Sport Pilot Talk

CharlieTango

http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-04-11_sport_pilot.asp

CTflyer · Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject:

Now THAT is some progress. The 10K' MSL restriction never made sense to me, especially with Rec pilots having the 2000' extension already.

Still limited to the 1320 GW restriction ... but progress nonetheless.

Thanks for posting that.

Tom

CTflyer · Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:50 am Post subject:

Follow up to the proposed changes in the Sport Pilot rule:

http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-04-24_revisions.asp

Interesting proposal for an "under the hood" requirement.

Tom

Jeff Tipton · Joined: 26 Nov 2006 Posts: 73

Yes the hood time change is an interesting one. Means the student must have access to an IFR machine for some training and probably the check ride also. After all why require it and not check for proficiency.

In the seventy's the FAA required all CFI's to obtain an instrument rating. The thought being that you are teaching it you should know something about it. How long before the Sport pilot instructors will be required to obtain an instrument rating? If I remember correctly you must have at least a Private pilot certificate first.

I believe this is a bad move on the FAA's part and is moving away from the concept of the sport pilot.

rsteele · Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 99

Since inadvertent entry into IMC is one of the biggest killers of pilots, I applaud this change. Of course there is no way that one hour of hood time will prepare anybody for flying on instruments. I think the idea is to demonstrate just how hard it is to fly without a horizon. It's probably meant to scare students into staying way from marginal conditions. The hardware requirements for this type of training are minimal. Many LSA's exceed it.

There is no rule change which requires a proficiency check for this and it doesn't really make sense to have one with only one hour of training.

Overall, I think the rule changes are a good thing. The changes make me think the FAA is actually going to take SP seriously and keep it around.

oldsportpilot · Joined: 17 Mar 2006 Posts: 59

I agree that some training under the hood is a good thing for sport pilots. In the mid-Atlantic where I am based, on many hot summer days the haze is such that the horizon is not visible at altitudes above several thousand feet even though the coditions are legally VFR. I see no reason why the sport pilot requirement should be less than the 3 hours required for a private.

MikeM · Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 44 Location: Bucyrus, Ohio

When I took my check ride the examiner suggested that I get some hood time. I told my instructor about it and he agreed that it might be a good idea. Looks like the FAA thought so too.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that so many light sport pilots are learning to fly in airplanes like the Flight Design CTSW and other similar airplanes which are capable of performance like some Cessnas and Pipers. Some of them are much better equipped, too. How many 150s and Cherokees have glass instrument panels and autopilots?

CharlieTango · Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:26 am Post subject:

if you spend a little time on microsoft flight simulator you should be able to do well under the hood on your 1 hour of training.

with 120kt speed and long range tanks it is very easy to get into changing weather conditions and sometimes while you are still legal vfr you need those basic ifr skills because you loose the horizon or might even get a false horizon.

i don't think you need an ifr certified aircraft to do the hood training. in my ctsw with it's sythetic vision hood work is almost as easy as looking out the window.

rsteele · Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 99

Charile, are you IFR rated? Is the CTSW IFR legal? This seems to be a grey area LSA's. I know with Experimentals, your plane can be IFR legal if you can convince the examiner its safe to fly that way. It seems like there are many LSA's that can be used for training that that aren't really legal to fly in IFR.

I'm actually looking forward to getting some hood time, I think it should be interesting. Before starting flying lessons I could fly a flight sim all over the place by just looking at the instruments. Now that ability seems to have been beaten out of me by my instructors. I know the real challenge of IFR isn't cruising around on instruments, it the workload and precision required around airports.

Back on topic - will the change in altitude restrictions make a big difference in your flying? Maybe open up some new airports?

artp · Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 144 Location: Odenton, Md

rsteele wrote: Is the CTSW IFR legal?

No. Amoung other things it has the wrong engine. To date any LSA that is IFR legal must have the a certified engine (Tecnam uses the Rotax 912S).

CharlieTango · Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:14 pm Post subject:

ifr legal and adequately equipped for hood time are probably different things.

i'm not ifr rated.

the higher altititude limitation will open more safe routes of flight than it will airports for me. the terrain in my area goes to 14,500' MSL and the 10,000' ceiling eliminated crossings with safe margins.

owenstrawn · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 20

S/LSAs can be equipped to legally operate IFR, but there are very few that are. You don't need IFR equipment to get hood time though, since you'll be with an instructor who won't be wearing one.

Rotax does have a version of the 912 that is IFR legal, but it costs more than the version most S/LSAs use.

A flight simulator will NOT give you any idea what it is like to lose your horizon, unless you mount it inside a barrel and have your buddies shake it while you attempt to keep wings level. The "blindfold and a spinning chair" trick is also a good demonstration.

CharlieTango · Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:58 am Post subject:

owen,

i have "lost my horizon" many times in the last 20 years, mostly from night flying.

i have seen a few false horizons as well.

you make it sound as though loosing your horizon is the same as flying into a thunderstorm. you have a point that a desk top flight sim has its limitations however if you can fly a flight plan with the flight sim at minimums especially if it includes manuevering in the clouds you will likely find the 1 hour of hood time with an insturctor to be easy.

it was a long time ago but i remember the hood time when training for my private pilot certificate. it was in a skyhawk, ifr capable all steam gauges, i had a sectional and two vor radios. the instructor had me fly around 11,053'msl mammoth mountain while crusing at 10,500. i also had to intersect an airway and then turn at an intersection and approach the pattern. stuff like that required situational awareness without outside visual references. today with my glass panel and synthetic vision the same thing is about 10% the workload.

these skills learned and demonstrated with the similator and hood time do come into play when flying my SLSA. with a 900 mile range and 120kt speed i go through and avoid many changes in the weather and lighting.

last year smoke from a forest fire from 200 miles away suddenly shifted and engulfed me for an extended period of time. i was at 10,000' amoung 12,000, terrain.

the need for a minimum skill level is real and a fast lsa isn't any different in this regard than other general aviation aircraft

owenstrawn · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 20

I've always thought FS was good for procedures training, and familiarization (though I have to admit I have never run any of the modern generations). I'm just saying that FS can't teach you what it feels like when your senses are screaming at you to do something, but you know that you have to follow the instruments or you will die.

CharlieTango · Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:48 pm Post subject:

there are two distinct issues and both are critical

#1 ( you are arguing ) is the question of will you "follow the instruments"

#2 can you "follow the instruments"

the first issue is sometimes fatal for instrument rated pilots. a typical scenario is a night take off where ifr skills are required on a vfr legal flight. if the pilot fails to transfer to instruments on a dark night above dark terrain the flight is in jeopardy.

this thread is really about the second issue. the bar is pretty low, you have to try, make the attempt and have the instructor sign your log book.

a flight simulator can help you make the distinction between what your intuition is telling you and what the instruments are telling you. if you make your flight plan complicated you soon have to give up your intuition and rely on your panel this is a concept that does transfer in the real world including the need to distinguish between your senses and what the instruments say.