Maybe there’s some shady (but legal) route to a US driver’s license? I’ve not looked into it (yet).
US states do not have any kind of residency documents themselves, and it is not their responsibility to monitor or control legal residence in the US as a whole. Therefore in many states getting a drivers license is mainly a logistical problem: you need a physical mailing address and you need to make an appointment, then take the driving test. If your mailing address changes, you are generally required to update the address online but in many states their is no process or requirement to update the address on the card itself.
Vermont would be a good state to check in detail, based on reputation they may be flexible in terms of the mailing address. Otherwise you can probably get it done with a cell phone billing statement showing a local address, for example see item (d)(4) here.
For myself, although my plane will still require BasicMed of 3rd Class based on the NPRM I can foresee a time when leaving medical certification entirely behind with something like an RV-9 might be very attractive. It would be great to leave the medical certification charade behind while still flying something that performs well. I don’t need more than two people in the plane.
FAA won’t eliminate the 3rd Class or BasicMed, the 2nd Class is not intended for private pilots and by ICAO treaty and popular demand FAA has to support the legal requirements for American private pilots flying their planes anywhere they want, including outside the US. I think in time the 3rd Class will become like the radio license – most FAA private pilots don’t have one of those or need one, but you get one if you’re flying out of the US.
AOPA Article for those who don’t want to read the entire FAA document.
Having now looked this over a bit, it’s apparent that FAA has good lawyers and it’s both rational and politically clever how they have combined several issues under LSA category expansion, thereby being able to state they are increasing safety by encouraging pilots away from Experimentals and towards now-proven-safer FAA Sport Pilot eligible LSAs. In that regard they can also say they are matching (meaning setting up to beat) the European ULs, which like safety is good for politics. But meanwhile you will also be able to fly eligible (by stall speed etc) Experimental (e.g. RV-9) and now four seat FAA-complex Certified planes (e.g. C172RG and the rest) under Sport Pilot with no medical and there is now a two-decade safety record to support it: FAA pilots operating as Sport Pilots have always been able to fly any eligible-by-the-numbers plane regardless of its certification background, and the safety record is no different than for planes requiring a medical. This is continuing on the logically correct course, with aircraft eligibility controlled by the relevant performance numbers and supported by safety data. It is also logically correct to limit the number of passengers, not the number of seats in the plane. I think the NPRM is very well thought through, although I’d prefer a higher Vs1 limit from my own point of view, and in support of operating my little plane.
I think many more pilots and GA in general will benefit more from the expansion of FAA Sport Pilot to more capable, proven existing aircraft than from the possibility for expanded sales of expensive new FAA-complex LSA planes, at least for the moment. But the new-production complex-LSA aspect feeds dreams, supports the image of promoting safety and it’s all good. What’s not to like? After a couple more decades it might even spread to ICAO.
The timing of this NPRM release was obviously pre-planned to align with the first day of Oshkosh Airventure for PR reasons. A big announcement in a friendly environment is politically clever with regard to gathering supportive public comment and inertia fast, to deal with vested interest opposition later.
Silvaire wrote:
I’d prefer a higher Vs1 limit from my own point of view
Do you have any idea of the reason for the Vs1 limit? Is it to exclude some aircraft types or is there an analysis behind it? (Or….)
Curious that this limit is Vs1 while the traditional SEP limit of 61 knots is Vs0.
Do you have any idea of the reason for the Vs1 limit?
It’s a good question and I really don’t. One could imagine it is intended to keep FAA Sport Pilots with their relatively limited training out of planes that are more challenging to fly or land off field. It affects both low and (indirectly) high speed performance.
Or perhaps it is just another ‘politically possible’ incremental step up from the current LSA limit of 45 knots. The proposed 250 knot max speed is so high that no aircraft that stalls clean at 54 knots could approach it, and weight limits are also very high, so one more future incremental step up to 61 knots would have just about every plane eligible. It does now seem that this path of sequential liberalization may have been preplanned since 2004.
For those attracted to intrigue, it’s been pointed out that Cessnas typically conform to the 54 knot Vs1 requirement but Pipers and Cirruses do not. It is true that Cessna is a US owned company and those others are not 
But the Diamond DA40 etc (Chinese owned) also qualifies nicely.
The last theory people have come up with is that 54 knots is exactly 100 km/hr, and that it aligns with some developing international standard.
It would be great for a lot of planes resale value (like mine) if the Vs1 limit were 61 knots instead, or 54 kts Vs0. A Vs0 limit would make more sense to me given that flaps are always available to the pilot.
