Sport Pilot Talk

spooky981 · Joined: 23 May 2010 Posts: 45

I anticipate many of you vehemently disagreeing with me. But I'll take a shot anyways.

In the last year I've gone from 0 to 100 hours. Looking back on the process for getting my license, and the experiences I've had since then, I've concluded that the SP program feels like a product of the 1980's. There are so many things that you experience only AFTER you've gotten your license, and so many things that you'll NEVER experience again after you've gotten your license.

With that in mind, here are the parts I would eliminate.

-The cross country
You spend a ton of time learning how it's done. You do it twice during your training, and proceed to NEVER use it again. There are a handful of websites that do it all for you anyway. Leave the XC to the enthusiasts and the pilots without a GPS.

-VOR's
See above. Waste of air time and ground time. I doubt these will even remain funded in another 10-15 years.

-The E6B
This archaic device is half a step above an abacus and, much like the XC, has been supplanted in every possible way by technology.

-Short field TO/LDG
Simulating this maneuver does nothing but bend nose wheels and burn out brake pads. Meanwhile the frequency of airports actually necessitating short field practices is extremely low. I'm not saying it's not handy to know how to do it, I'm just saying it's too niche to be such a cornerstone of the program.

-Translating a TAF and METAR
No explanation necessary. This might even fade away naturally before VORs do.

-FAA knowledge test
This is an exercise in memorization. That wouldn't be so bad, except that taking the test costs $100. Which happens to be twice as much as the SAT.

Eliminating the above would cut at least 5-10 hours of ground and flight training. However the goal isn't to make the program shorter, but to have it better prepare you for what happens after you get your license. So I would add these sections:

-Unfamiliar airport training
The pattern is the most dangerous place in the air. But it's possible to get a SP license having only visited an unfamiliar airport two times. That's not enough.

-Pre-solo check ride
There's still time to catch bad habits. And it's a good experience to prepare for the real check ride.

-Unexpected weather/IFR training
Weather doesn't care what your pilot license restrictions are. Everyone on this board has found themselves in accidental IFR conditions. Studying what to do on the ground just doesn't cut it. At least have instructors take students through some rain so they can experience reduced visibility and maybe some light wind shear.

-Twilight TO/LDGs
Civil twilight is a whole new world. Luckily the first time I experienced it was at my home airport which I could fly with my eyes closed. But bad things can happen when a pilot who is always in daylight suddenly can't see anything.

-3 mile visibility training
See above. Three miles ain't much from the air. Might as well be IFR if all you've ever flown in before was 7-10 mile visibility.

Aerco · Joined: 26 Aug 2009 Posts: 68 Location: Corona CA

I agree with some of that, but to trust a student to only find his way by GPS is asking for trouble. Pilotage and dead reckoning still has to be taught for when the batteries run out...

VORs - I find them useful, but yes, not really something that the average Sport Pilot should HAVE to know. How many of the more basic LSA even have them?

E6B - I personally like old school airplane stuff, but purely for nostalgic reasons. It's usefulness for slow airplanes on one or two hour flights is debatable, especially in flight.

Short Field landings - I think these ought to be taught, definitely. I cringe at the hot and fast landings I see from 90% of pilots at the local airport. This will bite people who will one day have to get into a small field, whether by choice or necessity. It's not that hard a skill to learn.

METARs and TAF - It's ridiculous that we have to deal with codes from the days of teletype, I agree. An era when almost everyone carries around access to wireless data in their pocket; why do we have to put up with this??

Knowledge test - A whole new can of worms, see my other post on FAA test questions. The only alternative would be to have an extended oral, probably lasting all day. It's a good indicator that somebody actually opened at least one book before their checkride though.

NCPilot

spooky981 wrote: With that in mind, here are the parts I would eliminate.

-The cross country
You spend a ton of time learning how it's done. You do it twice during your training, and proceed to NEVER use it again. There are a handful of websites that do it all for you anyway. Leave the XC to the enthusiasts and the pilots without a GPS.

I'd have to disagree with this, VFR flying means you fly by landmarks, cell phone towers (or towers in general), roads, railroad tracks, towns, etc. You should still learn how to fly by following the landmarks (bread crumbs) in case your GPS does fail.

Yea, it's nice to have the technology and website, to help you, until those things fail, then you'll have to revert to something. Might as well revert to pilotage and dead reckoning.

Quote: -VOR's
See above. Waste of air time and ground time. I doubt these will even remain funded in another 10-15 years.

I see NDB and ADF being defunded and closed down before VORs are. Governments (esp) the FAA likes to have back up systems, and VOR are actually a nice back-up system to the GPS. See my point about GPS failing.

Quote: -The E6B
This archaic device is half a step above an abacus and, much like the XC, has been supplanted in every possible way by technology.

I'd have to agree with this one. I use my electronic E6B calculator more than I use the flywheel, and as long as you keep fresh batteries in it, you'll be fine.

Quote: -Short field TO/LDG
Simulating this maneuver does nothing but bend nose wheels and burn out brake pads. Meanwhile the frequency of airports actually necessitating short field practices is extremely low. I'm not saying it's not handy to know how to do it, I'm just saying it's too niche to be such a cornerstone of the program.

I'd have to agree, Light Sport aircrafts already have short landing and take-off rolls, do they really need Short field TO/LDG?

I do think they need to do an emphasis on soft field take off and landing, but that's just me.

Quote: -Translating a TAF and METAR
No explanation necessary. This might even fade away naturally before VORs do.

Eh, I'd have to disagree wit this, TAF/METAR are still the standard when it comes to weather reporting in aviation.

Quote: -FAA knowledge test
This is an exercise in memorization. That wouldn't be so bad, except that taking the test costs $100. Which happens to be twice as much as the SAT.

I suck at taking tests, so I have to agree with this.

Quote:
-Unfamiliar airport training
The pattern is the most dangerous place in the air. But it's possible to get a SP license having only visited an unfamiliar airport two times. That's not enough.

During my PPL training, I had to do a long XC to two unfamiliar airports, and I did that. Do they do the same for SPL training? Because if not, then they def. need to do that.

Quote: -Pre-solo check ride
There's still time to catch bad habits. And it's a good experience to prepare for the real check ride.

Agreed with this.

Quote: -Unexpected weather/IFR training
Weather doesn't care what your pilot license restrictions are. Everyone on this board has found themselves in accidental IFR conditions. Studying what to do on the ground just doesn't cut it. At least have instructors take students through some rain so they can experience reduced visibility and maybe some light wind shear.

Agreed, the pilot need to learn how to get out of VFR into IMC conditions, and see what can happen if he doesn't. I think some real hands on experience with that can really drive the point home.

Quote: -Twilight TO/LDGs
Civil twilight is a whole new world. Luckily the first time I experienced it was at my home airport which I could fly with my eyes closed. But bad things can happen when a pilot who is always in daylight suddenly can't see anything.

Also agreed with this.

Quote:
-3 mile visibility training
See above. Three miles ain't much from the air. Might as well be IFR if all you've ever flown in before was 7-10 mile visibility.

I also agree with this, and you can teach the student what to do when the visibility drops below 3 miles.

spooky981 · Joined: 23 May 2010 Posts: 45

NCPilot wrote: spooky981 wrote: With that in mind, here are the parts I would eliminate.

-The cross country
You spend a ton of time learning how it's done. You do it twice during your training, and proceed to NEVER use it again. There are a handful of websites that do it all for you anyway. Leave the XC to the enthusiasts and the pilots without a GPS.

I'd have to disagree with this, VFR flying means you fly by landmarks, cell phone towers (or towers in general), roads, railroad tracks, towns, etc. You should still learn how to fly by following the landmarks (bread crumbs) in case your GPS does fail.

Yea, it's nice to have the technology and website, to help you, until those things fail, then you'll have to revert to something. Might as well revert to pilotage and dead reckoning.

How would a GPS fail though? If the power goes out, the battery backup kicks in. At least that's how mine works.

NCPilot

spooky981 wrote: NCPilot wrote: spooky981 wrote: With that in mind, here are the parts I would eliminate.

-The cross country
You spend a ton of time learning how it's done. You do it twice during your training, and proceed to NEVER use it again. There are a handful of websites that do it all for you anyway. Leave the XC to the enthusiasts and the pilots without a GPS.

I'd have to disagree with this, VFR flying means you fly by landmarks, cell phone towers (or towers in general), roads, railroad tracks, towns, etc. You should still learn how to fly by following the landmarks (bread crumbs) in case your GPS does fail.

Yea, it's nice to have the technology and website, to help you, until those things fail, then you'll have to revert to something. Might as well revert to pilotage and dead reckoning.

How would a GPS fail though? If the power goes out, the battery backup kicks in. At least that's how mine works.

What if it's a panel mounted unit though?

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

Here's my $0.02 worth...

Quote: -The cross country
You spend a ton of time learning how it's done. You do it twice during your training, and proceed to NEVER use it again. There are a handful of websites that do it all for you anyway. Leave the XC to the enthusiasts and the pilots without a GPS.

I can see the value in at least having to figure out how to fold a chart while flying the plane and figuring out where you're at. I'm with you re: the GPS. The folks who are complaining about the batteries running out in the GPS? Well, the GPS on my plane should last for several hours. Oh, but what if that fails? O.k - fine, I pull out my iPad with Foreflight on it. Oh, but what if that fails? O.k. FINE - I'll pull out my iPhone with Foreflight on it. Oh - but what if THAT fails? Land the damn plane and find out why I had three GPS failures. I presume at that point in time we've had a nuclear attack somewhere that knocked out all the electronics or the Sun exploded and then I probably shouldn't be flying at that time anyway.

Quote: -VOR's
See above. Waste of air time and ground time. I doubt these will even remain funded in another 10-15 years.

Agreed - my plane doesn't even have one on it.

Quote: -The E6B
This archaic device is half a step above an abacus and, much like the XC, has been supplanted in every possible way by technology.

I spent so much time trying to figure out my whiz wheel that its just sad. I haven't picked it up since I got my license and downloaded at least three different versions of an E6B - currently am using the Sporty's one and it's nice.

Quote: -Short field TO/LDG
Simulating this maneuver does nothing but bend nose wheels and burn out brake pads. Meanwhile the frequency of airports actually necessitating short field practices is extremely low. I'm not saying it's not handy to know how to do it, I'm just saying it's too niche to be such a cornerstone of the program.

I'd be mildly for this work. If anything it teaches good skills of low and slow approaches for short landings. I can possibly, maybe see needing to use this - but if I'm going in somewhere that I need to have a short field takeoff, I'm going to want a tail dragger and not a trike.

Quote: -Translating a TAF and METAR
No explanation necessary. This might even fade away naturally before VORs do.

Yeah - again, totally pointless. There's about 6 different ways of getting this information and none of them that I use requires a translation. Can I do it? Yup. It's sorta like reading a txt msg - but totally pointless. This was fine back when a bit of information was massive, but when I've got a 3G connection to my iPad/iPhone...?

Quote: -FAA knowledge test
This is an exercise in memorization. That wouldn't be so bad, except that taking the test costs $100. Which happens to be twice as much as the SAT.

I'd settle for just updating the information and the graphics. I mean seriously, do they just use photocopies of the photocopies?

Quote: Eliminating the above would cut at least 5-10 hours of ground and flight training. However the goal isn't to make the program shorter, but to have it better prepare you for what happens after you get your license. So I would add these sections:

-Unfamiliar airport training
The pattern is the most dangerous place in the air. But it's possible to get a SP license having only visited an unfamiliar airport two times. That's not enough.

Agreed, although I did quite a bit of this during training and was reasonably comfortable with it.

Quote: -Pre-solo check ride
There's still time to catch bad habits. And it's a good experience to prepare for the real check ride.

This is standard practice at my school.

Quote: -Unexpected weather/IFR training
Weather doesn't care what your pilot license restrictions are. Everyone on this board has found themselves in accidental IFR conditions. Studying what to do on the ground just doesn't cut it. At least have instructors take students through some rain so they can experience reduced visibility and maybe some light wind shear.

I've got juuuust about 200hrs and I have yet to accidentally fly into IFR conditions. Maybe I'm just too cautious, but I sure wouldn't mind experiencing it to know what I'm looking for.

Quote: -Twilight TO/LDGs
Civil twilight is a whole new world. Luckily the first time I experienced it was at my home airport which I could fly with my eyes closed. But bad things can happen when a pilot who is always in daylight suddenly can't see anything.

I've just finished up the night portion of the night flying for moving onto a PP cert. I honestly don't see what the big deal about night flying is. It wasn't THAT much different for me. In fact I'd be an advocate for including night flight as part of the standard SP license.

Quote: -3 mile visibility training
See above. Three miles ain't much from the air. Might as well be IFR if all you've ever flown in before was 7-10 mile visibility.

Three miles is a tough minimum distance, I've been up in some haze that made it tough to see, but I could definitely still see the three miles. Any additional training in this area would be great.

Personally I would like to see the DPE's embrace some of the newest technology and test to it vs. ignoring the technology and requiring the skills from the previous generation. Sure paper maps and whiz-wheels are important to be familiar with, but I don't need to know how to use a slide rule to take a calculus exam. (God help me if I did).

Great discussion topic. Too bad it'll go nowhere.

RyanShort1 · Joined: 17 Aug 2010 Posts: 101 Location: San Antonio, TX

spooky981 wrote: I anticipate many of you vehemently disagreeing with me. But I'll take a shot anyways.

In the last year I've gone from 0 to 100 hours. Looking back on the process for getting my license, and the experiences I've had since then, I've concluded that the SP program feels like a product of the 1980's. There are so many things that you experience only AFTER you've gotten your license, and so many things that you'll NEVER experience again after you've gotten your license. Also, there are lots of planes still out there, like the Cub, where half the fun is NOT having a GPS...

With that in mind, here are the parts I would eliminate.

-The cross country
You spend a ton of time learning how it's done. You do it twice during your training, and proceed to NEVER use it again. There are a handful of websites that do it all for you anyway. Leave the XC to the enthusiasts and the pilots without a GPS.
Hmmm. GPS IS vulnerable, and sometimes, especially near military installations it is NOT correct. I know of one spot nearby where I could almost guarantee a student getting off on course. I think that a good understanding of navigation, and pilotage in particular, is important for a student. Part of the process is learning how to interpret a map and correlate it with what they actually see. Also, if done properly, it can be a really eye-opening experience as to other operational hazards, and using other resources, like ATC. I usually have my students plan a cross-country to an airport that I know can be somewhat hard to find, even with a GPS, until you are right on top of it. It also requires them to navigate around some airspace, or talk to the controllers, and watch for traffic.

Quote: -VOR's
See above. Waste of air time and ground time. I doubt these will even remain funded in another 10-15 years.
VOR's are still useful, and a lot of older aircraft still have them installed. If you decide to upgrade or change aircraft, you should know how they work.

Quote: -The E6B
This archaic device is half a step above an abacus and, much like the XC, has been supplanted in every possible way by technology.
Bah! Your instructor clearly didn't teach you how to make it useful. Most don't. I like mine a LOT better than the electronic stuff. Once you know how it works, and master it, it's great.

Quote: -Short field TO/LDG
Simulating this maneuver does nothing but bend nose wheels and burn out brake pads. Meanwhile the frequency of airports actually necessitating short field practices is extremely low. I'm not saying it's not handy to know how to do it, I'm just saying it's too niche to be such a cornerstone of the program.
I see short and soft field practice as a way to open up new horizons - grass fields, etc.. and to be better prepared for emergency landings. Also, I teach my students that if they learn to do a short field landing, then they never have any excuse from that point on to do a good normal landing on the numbers. I'd rather teach short-field landings as normal, than drop them from the curriculum. Also, if you ever need to do an emergency landing on other than pavement, I hope that part of your training kicks back in. Even a nice grass runway can necessitate a good soft-field technique if it's been rainy, and there's no reason you should be stuck somewhere because you don't know how to use the soft-field takeoff.

Quote: -Translating a TAF and METAR
No explanation necessary. This might even fade away naturally before VORs do.
No explanation needed? It's a perfectly legitimate source of abbreviated weather data.

Quote: -FAA knowledge test
This is an exercise in memorization. That wouldn't be so bad, except that taking the test costs $100. Which happens to be twice as much as the SAT.
Agreed...

Quote: Eliminating the above would cut at least 5-10 hours of ground and flight training. However the goal isn't to make the program shorter, but to have it better prepare you for what happens after you get your license. So I would add these sections:

-Unfamiliar airport training
The pattern is the most dangerous place in the air. But it's possible to get a SP license having only visited an unfamiliar airport two times. That's not enough.
This should be accomplished during the cross-country training. Don't eliminate the cross-country, just make sure your instructor takes you to more challenging locations. I think a lot of instructors take the easy way, maybe because they are less experienced themselves, or because they are not sure that they can teach the student in the environment.

Quote: -Pre-solo check ride
There's still time to catch bad habits. And it's a good experience to prepare for the real check ride.
Go to a 141 school if you want this, but it's not really needed that much, unless you're with one of those wonder-instructors soloing guys at 6 hours. Your instructor will know when you are ready, and an extra checkride at a 141 school typically means a delay, while you try to schedule with the chief pilot on a good weather day...

Quote: -Unexpected weather/IFR training
Weather doesn't care what your pilot license restrictions are. Everyone on this board has found themselves in accidental IFR conditions. Studying what to do on the ground just doesn't cut it. At least have instructors take students through some rain so they can experience reduced visibility and maybe some light wind shear.
You can't require this year round, because some places just don't have the weather to deal with. I DO and have taken students through rain, but only if it is within my personal limits. I've seen some rain that was IFR for sure... Right now we'd just like some rain period in Texas. Also, some of the CFI guys (and probably even more likely the Sport CFIs) aren't necessarily competent themselves in the weather.

Quote: -Twilight TO/LDGs
Civil twilight is a whole new world. Luckily the first time I experienced it was at my home airport which I could fly with my eyes closed. But bad things can happen when a pilot who is always in daylight suddenly can't see anything.

-3 mile visibility training
See above. Three miles ain't much from the air. Might as well be IFR if all you've ever flown in before was 7-10 mile visibility.
Again, you assume that an instructor can find bad visibility. We've had a LOT of it here lately, and I've taken students up in it, but I don't think it is reasonable to hold a student back until they've experienced it if it's not available.

Ryan

Jon V · Joined: 21 Apr 2011 Posts: 156 Location: Dallas...

spooky981 wrote:
-VOR's
See above. Waste of air time and ground time. I doubt these will even remain funded in another 10-15 years.

They do seem to confuse a lot of people.

Quote:
-The E6B
This archaic device is half a step above an abacus and, much like the XC, has been supplanted in every possible way by technology.

It's like a pencil. They weigh a couple ounces (you can get watches with 'em built in) and do a lot of useful stuff. You'd be less capable if you couldn't at least use one, and the knowledge does you no harm. It doesn't actually take any instructor time to figure them out, or shouldn't take much anyway. That's why students read their books.

Quote:
-Short field TO/LDG
Simulating this maneuver does nothing but bend nose wheels and burn out brake pads. Meanwhile the frequency of airports actually necessitating short field practices is extremely low. I'm not saying it's not handy to know how to do it, I'm just saying it's too niche to be such a cornerstone of the program.

I loved short field training back when I was actively pursuing my PPL. I seriously helped me build landing and take-off skill. I don't know about requiring it, but I would ask for it if it wasn't required. It is also a good demonstration of skill, which is useful as part of the checkride.

Quote:
-Translating a TAF and METAR
No explanation necessary. This might even fade away naturally before VORs do.

Again, this wouldn't (shouldn't) save any instructor time. Students have books for that knowledge and testing 'em on it is a good way of figuring out whether students are studying on their own.

Quote:
-FAA knowledge test
This is an exercise in memorization. That wouldn't be so bad, except that taking the test costs $100. Which happens to be twice as much as the SAT.

I've never taken the sport pilot knowledge test (the practice tests are a relative breeze) but the PPL test was a bit of a sham, at least where I took it. I say it was a sham...a lot of people taking the test when I did failed it...the school was a bit freaked out about the number of fails that day actually. Not sure what else a bureaucracy can do though.

Quote:

-Unfamiliar airport training
The pattern is the most dangerous place in the air. But it's possible to get a SP license having only visited an unfamiliar airport two times. That's not enough.

For some it is not enough. For others it's three airports more than they'll ever use once they have their ticket. I think this is an area where if you are uncomfortable either you or your instructor should recognize that and work on it rather than changing the standard for everyone.

Quote:
-Pre-solo check ride
There's still time to catch bad habits. And it's a good experience to prepare for the real check ride.

This is up to the school. Many schools do them (using the "head instructor" as an examiner), others don't, which means it is up to you as a student. I pick your poison. Personally, I don't think it's needed if the instructor is any good...and if the instructor isn't good (and I've seen my share) why are you training with them?

Quote:
-Unexpected weather/IFR training
Weather doesn't care what your pilot license restrictions are. Everyone on this board has found themselves in accidental IFR conditions. Studying what to do on the ground just doesn't cut it. At least have instructors take students through some rain so they can experience reduced visibility and maybe some light wind shear.

If you want this, ask for it. However, it shouldn't be a part of the general curriculum. Someone flying a powered parachute or weight shift plane may never come close to IFR. Someone flying in the southwestern US may never come close to IFR. Will giving everyone that training actually save lives or will it cause harm by giving a false sense of confidence? Or is it like spin training (more died in spin training than were dying in accidental spins)?

I had a little bit of foggle time and a few minutes of actual unplanned IFR (CFI screwed up) during my aborted PPL training. It was/is good. Ask for it, any decent CFI will accommodate you (well, not the actual screwup). It shouldn't be universal though.

Quote:
-Twilight TO/LDGs
Civil twilight is a whole new world. Luckily the first time I experienced it was at my home airport which I could fly with my eyes closed. But bad things can happen when a pilot who is always in daylight suddenly can't see anything.

This is another "ask for it" that I don't think should be compulsory. Especially if there are SP CFIs who can't fly at night. I had it during my aborted PP training, it was good, but for some types of flying it seems useless, and it kills the sport pilot CFI niche.
Quote:

-3 mile visibility training
See above. Three miles ain't much from the air. Might as well be IFR if all you've ever flown in before was 7-10 mile visibility.
[/quote]

I wouldn't want to take those lessons. Pointless risk.

Aerco · Joined: 26 Aug 2009 Posts: 68 Location: Corona CA

Oh, and those written tests - they are now $150 each. Getting ridiculous. You should be able to go to any FSDO and get your tax dollars worth and sit there with a paper test, do it and have it looked at and scored by the guy behind the desk. For free - isn't this the kind of thing FAA people used to get paid for? By us?

RyanShort1 · Joined: 17 Aug 2010 Posts: 101 Location: San Antonio, TX

Aerco wrote: Oh, and those written tests - they are now $150 each. Getting ridiculous. You should be able to go to any FSDO and get your tax dollars worth and sit there with a paper test, do it and have it looked at and scored by the guy behind the desk. For free - isn't this the kind of thing FAA people used to get paid for? By us?
Well, in fairness, it's NOT free - if it's paid for by us. I don't mind paying for that which I use, but the new method is just as worthless, in my opinion...

Ryan

Daidalos · Joined: 12 Feb 2009 Posts: 137 Location: KHWV

spooky981 wrote: I anticipate many of you vehemently disagreeing with me. But I'll take a shot anyways.

I definitely disagree but you are entitled to your opinions. The Sport Pilot certificate is an entry level license. You gain experience and learn from there. Even a Private Pilot has a lot to learn.

Your opinions and others will be based upon their flying habits. If all you are doing is is taking a joy ride once a week then fine, who needs to learn how to navigate and communicate? I believe that being a Pilot is more than just being able to manipulate the controls.

You must;

Aviate
Navaigate
Communicate

Oh did I mention Good Judgment

3Dreaming · Joined: 10 Jan 2010 Posts: 301 Location: noble, IL USA

You guys are looking at these task at face value only. There is more to it than that. For example, short and soft TO and landings are not just about the TO and landings they are for showing you as a pilot have good control of the airplane. A soft field take off tells a whole bunch about a pilots understanding of control forces and how they need to be applied in flight.
Using a sectional and flight computer is not just about those skills either. It is about how you divide your attention between flying the airplane and completing a complicated task. If you can't handle this work load how are you going to handle an emergency? The things being tested were developed by pilots with a lot more experiencethan most of us here. I do agree that they are slow to accept new technology, but an examiner is getting more information about how you fly the airplane than you would think from these task.

jnmeade · Joined: 30 Nov 2010 Posts: 144 Location: Iowa

The FAA certifies pilots to fly broad categories of aircraft with widely differing equipment and to various skill levels. To certify people to fly many aircraft that are similar but not identical, they ask you to demonstrate minimal competency with the general range of equipment that is found in the broader aircraft population.

What you are suggesting is to narrow the testing and certification to the environment that you have experienced. Not everyone and perhaps not even the majority of Sport Pilots fly in your world.

Would you like the FAA to limit SP flying to airplanes with a GPS (panel or portable)? You would exclude ADF, VOR, pilatage? How would a person get permission to fly an airplane without a GPS? Would it be a separate rating or endorsement or would you refuse to let SP fly that kind of equipment at all?

You suggest that the FAA make mandatory some training that you have the ability to coordinate on your own. You can arrange IMC, dusk, unfamiliar airport and other experiences with the appropriate instructor and equipment, including simulators and IFR aircraft. What is the advantage to the greater pilot population to mandate extra training because some who fly in certain environments may feel they need more training than others who fly in different areas, especially when that population can arrange it? Does one pilot's sense of inadequacy translate into an FAA mandate to increase the training for all pilots? I think most pilots are deficient in using and reporting PIREPs. SP flying LSA should be particularly interested in PIREPs. But, I don't think the FAA should mandate more training than we already get. We pilots should apply the training better.

Reading coded METAR and TAFs is much faster than reading decoded verbiage. I use METAR and TAFS for trend information. It is very quick to look at a number of airports upstream and judge from the coded METAR and TAF what the weather is forecast to do. Very efficient. Not all areas of the country have access to 4G or even good DSL. Would you require a country airport to install expensive equipment so you can read the TAF?

E6B. One common, well understood instrument that is inexpensive and needs no power provides a common reference point for training on critical air planning subjects. The formulas are printed right on the instrument. You don't need to use one, as you can do all the math with relationship formulas on a 4 function calculator or even in your head but it does provide a nice way to solve wind problems without resorting to graph paper or a protractors. Pilots flew long overseas routes for many years relying primarily on an E6B, so they can be quite accurate. If you don't like the E6B, you should not focus on the device but focus on the topics that are being addressed through training on it. Quick - can do you a density altitude calculation in your head (even if your cellphone calculator works, you have to know the formula - do you?). You do consider DA when departing a high altitude strip on a hot day, don't you?

Short Fld TO/LDG - I gave a flight review Sunday to a pilot who was used to flying in and out of long, paved strips. I asked him what he'd do if he had an engine problem and had to put down in a small strip? I made him demonstrate a short and soft fld to/ldg. When one operates the plane closer to the edge of the performance envelope, the pilot is likely to also demonstrate competency in the more normal tol/ldg. And, the pilot has more options for normal and emergency operations. Ever even been on grass? Should SP need an endorsement to fly off grass?

The FAA knowledge test has and always will have problems for reasons explained in the other thread. Tell me what acceptable solution is better and I will support it.

Eliminating the training you feel is redundant would decrease the skill and competency of pilots. The fact that you don't use a skill after you are taught it is not an argument that it shouldn't be taught at all. It may say more about your interest in maintaining a wide range of expertise and options. What I see is a person who chooses to narrow their flight world and argues that we all should do so, as well. In fact, we should broaden our flight world. Periodically, it would be excellent practice to fly a route based on E6B (circular slide rule) calculations so that we remind ourselves of the formulas that the black boxes hide. Isn't it odd that when we try to teach heading and bearing, the old vector diagram seems to get drawn on the napkin?

What people see depends on where they stand. A 100 hour pilot sees aviation through a particular lens. I am a 3000+ pilot who has flown charter in small jets, turboprops and piston twins. I've owned a T210. I'm rated in a seaplane and glider. I've done a few aerobatics. I have lots of night and IMC time into strange, sometimes very busy airports, some with complicated airspace. The view from where I stand is that we need less, not more, regulation and we pilots should assume more responsibility rather than cede it to the FAA.

Having said all that, there is no doubt in my mind that your view will prevail, not mine. We'll be restricted more and more and be more and more told just what to do. Some day, someone will say - "but I want to home in on that radio signal. In the old days, we could do it. But now, I have to buy a GPS". You own the future, not me.

RyanShort1 · Joined: 17 Aug 2010 Posts: 101 Location: San Antonio, TX

jnmeade wrote: Having said all that, there is no doubt in my mind that your view will prevail, not mine. We'll be restricted more and more and be more and more told just what to do. Some day, someone will say - "but I want to home in on that radio signal. In the old days, we could do it. But now, I have to buy a GPS". You own the future, not me.
I refuse to accept that, and I'm teaching my students to feel the same way. I hope we can defeat that in the future. We need to hold the broader, higher standard for ourselves in order to do so.

Ryan

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1387 Location: Lock Haven PA

In days far past (well before even my time!) one could not get a driver's license without demonstrating the ability to double-declutch a non-synchromesh manual transmission. Now, one need not ever have seen a clutch pedal to get a driver's license -- but I still enjoy my antique MG, even though I admittedly still grind a gear or two. So is it with antiquated flying skills -- they may drop from the PTS, but there will always be some of us who want to learn and use them, and CFIs who will be willing to teach them. Does any flight school still teach proper hand-prop technique? I doubt it -- but those who fly Cubs, Champs, and Luscombes will have to find a way to learn.