Sport Pilot Talk

shasta · Joined: 06 Sep 2011 Posts: 23 Location: sacramento

Well I was all set to get started with my sport pilot's training next month but now I am having second thoughts. I thought the sport pilot's license would be perfect for the type of flying I want to do but the more I think about it I think I might be just better off getting my private and then worry about the type of flying I am able to do.

Here is my problem I have found a sport instructor I like very much and he is very reasonable at about $85 an hour for the plane and $40 for the instructor. The problem is once I get my license I pretty much either have to buy a plane pretty fast or rent his out. His is only availible when he is not using it or on Sundays if another student does not want it. All those new light sport planes sure look pretty but are way outside of my budget and I am not seeing many partnerships for LSA's around here. I would not be against buying an ultralight style LSA but that is not really what I want either.

Now another forum member on here turned me on to a regular flight school/flying club with very reasonable rates too. A little over $110 an hour for a 152 and instructor. I am starting to think it might just be easier to go for the private. I figure if I do that I will have no problem building hours as rates are reasonable and easy to get an airplane most times I might want to go flying. Also I could afford an older plane or better yet just get into a partnership. Now my ultimate goal was to buy something like a Kitfox or other taildragger but I don't know of any LSA training around here that does that anyway.

I guess I guess I just want some opinions on the whole thing. I was also curious about how many hours more it usually takes to get your private than your sport. I know this is far from set in stone. If it takes say 30 hours to get your sport. Would 60 hours for your private seem like a pretty good guess? Last time I was able to solo in ten hours but I am older now and not sure what all I remember.

I am tryng to make a rough budget before I get started on all of this. I only have 7 more payments and I will own a fully paid for ex-wife. Only took 15 years. I need to keep the current one happy as I do not want to start making payments on another.

Jack Tyler · Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:26 am Post subject:

Shasta:

I think you've done a good job of outlining one of the main reasons why a PPL still makes sense for many would-be pilots. There have only been a relatively small minority (when compared against all student starts or new license issues) of SP students since 2004, and also a relatively small number of S-LSA a/c sold (about 2000 or an average of ~300/year) despite a vast number of choices. In short, no matter how beneficial both the SP license and LSA option will become, that segment of the aviation industry has had a slow ramp-up, and each aspect (license and LSA a/c) is somewhat dependent on the other. By contrast, a PPL will not only provide you increased rental options at home but offer you a good deal of skill expansion and allow you to more easily add flying to other pursuits (e.g. truly 'seeing' a new part of the country while on vacation).

Having said all that, just like one needs to be clear on the mission before picking the plane, your realistic flying goals need to be considered - as best they can be - before you choose the license. E.g. if your 'new' wife is not keen on flying in a small a/c - in fact, if she's not really enthused about adding this new aspect to your lifestyle - then lots of cross-country flying and the actual 'need' for adding ratings over time are probably not realistic. In which case, 'small a/c, simple license' might be quite suitable.

Here are a couple of add'l variables to consider:
-- if going SP and your local field only offers one LSA rental a/c, that in itself is going to pace (as in 'slow down') your training sked (other lessons, rental use, maintenance downtime...and hopefully not also because someone pranged the a/c)
-- if you have a relatively slower paced training sked, the learning curve will be shallower, meaning more time in the air and more $$
-- the additional 'required' hours for the PPL are not that much greater, and the additional requirements are real-world requirements if you plan to do some 'real' (non-local) flying; put differently, you are a more capable pilot when flying out in the real world if you get the PPL
-- the actual number of training hours (instructor and solo) vary quite a bit by student (a/c issues and instructor availability aside) and any averages are just that. Since you live in a non-seasonal climate (as flying goes), winter won't get in your way and that's very helpful to maintaining a steady pace. I'd suggest you talk with both instructors and ask them to offer you an average 'hours to check-ride' estimate (because this can depend significantly on the quality of instruction) but then just assume those are gross estimates.
-- finally, look at your work sked. From when you start, will you be able to complete a steady training regimen (2 flights/week, preferably one during the week to 'space out' the learning) without interruption (biz trips, vacation scheduled, etc.) Making a steady training & study regimen a priority, in your work style and domestic lifestyle, is IMO an excellent way to optimize the pace of your training no matter which license you pursue.

Good luck to you. The good news is that there's no 'bad choice' waiting for you.

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

Well, the other option is to o your PP training in the LSA. That'll save you money in the long run since it costs less per hour. Then if you need to move onto another plane with more capacity it'll be a shorter time in the plane that costs more per hour to run.

Just my $00.02 worth.

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

ibgarrett wrote: Well, the other option is to do your PP training in the LSA.

If the plane and instructor are available and suitable, this is by far the most attractive option, IMHO. A couple of my students have chosen to go this route. If they get the SP first, and then do the PP add-on course, they're flying for fun in half the time, and all the experience gained as a SP helps them along the road to PP.

A couple of caveats: going this route, the LSA needs to be properly equipped to teach you all the skills you're going to want as a PP. (This is not always the case -- the plane needs to be night-legal, for example, and you'll probably want it to have a VOR receiver and OBS, so you can learn those navigation skills in addition to GPS, pilotage, and dead reckoning.) The instructor needs to be a Subpart H CFI (rather than a Subpart K SFI-S) in order to give you instruction toward the PP. And, to give night instruction, the CFI needs to have a current medical certificate (many of us let ours lapse when we start instructing in LSAs). Plus, you need to feel comfortable with both the CFI and the aircraft for this to work.

Finally, consider who you're going to use for a Designated Pilot Examiner. A SP DPE can't necessarily give you the PP checkride. A PP DPE can't necessarily fit in an LSA. Check with your proposed flight school to make sure they have these bases covered.

Whether to get the SP enroute to the PP, or go straight for the PP, is a matter of considerable debate and discussion on other threads of this forum. SP first may cost you a little more (two written exams and two checkride fees, for example), but could also end up costing you less, if you plan to fly for fun as a SP and have all those hours and XCs counted toward PP. SP first will ensure that you don't get halfway to the PP, run out of money, and end up with nothing.

In my previous life (as a professor), I had similar discussions with graduate students, as to whether to get a masters first, or just go straight for the doctorate. The former approach was usually superior, especially when life intruded on one's plans. An MS in hand is worth far more on the job market that half a PhD.

Good luck to you, Shasta. As Jack says, there are no wrong choices here!

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

Ah see - and here I was going for brevity (a trait I'm not well known for)...

Definitely good points I should have mentioned. From my personal experience, I trained strictly LSA (and have done zero training time in a normal GA plane). The plane I'm a partner in isn't night-capable, so I had to go back to the trainer for the night training and I have minimal VOR training (which still confuses the crap outta me).

Maybe it's my instructors, but I'm consistently told that if the equipment isn't on the plane that I'm doing my checkride in, I can't be tested on it. So I'm hanging my hat on that for my checkride... :D

I figure when I get through the PP checkride I'm going to have to get checked out in anything bigger that I fly, so that time will also include learning more about those systems with an approved person.

Jim Stewart · Joined: 12 Oct 2006 Posts: 259

Paul,

It is not necessary for an aircraft to have have VOR capability to be used for a PP checkride. I passed my PP checkride a couple months ago in my light sport airplane and the only radio navigation unit I have is a $500 GPS. What you will need to be able to do is to "tune" a VOR station on the GPS, intercept a radial and then fly towards or away from it. What the examiner wanted to see was my ability to accept ATC commands in a VOR world and follow them. Anyone prepping for a PP checkride in an LSA would do well to make sure that they can do that.

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

Jim Stewart wrote: What you will need to be able to do is to "tune" a VOR station on the GPS, intercept a radial and then fly towards or away from it.

Point well taken, Jim. If someone's going to get a PPL and then rent a "traditional" GA aircraft, it's probably going to have a VOR receiver in it -- so, I kinda like to make sure the student has some exposure. But, you're right, actual VOR experience is not absolutely required for the license. (Night flying, OTOH, is.)

Jim Stewart · Joined: 12 Oct 2006 Posts: 259

Agreed. I've been considering the purchase of Sporty's new handheld mostly so that I can be familiar with VOR procedures. The other LSA-for-PP issue we've missed is the 3 hour simulated instrument requirement. Before I started with my PP training I installed a Dynon EFIS 100 and it worked great for the instrument training and checkride.

drseti · Joined: 28 Nov 2009 Posts: 1390 Location: Lock Haven PA

Jim Stewart wrote: The other LSA-for-PP issue we've missed is the 3 hour simulated instrument requirement.

Thanks for bringing that up, Jim. As it happens, I just gave an instrument lesson Monday in my SportStar. It is dual Dynon equipped, and the digital bus feature allows cross-feeding of information between screens. So, there's a lot of flexibility available in terms of how one configures the displays. The only thing missing, IMHO, is a six-pack mode. There's no reason not to have a standard layout of round gauges available at the push of a button -- I wish Dynon supported that in their software!

designrs · Joined: 23 Sep 2009 Posts: 144

Another thing to think about is what quality and feeling of flight do you want to experience? For me, I absolutely MUST be excited about the airplane. A 30 year old Cessna does absolutely nothing for me in terms of experience. I want to climb into an exciting modern aircraft... a new sports car, not an old mini van, so to speak.

OTOH some people feel better in an older, heavier and certified aircraft.

Still others yet, can go either way putting mission function and economics before aesthetics and experience.

Of course if money is no object, you can go all the way into a very modern certified aircraft, or some very, very cool classic aircraft.

shasta · Joined: 06 Sep 2011 Posts: 23 Location: sacramento

Thanks for all the advice. In a perfect world I would do the sport to private step. The problem for me is the only one I am aware of right now is about an hour away that could do both. It is actually at an airport I am very familar with. It is where I solo'd a 150 and I used to live about a half mile from there. It is also just about $50 more an hour for a plane and instructor than my PP would be. My guess is the incidentals would add up pretty fast too. Jim told me he heard a rumor that the flying club I was looking at may be ordering a 162 so that may be an option also. I forgot to ask them when I went to talk to them.

As far as the type of flying I would like to do hands down a new LSA looks like a whole lot more fun than a 152. As was pointed out earlier there are just not nearly enough of them. I am sure in a few years they will become fairly common. That and many more kit planes specifically built for the LSA market will be around too. I do want the ability to be able to rent a plane that I can actually take overnight if I want.

I wish my "new" wife was excited about it but she isn't and I don't think that is going to change anytime soon. The new wife really is not that new but she never knew me when I used to hang out around airports or fly ultralights. Me spending 70-80k for a used factory LSA is pretty much out of the picture. Most likely I will end up buying a homebuilt as it kind of satisfies a couple of my needs. One is to fly but I do like working on my stuff too. Many of the planes I have been lookng at are sport legal but sometimes someone put a in-flight adjustable prop or set the gross weight a little too heavy. It might be nice to have the option to go ahead and buy one that comes up if it is a good deal.

As far as training it is a little complicated for me. I work strange hours. I am actually at work right now. I get lots of time off but I switch between nights and days often. When I come off of nights it takes atleast a day before I would be any good at training. My goal was to try and fly two to three days a week but sometimes they would have to be back to back. The good thing is I get 7 days off every forth week and I have lots of time off built up so I could catch a day here and there also.

Now too me any airplane is exciting. Granted I would rather fly a sleek new LSA than and an old Cessna but I am not that picky. I grew up in the mountians and a Kitfox or Rans 7 seems like a perfect plane for what I would like to do. Fancy and new don't really matter to me too much. Having something that I get to decide when and how I use it are much more important to me.

Jack Tyler · Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:01 am Post subject:

"For me, I absolutely MUST be excited about the airplane. A 30 year old Cessna does absolutely nothing for me in terms of experience."

To each his own, to be sure. But re: the above statement, I think that applies much more when doing redundant local flights than to more varied (dare I say: 'real') flying: e.g. choosing a new & unfamiliar route, an entirely new airport, a flight dedicated to polishing new skill sets like working with Flight Following, and so forth. I just finished the October newsletter for the local EAA chapter here in Jax and, when considering the 'local fly-ins & events' listings for the next few weeks, hand on heart I can say many an interesting, fun experience awaits me if I had access to a 150.

Shasta, a couple of follow-ups:
-- re: Jim's comment that "...he heard a rumor that the flying club I was looking at may be ordering a 162 so that may be an option also." There many hundreds of back orders for 162's at Cessna and their optimistic 2011 sales projection is 200. If your flying club doesn't already have one on order, it will unfortunately be years before they get theirs.
-- "[Many more LSA a/c] and many more kit planes specifically built for the LSA market will be around too." Unfortunately, a kit plane is going to be registered as Experimental (either E-AB or E-LSA) and none of those can be used for commercial use, i.e. for rental use or instructional use by a flight school. OTOH if you were to own your own E-LSA and find an agreeable instructor, you could receive instruction in that a/c. And any S-LSA a/c can be re-registered as an E-LSA by its owner, which has several advantages including owner-maintenance (if properly trained), owner-completed upgrades, and getting the a/c out from underneath the thumb of what the mfgr. says are the only approved things that can be done to the a/c. And if something like an older E-AB Kitfox would meet your needs longer-term, then that's a path open to you IF you can find suitable insurance and CFI.
-- To illustrate this last point - and to also illustrate my above comment about old style 'slow/draggy' or tube/fabric a/c still providing access to lots of fun flying - consider viewing this video on a Kitfox that's for sale: www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ith6oCWtgw Notice that most of this flying is done at 4,000' density altitude, altho' with a more powerful engine than most Kitfox a/c have.
-- "I work strange hours." You just identified one way wherein you can have better access to an instructional a/c than all those students who work a standard 9-5 M-F work week.

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

As a side note re: the VOR portion of the training. I ran across this web-gem a few months ago. For free this is a great VOR trainer - even though I'm still struggling with how to use it.

http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Learning_VOR_Sim.aspx

shasta · Joined: 06 Sep 2011 Posts: 23 Location: sacramento

Jack I was aware that a AB airplane could not be used commercially or rented but I don't think that would ever be a problem for me. I was considering buying an airplane to train in. It would be harder if I bought a plane such as a Kitfox because very few CFI's would be qualified. One of the guys on the Kitfox forum was very kind and invited me to his house to see his almost finished Kitfox. He did mention he knew of one local CFI who owned a Kitfox.

I loved the link. I was actually aware of that airplane. It looks like they did a great job putting it together. I know it has a larger engine than the 100 horse Rotax that is generally used in the Vixen but I would guess the performance figures would not be a huge amount higher. I think the Kitfox in the link is somewhere around 960 pounds with the heavy engine and fancy panel. Some of the light built Rotax Vixens are coming in at about 800 pounds.

That is another possible problem with a sport license for me. If I decide to buy a AB airplane I have to be very careful just how it is built and be very aware of any modifications in the airplane's history. That Vixen has a gross weight of 1550 pounds but some of the newer ones are being set at 1320 to meet LSA requirements. It all depends on how the original builder set the gross weight. I also see lots of airplanes advertised on Barnstormers as LSA's but if you read the fine print they have IFA props. As I understand the regs once that line has been crossed you can never come back to a LSA. Lots of the earlier Kitfoxes have this problem.

As much as I would like to say it is not, money is an issue. One of the reasons for my love of airplanes like the Kitfox is I see where I think I can really lower some costs. The Kitfox has folding wings and many people trailer them to the airport. I think that would be more problem than it is worth for me as most planes are still a little long for the average garage unless I took both sides. The wife is not going to go for that. It would be possible to share a hanger in many cases and that would greatly reduce costs. Also since you can do most of the work annuals seem to be fairly cheap.

In the end I know I may decide to go a totally different direction. I would love to do the sport pilot first but don't think I can justify the extra cost it would be to use a traditional CFI, in a sport plane, in my area. As much as I am getting excited about buying an airplane I need to learn how to fly first and decide what direction I really want to head. I know just enough to know I don't know anything. I also want to learn to be a good pilot and not just get my license. I know that will take lots of time and practice.

Thanks for all the advice

Jack Tyler · Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:14 am Post subject:

Shasta, it's obvious you've thought about this topic a lot as you're able to see around some of the corners of which most students, early in their exposure to aviation, are unaware. There's no doubt in my mind you'll end up figuring out a way to match both your interest and your bank account with the options out there (for training and also aircraft owning). Just keep exploring...but meanwhile, try to reach some closure on your training choice and get going. The experience of 'doing' will help shape many of your views on these subjects, and it will tell you - in spades - how you actually feel about flying.

BTW folding wings (as well as removable wings, such as on the RV-12) allow for more cost-effective storage/tie-down options than trailering the a/c. And let's face it: a trailer to hold an LSA is quite expensive, and its cost subsequently pales when compared to the truck one needs to tow the trailer. (When you next attend an LSA Expo or similar event, take a look at how some of the LSA a/c got to the show. Serious gear...

On my last home field, the city permitted owners to rent a tie-down space and put a trailer on it, which provided two ultralights with inside shelter and a place to stow tools, oil, etc. without the hassle of trailering, the cost of towing, or the cost of renting a hangar. (There was a l-o-n-g waiting list for hangars, which helped the city come to this decision). Another fellow got permission to erect a 'tube & fabric' sun shelter on a tie-down space - like a backyard lawn awning. This looked kinda funny, out there on the field, but it provided the same u/v protection for his ultralight as one of the shade hangars on the field at far less cost. My point is that removing or folding the wings does increase ones options, including options beyond sharing a hangar or towing it on & off the field.

Good luck to you. For the benefit of the forum members - and especially those who have and will be wrestling with this same issue - be sure to let us know what you eventually (sooner rather than later) decide and how it's working out for you.