Sport Pilot Talk

Hambone · Joined: 07 Jan 2011 Posts: 67 Location: Abu Dhabi, UAE

OK... I'm new to this. I'm probably playing ignorant devil's advocate here, but I'd like to know why (apart from the obvious medical advantage) anyone would choose a Sport Pilot license over a Private.

The SP license seems to be roughly $3-4K cheaper. But that savings would quickly disappear into the cost of purchasing an LSA, or rental at $100 an hour. And the LSA limitations (2 seats, speed, weight, day VFR, etc) are quite restrictive.

I suppose one answer is that the SP license can be a stepping stone to a further license.

Bucket of worms opened!

ArionAv8or · Joined: 20 Mar 2010 Posts: 271

Hambone wrote: Bucket of worms opened!

OH BOY, you've done it now!

I don't know about the rest but I hate doctors and refuse to go to them as long as I can walk, talk and breathe. I also own my business so time is something I just don't have. I work 12 hours a day 6 days a week and Sunday is my only day off. I just can't use much more plane than a LSA can provide (2 seat, day VFR, etc) with my schedule and the fact that my wife has zero interest in flying the plane seems to fit the bill. I didn't want to risk having a day off and the rentals being booked so I just went out and bought my own. This way I don't have to worry, I fly when I can and leave her in the hangar when I can't.

eidolon45 · Joined: 25 Dec 2010 Posts: 56 Location: fairfax, va

You put your finger right on what may be an emerging issue with the LSA industry. It seems to be getting a lot more expensive - especially for rentals. I have heard prices as high as $130-140 per hour for training rentals with instructors fees up to $50. And by the way, the 20 hour thing for getting certified? If you are doing it in a S-LSA, Fagetabout it! -Unless you cut your teeth on a yoke and have a healthy dose of Chuck Yeager's genes, it's more likely going to be twice that or more. Most CFIs will tell you they rarely see a student who can complete a course in an SLSA in 30 hours. For us older dudes? Lots more. Still cheaper than a PPL, but not a walk in the park, economically. I think the LSA training industry may soon price themselves out of their advantage if it keeps going as it is. Either cheaper trainers, or more use of improved simulators to develop basic flying muscle coordination and pattern sequencing may be a solution. I'm not talking about Microsoft simulators and home computers, BTW, I am talking about simple albeit professional grade stuff. A basic simulator wouldn't have to be capable of complex multiengine training and dog fighting - just real enough to teach simple stick, throttle and rudder flying in the pattern and radio communications in an ATC environ would be a big training help. Probably wouldn't even need a video feed for these basics. Does such a training device exist for GA use? The technology certainly exists.

bshort · Joined: 09 Jul 2010 Posts: 59 Location: Ca

For me, Sp just fit the bill. I don't have any medical issues, but my idea of flying is a nice cruise around the patch or a small jaunt for lunch. I had no desire to really travel anywhere or fly at night. One passenger is plenty enough for me too.

I would say the one disadvantage right now is the lack of a rental fleet. They seem to be hit and miss, but I also really couldn't see myself getting too excited about renting a 1962 C152 that looks to be rode hard and put away wet since 1962!

deltafox · Joined: 06 Apr 2010 Posts: 89

I found this to be helpful:

http://www.rodmachado.com/become_sport_pilot/why_sport_vs_private_pilot.php

"There's absolutely nothing wrong with obtaining your sport pilot license as an intermediate step in preparation for the private pilot license. This strategy is a good one if you want to fly as a private pilot but don't have the $7,000-$9,000 you need for the training. After all, LSA are sure to be less expensive than renting standard, non-LSA machines.

... It's reasonable to assume that obtaining your sport pilot license in a sport airplane would allow you to fly with passengers sooner and have more fun quicker. That means having someone with which to share the operating expenses of the flight. That means that flying is overall less expensive, even if you don't wear overalls when you fly (sorry, I really love line). "

Jim Stewart · Joined: 12 Oct 2006 Posts: 259

I don't know where Rod got those numbers. Where I live, a 2 year old S-LSA and instructor runs about $150/hr. A 30 year old Cessna 152 with instructor is closer to $80/hr. As someone else pointed out, unless you have Yeager genes, it will probably take twice as long to fly and land the S-LSA safely than the 152.

People don't buy or train in new S-LSA's to save money. They do it because S-LSA's are about 3x more fun to fly than a 152, they are comfortable and they don't burn much gas. And they are new.

ibgarrett · Joined: 04 Dec 2008 Posts: 147 Location: Westminster, CO

Here's some of my thoughts on the topic and why I went the SP route to start with.

- The medical is certainly one very VALID reason for going SP over PP. At the time I started I was on some prescription medicine that was disallowed by the FAA. I'm now off of that and can happily pursue the PP license.

- While LSA planes are getting more expensive to fly, in checking out the local PP schools I see their planes are going up equal to, or more than what the LSA's are renting for. In the Denver metro area I learned to fly with Skyraider and they are renting their planes for $100 wet. Instruction is $40/hr. Comparing that to planes at the local PP training centers, they are renting planes in the $130 to $215/hr and instruction is equal to that at $40/hr - so there is a cost savings there.

- With the "shorter" time frame to license, you'll be flying with your wife/husband/significant other/friends that much sooner.

- Flying during fair weather to me is the only time I really want to go up - at least at this stage of my flying career. It certainly is one of the safest times to fly for sure.

- All of the time I put in in the SP license counts towards a PP, so the time difference spent between getting my SP and getting my PP license will be on my own dime vs. having an instructor. Yes I will need an instructor for some things, but I can practice the things I need to work on, on my own.

- Having purchased a 1/4 share of an LSA I'm only spending about 5gph in gas, so with each landing I can fill up for roughly $40 vs. some of the other PP planes require more gas and more cost.

- The hourly charge for owning a 1/4 share of a plane is far FAR less than the hourly rates for a dry PP plane.

The upside of going PP over an LSA, the planes typically go faster and can carry more people, but those upsides are offset by the additional expenses that are incurred.

I plan on transitioning over to a PP license at some point in time, mostly because I will have more flexibility with what I want to fly when I can afford to learn and actually fly those airplanes, but the LSA will probably be a part of my base flying tool because of the low cost associated with flying that plane.

And hey - if I'm wrong on any of this, please let me continue to live in my own little fantasy world (that is unless of course I'm not doing something safely. :D)

Brian

Hambone · Joined: 07 Jan 2011 Posts: 67 Location: Abu Dhabi, UAE

Jim Stewart wrote: People don't buy or train in new S-LSA's to save money. They do it because S-LSA's are about 3x more fun to fly than a 152, they are comfortable and they don't burn much gas. And they are new.
Is this a common attitude towards LSAs?

And is this additional 'fun factor' enough to justify what seems to be twice the cost of renting/owning a 152?

eidolon45 · Joined: 25 Dec 2010 Posts: 56 Location: fairfax, va

I definitely would have gone for training in a 152 if they were in the LSA class. I would not be able to justify paying 2x as much to do all my training in a LSA. That would be like training for your PPL in some $400K plane vs a 152. why would you do that? If I found the 152 too boring , I would then have transitioned to an LSA.

I had thought about starting my training in a 152 at a local flying club, but when I mentioned getting a LS license vs PPL, they got all nervous. Something about not being sure if their insurance would cover them? I'm not sure why there would be an insurance problem until you solo (which is where I would have had to switch over to LSA). Maybe that approach would not have saved me any money given the additional time needed for transition, but I sometimes wonder--.

Bottom line: I see training cost is increasingly becoming a problem with LSA. We are moving toward an area where LSA is in danger of losing it's training cost advantage. For newbies, it takes longer to learn to fly the S-LSAs than generally acknowledged, and the rentals are up to 2x as much. I am not just griping, I have been able to afford the training cost so far, (although it is not easy) but I hate to see this burgeoning industry slowly strangling itself. I don't think the LSA schools are overly profit driven (maybe some of them are), but someone needs to come up with a better business model to keep this thing moving. Price of avgas, maintenance and insurance is not getting cheaper. More use of simple simulators to train simple tasks could help. (Do you really need to pay 140 -160 per hour to learn how to use hands and feet together in a coordinated turn? Or learn to steer something with your feet? How about radio procedures at an ATC airport?). Hambone, I bet the Air Force uses some simple simulation to train some of your basic flying skills and procedures? Of course the FAA could also help out a lot if they would allow a few more of the older planes under the LSA envelope - even if just for initial training Purposes.

Hambone · Joined: 07 Jan 2011 Posts: 67 Location: Abu Dhabi, UAE

As an aviation training courseware developer, I have to agree that simulation done properly is not only a huge cost-saver, but an efficient way to learn not only procedures, but certain skills, too.

I'll be interested to see what simulation-based training LSA shows up at Sun n Fun!

Jack Tyler · Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:27 am Post subject:

Ham, a couple of thoughts for you to consider re: what might attract aspiring pilots to seek a SP license. First, the flight restrictions are - insofar as student pilots & inexperienced SP-licensed pilots are concerned - not really restrictive. This is the kind of flying they should be doing as they build time.

Second, there are now some very impressive full-motion simulators available on the market that cost well below $10K. IME the military's use of simulators is primarily procedures-related. IOW the student learns to fly by flying, but learns EP's, instrument flight, etc. in a stepping stone approach: first, s/he learns to crawl via the simulators, then learns to walk, then run in the a/c. I think this is a corollary to how SP training should (not just 'could') be done, where an instructor's $40/hr billing rate insures the simulator is used to maximum advantage and best learning, while it saves the student significant flight time expense.

One example: In PPL training, one of the biggest hurdles is reported to be comms. In today's airspace, training a student without training them to be comfortable & effective with ATC on the radio is IMO incomplete training. The simulator, with instructor involvement, strikes me as an excellent platform for training the combo of controlled flight, receiving/executing altitude & course changes, and managing radio comms all concurrently.

But to your main Q: Every aspect of the SP license - the shorter curriculum, fewer (supposedly) flight hours, fewer skills to develop (e.g. no night flying) - all of these aspects were intended to safely reduce the cost of learning to fly. But that's not happening at most flight schools - why? If you visit Paul Hamilton's website, you'll find in there a thorough outline of what it should cost a reasonably motivated student to earn a SP license, from the first book to the last examiner fee. Paul's outline is one of the few I've seen that strikes me as complete and reasonable...and if memory serves, it totals up to about $7K. For many folks in today's economy - or among the young, or those early in their career - that's unaffordable. OTOH if someone could deliver quality training at significantly less cost, s/he would have a clear edge over the competition AND make the training financially viable for some who otherwise can't afford it. How do you do that?

To me, part of the answer lies in the business operator spending far less on the training a/c than I see most schools choosing to do. It can be an elderly GA (Part 23) a/c that qualifies to be flown in the LSA category (and which might also allow you to instruct in it for the PPL), or it can be a new a/c that isn't a 120 kt, glass paneled, high-tech unit built in a largish factory. In fact, some inexpensive S-LSA a/c strike me as being better training platforms in some ways than the CTLS (just to pick one example) unit I sat in at Sebring's Expo last week. E.g. very limited viz (when keeping one's head outside the cockpit is one key to student training), high-end instrumentation (which tends to distract the student and pull his/her attention into the cockpit), and speed that goes unused. As exhibited, the CTLS price tag was $160K. Reducing the avionics, it's $145K.

By contrast (and I'm just pulling these at random to illustrate the point), what's wrong with spending 50+% less for the a/c and training students in one of these?
Cheetah XLS - http://cheetahus.com/
X-Air LS - http://x-airlsa.com/
The savings in state sales or state use tax alone would pay for half of a full-motion $8K simulator. These smaller a/c don't require the Rotax 912 engine, either. This means parts cost are less and the fuel burn is less. (OTOH their TBO's may be shorter). When looking at the LSA a/c many flight schools now offer, there is to be sure a lot of sizzle along with the steak. But if the student can only afford - or would opt to pay for - ground sirloin, isn't there a market for that approach? I would think so...

Just be sure you opt for a tri-gear plane, as I kept hearing over & over at Sebring, among the tail dragger crowd, about how expensive insurance on their a/c was.

Good luck on the continuing research.

eidolon45 · Joined: 25 Dec 2010 Posts: 56 Location: fairfax, va

I am betting you won't see a lot, although I hope I am wrong. the only simulators I have seen advertised on the GA side seem to be the $50K + high tech video devices that cost almost as much as renting a plane. I hope someone can tell me I am looking in the wrong places.

The kind of training simulation I am talking about would involve much simpler devices I could probably build in my garage for $500 to $1000. Why would a training school want to use that type equipment when they can rent the student a plane for $120 per hour? Lets build a simple model to help our business thinking:

Set up a large wall display of a local Class D airport sectional chart. Put the student in a crude simulated cockpit with a stick and pedals and a set of headphones connected through an intercom device to an instructor's headphones. The instructor points to places on the sectional and asks the student to respond with appropriate radio calls. the instructor gives the student appropriate ATC instructions and the student has to respond appropriately. Now let's ask ourselves:

1. Do we think this set up might furnish some useful training to the student?

2. what would be the school's economic incentive to use this training approach?

3. What if we call this type training "ground school" and the student pays half the price of an hour in the plane for instructor and facilities? Good deal for student? Gee, let me think! How about the school? Would the school profit more from renting out a real plane for the training? Remember, the school is only profiting on half (or less) of the plane rental due to fixed and variable costs for maintenance, fuel, etc.

I am betting the school would still make a reasonable profit from this set up without incurring the risk involved with trying to train a student flying around a real ATC airport under essentially "live fire" conditions.

Hambone, I hope I haven't taken this too far from your original thread. I am sensing you are trying to build a business model that won't require big upfront costs or management headaches while still giving you enjoyment and a small profit to supplement your retirement. Based on your posts, I am guessing you may have aviation training experience that most GA training activities don't have. You know what worked in the AF, so I would suggest you take full advantage of that strength. And oh, by the way, the retired AF pilot I had for a short time as a CFI was one of the best ones I have trained under. He had a method and an integrated system of training that took me a long way in a few short lessons.

Hope to see you at Sun n Fun.

Hambone · Joined: 07 Jan 2011 Posts: 67 Location: Abu Dhabi, UAE

Great info, Jack! I appreciate the time you put into your posts. Your experience and insight are really helpful.

The Cheetah and XAir are more in the spirit of the Sport Pilot affordable-flying concept than the $100K+ plastic machines, but at $50K+, I feel they're still prohibitively expensive for many.

The integrated simulator approach to training has a proven track record. Properly implemented, simulation certainly reduces the cost of training while enhancing it.

Hambone · Joined: 07 Jan 2011 Posts: 67 Location: Abu Dhabi, UAE

eidolon45 wrote: Hambone, I hope I haven't taken this too far from your original thread
Not at all! It's all great information that's much appreciated.

bryancobb · Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:01 pm Post subject: 2 Pools of students

Hi Ham,

(This applies to Fixed Wing Only)

My opinion is that you will have two pools of students... (let's call them puddles, not pools)

* Older folks who have health issues that causes them to be nervous about taking a physical

* Ultralight folks, left over from 198_ through 2008, who want a legitimate FAA rating and a card in their wallet to say so

THAT'S IT! BOOM!

If dual from a sport CFI, could be counted toward a private ticket, (it can't) you would have a 3rd puddle of students....

* Young students on a budget who perceive that the sport license is cheaper to get, and is a good first step toward higher ratings.