fault.

Whether the possible weight increase would be just for safety equipment (like a ballistic parachute) or to include legacy airplanes such as the Cessna 152 is not clear.  Nor is this “discussion” anything close to an actual proposal right now.

These pages advocate for a weight increase, if only for safety reasons.  As someone who has lots of experience in LSAs, the light weight poses unique challenges.  Even experienced pilots have encountered what the FAA calls “runway excursions”– or, more precisely, running off the side of the runway. Loss of directional control is a direct result of the light weight of these airplanes.  Further, in windy conditions that would normally not cause concern, many passengers feel uncomfortable.

Why was the weight limitation set at 1320 anyway?  There are some theories.  The first, an aircraft that has light weight has less momentum if it crashes.  In other words, it is supposed to be more forgiving for the occupants.   The second, in our opinion, is more sneaky.  A slightly higher weight limit would have grandfathered in to the LSA category Cessna 150s and 152s, of which thousands are still flying.  That would have opened up a lot more planes to be flown by pilots without a medical certificate and we don’t believe the FAA was comfortable with that idea.  If fewer planes are available as LSAs, fewer pilots without medicals would be flying.

Finally, according to LSA guy Dan Johnson, the FAA may be considering raising the weight limits in conjunction with the proposed changes to the Third Class Medical certification that AOPA and EAA plan to submit.  That, proposal, by the way has now been delayed.