Site has been pretty quiet. I'll throw one out there.
Anyone know what would be involved with petitioning FAA, EAA and politicians to change the FAA rules for Sport Pilot?
I would like to see the following changes made...
Increase gross weight limit to 2350 lbs Max 180 hp.
Allow airplanes that are outside this due to STC's to be returned to LSA status after a conformity check and IA signoff with 337.
Actually no weight limit at all would be fine. Keep all other rules defining the LSA airplane the same and we would all be safer. Base compliance of the rules with already existing flight manuals on airplanes like the Cessna 150. 4 place airplanes just need to be flown within the utility category limits. If none then not eligable for sport pilot ( no grumman yankees) Stall speed on those would not make it anyhow.
This would give a narrow but usable list of larger airplanes that could be operated as LSA. Because of the stall and maximum speeds. not weight.
A weight limit has a whole host of negative aspects and I can't think of any positive. From overloading to minimal structure, existing airplanes that could be used for LSA flying.
The new ones will still sell because of people wanting to put money somewhere fun and just wanting new. Most that cannot afford new will stay with their existing airplanes. They would not have bought new anyway.
I was doing an annual on a Stearman and It got me thinking. Here is an airplane that I cannot physically pull apart in the air and has cockpits that will fit anyone. Controls are all pushrods and bearings. no friction anywhere and flies with almost no rudder imput. Silky smooth controls and very linear. Handling and control feel done right from 1941.
The trouble with LSA is planes are too small and people too big. Something has to go somewhere and most of us are eating good.
Safety is in wing loading not total weight. Safety is in a predictable airplane with a good trim system.
Require at least 500 hours total time to be on the conforming prototype presented for ATSM standards on a new design.
cars, sneakers, hair dryers, outlets, are all tested for wear and lifespan.
We learned long ago that new airplanes were beat to death by test pilots to make the performance numbers in the book. Lesson learned, try something different.
I was reading a service letter from Cessna on a 60 year old 140. It said in the first year we have accumulated service history of over 1000 hours on some airframes and manufactured over 6000 airframes.
No LSA will ever come close to that volume but most manufacturers flew their prototypes long enough to get some kind of service history before releasing them to the public.
Is there any data on that with todays LSA designs.
Lots have sold (hundreds) in europe but looking at the last Kitplanes spread on LSA shows most manufacturers less than 2-5 airframes delivered except the big names (flight design, Legend cub).
Stirring up trouble
Moderator: drseti
Stirring up trouble
"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away." Antoine de Saint Exupery
At last! A post concerning sport pilots!
As several folks have said before, the idea of expanding the Light Sport Aircraft definition, and/or the Sport Pilot definition, is great, but it's not likely to happen. Maybe, if several large organizations with a vested interested in "larger" LSA planes would group together, at least the idea could be heard with a loud voice.
I posted the original rationale for Sport Pilot several months ago, from Earl Lawrence of EAA. The Sport Pilot certificate was created to bring ultralight fliers under FAA control. It wasn't created to create new pilots. The Light Sport Aircraft specs were designed originally to encompass ultralights at 600 gross; only at the "last minute" was the gross raised to 1320, allowing some older light planes to sneak in under the fence. That also meant more new(er) aircraft could meet the LSA definition. But it seems the new planes are being bought and flown mostly by full PPL pilots, not sport pilots. Nothing wrong with that at all, but what happened to sport pilots?
Seems to me the most "efficient" change to attract more new pilots would be to eliminate the requirement that Sport Pilots only fly Light Sport Aircraft. Change the LSA definitions all you want, but why on earth are Sport Pilots limited to 1320 gross? We can conjecture and toss ideas around all we want, but it's the "Sport Pilot must fly LSA" that seems to be causing the hang up, at least the limited numbers of LSA available for training around the country.
A certified Sport Pilot renting a 152 and flying under Sport Pilot rules. What's the problem?
Just my 2¢.
Tom
As several folks have said before, the idea of expanding the Light Sport Aircraft definition, and/or the Sport Pilot definition, is great, but it's not likely to happen. Maybe, if several large organizations with a vested interested in "larger" LSA planes would group together, at least the idea could be heard with a loud voice.
I posted the original rationale for Sport Pilot several months ago, from Earl Lawrence of EAA. The Sport Pilot certificate was created to bring ultralight fliers under FAA control. It wasn't created to create new pilots. The Light Sport Aircraft specs were designed originally to encompass ultralights at 600 gross; only at the "last minute" was the gross raised to 1320, allowing some older light planes to sneak in under the fence. That also meant more new(er) aircraft could meet the LSA definition. But it seems the new planes are being bought and flown mostly by full PPL pilots, not sport pilots. Nothing wrong with that at all, but what happened to sport pilots?
Seems to me the most "efficient" change to attract more new pilots would be to eliminate the requirement that Sport Pilots only fly Light Sport Aircraft. Change the LSA definitions all you want, but why on earth are Sport Pilots limited to 1320 gross? We can conjecture and toss ideas around all we want, but it's the "Sport Pilot must fly LSA" that seems to be causing the hang up, at least the limited numbers of LSA available for training around the country.
A certified Sport Pilot renting a 152 and flying under Sport Pilot rules. What's the problem?
Just my 2¢.
Tom
Interesting topic but I guess you have to draw the line somewhere. The weight limit probably has it's rationale in the idea that the bigger the airplane the more damage it can do coming down.
You don't need a drivers license to ride a bicycle or a moped. So why do you need one for a motorcycle?
Regardless, think of the sport pilot ticket as a stepping stone. It was intended to create the opportunity for people to fly with a smaller investment of time (knowledge) and money. Basically for those who just want to fly around on a nice, sunny day. If you really, really enjoy flying (and can afford it), why not step up to a private pilot certificate?
You don't need a drivers license to ride a bicycle or a moped. So why do you need one for a motorcycle?
Regardless, think of the sport pilot ticket as a stepping stone. It was intended to create the opportunity for people to fly with a smaller investment of time (knowledge) and money. Basically for those who just want to fly around on a nice, sunny day. If you really, really enjoy flying (and can afford it), why not step up to a private pilot certificate?
guess we're lucky not to have a 600 lb gross weight. it makes more sense looking at the rules in that light because the movers behind SP wanted to import small airplanes. 600lb would have never worked with a two place machine.
The rules are kind of hidden but LSA has an empty weight rule as well as the 1320 gross. There is a minimum useful load.
Just finished reading Aviation Digests review of the new champ. Lots of mistakes in that article. See what you spot on review. I'm writing the editor. I'm not fond of aircraft reviews done as an advertisement for the airplane.
Guess my line of thinking is I can teach a person to fly a 172 or similar quicker than a SP airplane.
There is really no difference in complexity or difficulty to fly between single engine fixed gear certified airplanes until you get over 180hp or add a constant speed prop.
So why a weight limit?
All the LSA cost comparisons are between learning in a new 172 or new LSA.
More likely will be a used 172 or new LSA. 172 will be same price to rent. PPL has 3 hours night, 3 hours hood, longer cross country. No other differences. Radio work can be done as part of the syllabus during normal training.
For 8 hours difference in learning to fly you give up access to a huge number of airplanes and the capability to operate in any airspace to 17,999ft. With instructor sign offs you can fly complex, high performance with no speed limit. 4place, 6 place etc.
The CT and other fast glass speeds are very close to airplanes that need high performance signoffs in the Private pilot world. But there is no end to the speed for PPL. Except 250kts below 10,000
Well worth the $1200 difference counting 3rd class medical
the medical certificate is the real selling point for a dedicated SP.
The rules are kind of hidden but LSA has an empty weight rule as well as the 1320 gross. There is a minimum useful load.
Just finished reading Aviation Digests review of the new champ. Lots of mistakes in that article. See what you spot on review. I'm writing the editor. I'm not fond of aircraft reviews done as an advertisement for the airplane.
Guess my line of thinking is I can teach a person to fly a 172 or similar quicker than a SP airplane.
There is really no difference in complexity or difficulty to fly between single engine fixed gear certified airplanes until you get over 180hp or add a constant speed prop.
So why a weight limit?
All the LSA cost comparisons are between learning in a new 172 or new LSA.
More likely will be a used 172 or new LSA. 172 will be same price to rent. PPL has 3 hours night, 3 hours hood, longer cross country. No other differences. Radio work can be done as part of the syllabus during normal training.
For 8 hours difference in learning to fly you give up access to a huge number of airplanes and the capability to operate in any airspace to 17,999ft. With instructor sign offs you can fly complex, high performance with no speed limit. 4place, 6 place etc.
The CT and other fast glass speeds are very close to airplanes that need high performance signoffs in the Private pilot world. But there is no end to the speed for PPL. Except 250kts below 10,000
Well worth the $1200 difference counting 3rd class medical
the medical certificate is the real selling point for a dedicated SP.
"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away." Antoine de Saint Exupery
It sure seems to me that the *big* issue is that Sport Pilots are limited to flying LSA.
Remove that one limitation and you've opened up the whole world of rental trainers to Sport Pilot training as well as renting after checkride. Non-HP, non-complex ASEL flying is made available to a whole new group of pilots.
Raising the gross weight of LSA would help in theory, but LSA was created to encompass fat ultralights - not to make flying more affordable. That's why I doubt that raising the weight would ever happen. And Sport Pilot was created to encompass ultralight fliers - not to make flying more affordable. Close to $10,000 for a PPL, and few rental LSA around for Sport Pilot training and flying - that's a big problem for a lot of people.
Reading here of how many folks either feel new LSA are a bit more difficult to master than the "152-type planes", or that Designated Examiners flying LSA are rare as hen's teeth, sure tells me something basic is missing in the equation. If you can't afford to buy a plane, you can't afford to be a Sport Pilot in most parts of the country. Removing the "Sport Pilot must fly LSA" requirement would sure open up the game to more players.
Is it possible that there's no real movement here because most of the new planes are being bought and flown by full PPL?
Tom
NutmegCT
Remove that one limitation and you've opened up the whole world of rental trainers to Sport Pilot training as well as renting after checkride. Non-HP, non-complex ASEL flying is made available to a whole new group of pilots.
Raising the gross weight of LSA would help in theory, but LSA was created to encompass fat ultralights - not to make flying more affordable. That's why I doubt that raising the weight would ever happen. And Sport Pilot was created to encompass ultralight fliers - not to make flying more affordable. Close to $10,000 for a PPL, and few rental LSA around for Sport Pilot training and flying - that's a big problem for a lot of people.
Reading here of how many folks either feel new LSA are a bit more difficult to master than the "152-type planes", or that Designated Examiners flying LSA are rare as hen's teeth, sure tells me something basic is missing in the equation. If you can't afford to buy a plane, you can't afford to be a Sport Pilot in most parts of the country. Removing the "Sport Pilot must fly LSA" requirement would sure open up the game to more players.
Is it possible that there's no real movement here because most of the new planes are being bought and flown by full PPL?
Tom
NutmegCT
Other than SPs being limited to flying planes that meet the LSA definition, it's not clear to me how the SP rule got combined with the LSA rule. They are two completely seperate regulations.
Its probably shear fantacy to think that the FAA will ever make the SP ruile something sane, but for a start it needs to be disassociated with the LSA rule. These two rules were made to bring the fat ultralites and the people who fly them "into the system". This is one of those cases of unintended consequences - ppls are flying LSA and SPs aren't flying ultralights. My fear is that when the FAA recognizes this the SP rule will go away altogether rather than getting fixed.
My dream for fixing the SP rule:
Planes with no more than 4 seats
No more than one passanger.
Change the ceiling to 10000 feet or 2000 ft over terrain, which ever is higher.
I'm pretty much ok with the rest of the rule.
For the LSA rule:
This rule should be performance based: Stall speed, max speed etc. REQUIRE a BRS, don't penalize by effectivly reducing the GW for having one. Seems to me the gross weight would take care of itself. For planes with an enclosed cockpit, an attitude indicator should be required and a SP should be required to have hood time to fly it. I realize that this goes beyond the required instrumentation for non-LSA. So what, this is a new beast. The goal should be safety, not reverence for the past.
You might ask, what is the point of the LSA rule if SPs can fly non-LSA planes. Well, the LSA rule makes available a lot of non-certified (much cheaper) hardware, from engines to sunvisors and lets average folk maintain their planes with minimal training. Much of this hardware is time tested in the Experimental word and is quite comparable to certified hardware. Spaceship One, for instance used Dyon glass cockpit hardware rather than something certified and 10 times the price such as the Garmin G1000.
Ron
Its probably shear fantacy to think that the FAA will ever make the SP ruile something sane, but for a start it needs to be disassociated with the LSA rule. These two rules were made to bring the fat ultralites and the people who fly them "into the system". This is one of those cases of unintended consequences - ppls are flying LSA and SPs aren't flying ultralights. My fear is that when the FAA recognizes this the SP rule will go away altogether rather than getting fixed.
My dream for fixing the SP rule:
Planes with no more than 4 seats
No more than one passanger.
Change the ceiling to 10000 feet or 2000 ft over terrain, which ever is higher.
I'm pretty much ok with the rest of the rule.
For the LSA rule:
This rule should be performance based: Stall speed, max speed etc. REQUIRE a BRS, don't penalize by effectivly reducing the GW for having one. Seems to me the gross weight would take care of itself. For planes with an enclosed cockpit, an attitude indicator should be required and a SP should be required to have hood time to fly it. I realize that this goes beyond the required instrumentation for non-LSA. So what, this is a new beast. The goal should be safety, not reverence for the past.
You might ask, what is the point of the LSA rule if SPs can fly non-LSA planes. Well, the LSA rule makes available a lot of non-certified (much cheaper) hardware, from engines to sunvisors and lets average folk maintain their planes with minimal training. Much of this hardware is time tested in the Experimental word and is quite comparable to certified hardware. Spaceship One, for instance used Dyon glass cockpit hardware rather than something certified and 10 times the price such as the Garmin G1000.
Ron
-
CharlieTango
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
- Location: Mammoth Lakes, California
ron,
clearly the faa's intent was to bring fat ul's and their pilots into the system.
fat ul's weren't as big a problem as trainers. enforcement is all that was needed for a fat single seated ul. trainers require 2 seats and are the reason the lsa reg is so permissive.
now that the faa put the "new pilots for the good of aviation" spin on it they are locked in. we must be approaching 1,000+ SLSA sold and it would be awkward to go back. if they went back the part 103 problem would return.
i have no fear of LSA going away. i have little hope that the regs will get more permisseive
clearly the faa's intent was to bring fat ul's and their pilots into the system.
fat ul's weren't as big a problem as trainers. enforcement is all that was needed for a fat single seated ul. trainers require 2 seats and are the reason the lsa reg is so permissive.
now that the faa put the "new pilots for the good of aviation" spin on it they are locked in. we must be approaching 1,000+ SLSA sold and it would be awkward to go back. if they went back the part 103 problem would return.
i have no fear of LSA going away. i have little hope that the regs will get more permisseive
I am not sure there really is a problem with the regs other than a few vague concepts or requirements. Yes, the SP rule does make it cheaper to learn to fly. The national average is 60-70 hours for a PPL. We are easily able to train in under 30 hours. Also, I saw a post that you could teach someone to fly just as quickly in a 172 as a SP. That person probably has not flown the Tecnam Echo Super which is the easiest airplane to fly of any airplane I have ever flown. People can master that plane much quicker than a 172.
Interestingly enough, our clients are split down the middle, half are new pilots and half are PPL or higher converting to SP. The rule is openning a lot of windows. Simply looking at the number of registered SPs is cutting the LSA movement well short of its actual impact. The number of PPLs flying SPs is as much if not more than the number of SP primary pilots.
This rule has been a great advantage to us in the Mid Atlantic. We have 5 LSAs for rent. We have over 12 instructors. Are planes are booked regularly and we have revitalized aviation in our area. We have more pilots and students than our GA competitors.
SP is a very good thing for aviation and the way the rule is worded now, it still allowing us to thrive. Would more useful load help, sure. However, with 600 lbs on the Echo Super we are not having that much of a problem with useful load.
Interestingly enough, our clients are split down the middle, half are new pilots and half are PPL or higher converting to SP. The rule is openning a lot of windows. Simply looking at the number of registered SPs is cutting the LSA movement well short of its actual impact. The number of PPLs flying SPs is as much if not more than the number of SP primary pilots.
This rule has been a great advantage to us in the Mid Atlantic. We have 5 LSAs for rent. We have over 12 instructors. Are planes are booked regularly and we have revitalized aviation in our area. We have more pilots and students than our GA competitors.
SP is a very good thing for aviation and the way the rule is worded now, it still allowing us to thrive. Would more useful load help, sure. However, with 600 lbs on the Echo Super we are not having that much of a problem with useful load.
some thoughts
Gosh I never thought of the SP and LSA as not being related but your right they are totally seperate things.
As for items proven in the homebuilt world I'm not so sure. Avionics yes they are better in most cases. Garmin 296 is in my opinion one of the greatest units to be built. Auto engine conversions.
Quality of parts. I can remember my Kitfox matco brakes. I am currently in the midst of trials and problems with uncertified propellers, airframes, instruments, and engines,(too long story) The westach guages and falcon guages did not impress me after using them, Wag-Aero tail brace wires are awful and unsafe, My X air has MS hardware. AN hardware especially the old AERO bolts are much better.
Experimentals don't get flown as much as certified airplanes. My flybaby has 1700 hours and is a high time homebuilt but it is all certified parts except the airframe. Same with our Pitts.
I have flown Beavers with 20,000+ hours. How many experimentals have come close to that. The bottom line is this stuff is going to be flown by us all and it does not have the service history to support what we will be doing with it. The airframes are not tested by any outside agency and the owner is responisble to search out any problems through service letters.
Maybe Robinsion helicopter has the right idea with mandatory airframe overhauls at 2000 hours. everything is made to last until then.
Attention needs to be paid to what has worked high time without failure.
Most problems will be caught during maintenance but will a SP owner with little training spot problems before failure. It remains to be seen.
The old system worked great for many years and prices were not out of line for the small airplanes we are flying. You have to be creative and have a working relationship with your mechanic but if it is not good at one shop pick another. The high maintenance expenses came with no new airplanes and airframes needing overhaul. Rebuilding costs exceed the value of the airplane. But if maintained and taken care of they don't need a total rebuild. 30+ years of outside no care storage is a pretty good record for most airframes with no corrosion protection inside. but after that the junk pile is looming around the corner.
Lets retire them and build the next generation to the same quality or better. Many new LSA's are, some are not. OR... Find a nice condition older airplane and be a good caretaker during your ownership. It will outlive you.
What is happening is the government is aligning things and LSA is the proving ground for a sweeping change in regulation on airplane maintenance.
No longer will fear of the FSDO inspector keep thte mechanics in line. we will now have private companies that do individual audits and spot checks to assure "conformity with accepted airworthiness standards"
Sound familiar. kind of like ATSM and LAMA
This is scary stuff folks. It has already begun with LSA, Airtraffic control and Flight service. Actually almost every branch of government is doing this. must be to avoid cushy government retirement options. More to come.
Repair stations and part 135 operators will be first. I just finished submitting my ops specs for Part 91 scenic rides with our local FAA even listing N numbers of airplanes used and parties on my drug testing program. That gets me in the system and targeted for the new changes when they get around to for hire Part 91.
Why does this have to happen? I don't know. My aviation belief system is based on what has worked for 50 years or more and was apperently successful because those airplanes still fly fine.
I can guess my taxes won't be lowered to compensate.
We had the best system in the world with clear cut definitions of pilots, airplanes, operating limitations and non biased free oversite.
not a bewildering array of signoffs, ATSM, non gov agencies, reverting licenses, medical hangups, limitations in airplanes and operations.
Now we will have to pay the fees to keep legal. Or go underground and keep a low profile.... This is not a direct pilot fee but rather an operator and maintenance shop fee.
Who are they to say what my acceptable standards are. I test-fly everything I fix and do not cut corners. Airworthy is a broad interpretation but anyone with a little intellect knows what it means. I respect an FAA official with experience who sees something wrong. I don't respect a seminar graduate who faults filling out a form wrong (no 4 digit date). or not having the parts room sorted to standards. number of fire extinguishers, all airplanes 5 feet from electrical outlets etc.
As a airport owner, fuel reseller, flight school owner and maintenance shop owner it scares me to death.
I'll get hit with fees from every angle. Labor and industry was bad enough. This could be the guestapo
The drug test program already pisses me off. Money down the drain. We were audited once. What a laugh. they looked at me and said "who trains you?" I said "he does", pointing at my father. They said who sends you and he said "he does" pointing at me? Then they said who owns the buisness and I said "he does pointing at my father". Who runs the business? and I said "I do, and I own the airplanes" Mr auditor scratches his head a while and says "you will not hear from us again for a very long time. took his secretary and left" We just send money, pee in a cup once in a while and they leave us alone.
a few years ago I was on three drug test programs at once.
This is not "user fees" that are in the current fight but something new that has not been released to the joe pilot population. It will not be voted on but gradually adapted over the next 5-10 years.
We can resist. The power comes in our elected officials and pressure they can give on the right people if they are informed and properly motivated. I've flown to DC and met with my locals personally on the current user fee fight. Do the same if you can. Taken most of the local commisioners for rides also. I always make a point of flying to meetings with politicians. Then you can brag on how long it took to get there.
The EAA, AOPA, and type clubs are another good source. If properly pushed they cannot ignore the membership . Drafting a more desirable set of rules and requests. Then showing why they improve safety, efficiency and economy will make them notice. Then hit from all angles.
As for number of SLSA sold. I think it is a lot less than we are let to believe. CT is highest followed by legend cub. Then probably sport star and some others. Kitplanes just did a spread on number certified and it was eye opening. The LSA certified numbers are showing ELSA grouped in with LSA so that is where the figures are coming from.
Lets shake things up and see what happens. I'll go to bat for common sense anytime.
As for items proven in the homebuilt world I'm not so sure. Avionics yes they are better in most cases. Garmin 296 is in my opinion one of the greatest units to be built. Auto engine conversions.
Quality of parts. I can remember my Kitfox matco brakes. I am currently in the midst of trials and problems with uncertified propellers, airframes, instruments, and engines,(too long story) The westach guages and falcon guages did not impress me after using them, Wag-Aero tail brace wires are awful and unsafe, My X air has MS hardware. AN hardware especially the old AERO bolts are much better.
Experimentals don't get flown as much as certified airplanes. My flybaby has 1700 hours and is a high time homebuilt but it is all certified parts except the airframe. Same with our Pitts.
I have flown Beavers with 20,000+ hours. How many experimentals have come close to that. The bottom line is this stuff is going to be flown by us all and it does not have the service history to support what we will be doing with it. The airframes are not tested by any outside agency and the owner is responisble to search out any problems through service letters.
Maybe Robinsion helicopter has the right idea with mandatory airframe overhauls at 2000 hours. everything is made to last until then.
Attention needs to be paid to what has worked high time without failure.
Most problems will be caught during maintenance but will a SP owner with little training spot problems before failure. It remains to be seen.
The old system worked great for many years and prices were not out of line for the small airplanes we are flying. You have to be creative and have a working relationship with your mechanic but if it is not good at one shop pick another. The high maintenance expenses came with no new airplanes and airframes needing overhaul. Rebuilding costs exceed the value of the airplane. But if maintained and taken care of they don't need a total rebuild. 30+ years of outside no care storage is a pretty good record for most airframes with no corrosion protection inside. but after that the junk pile is looming around the corner.
Lets retire them and build the next generation to the same quality or better. Many new LSA's are, some are not. OR... Find a nice condition older airplane and be a good caretaker during your ownership. It will outlive you.
What is happening is the government is aligning things and LSA is the proving ground for a sweeping change in regulation on airplane maintenance.
No longer will fear of the FSDO inspector keep thte mechanics in line. we will now have private companies that do individual audits and spot checks to assure "conformity with accepted airworthiness standards"
Sound familiar. kind of like ATSM and LAMA
This is scary stuff folks. It has already begun with LSA, Airtraffic control and Flight service. Actually almost every branch of government is doing this. must be to avoid cushy government retirement options. More to come.
Repair stations and part 135 operators will be first. I just finished submitting my ops specs for Part 91 scenic rides with our local FAA even listing N numbers of airplanes used and parties on my drug testing program. That gets me in the system and targeted for the new changes when they get around to for hire Part 91.
Why does this have to happen? I don't know. My aviation belief system is based on what has worked for 50 years or more and was apperently successful because those airplanes still fly fine.
I can guess my taxes won't be lowered to compensate.
We had the best system in the world with clear cut definitions of pilots, airplanes, operating limitations and non biased free oversite.
not a bewildering array of signoffs, ATSM, non gov agencies, reverting licenses, medical hangups, limitations in airplanes and operations.
Now we will have to pay the fees to keep legal. Or go underground and keep a low profile.... This is not a direct pilot fee but rather an operator and maintenance shop fee.
Who are they to say what my acceptable standards are. I test-fly everything I fix and do not cut corners. Airworthy is a broad interpretation but anyone with a little intellect knows what it means. I respect an FAA official with experience who sees something wrong. I don't respect a seminar graduate who faults filling out a form wrong (no 4 digit date). or not having the parts room sorted to standards. number of fire extinguishers, all airplanes 5 feet from electrical outlets etc.
As a airport owner, fuel reseller, flight school owner and maintenance shop owner it scares me to death.
I'll get hit with fees from every angle. Labor and industry was bad enough. This could be the guestapo
The drug test program already pisses me off. Money down the drain. We were audited once. What a laugh. they looked at me and said "who trains you?" I said "he does", pointing at my father. They said who sends you and he said "he does" pointing at me? Then they said who owns the buisness and I said "he does pointing at my father". Who runs the business? and I said "I do, and I own the airplanes" Mr auditor scratches his head a while and says "you will not hear from us again for a very long time. took his secretary and left" We just send money, pee in a cup once in a while and they leave us alone.
a few years ago I was on three drug test programs at once.
This is not "user fees" that are in the current fight but something new that has not been released to the joe pilot population. It will not be voted on but gradually adapted over the next 5-10 years.
We can resist. The power comes in our elected officials and pressure they can give on the right people if they are informed and properly motivated. I've flown to DC and met with my locals personally on the current user fee fight. Do the same if you can. Taken most of the local commisioners for rides also. I always make a point of flying to meetings with politicians. Then you can brag on how long it took to get there.
The EAA, AOPA, and type clubs are another good source. If properly pushed they cannot ignore the membership . Drafting a more desirable set of rules and requests. Then showing why they improve safety, efficiency and economy will make them notice. Then hit from all angles.
As for number of SLSA sold. I think it is a lot less than we are let to believe. CT is highest followed by legend cub. Then probably sport star and some others. Kitplanes just did a spread on number certified and it was eye opening. The LSA certified numbers are showing ELSA grouped in with LSA so that is where the figures are coming from.
Lets shake things up and see what happens. I'll go to bat for common sense anytime.
"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away." Antoine de Saint Exupery
My dream for fixing the SP rule:
Planes with no more than 4 seats
No more than one passanger.
Change the ceiling to 10000 feet or 2000 ft over terrain, which ever is higher.
I'm pretty much ok with the rest of the rule.
I agree with most of what you posted there. The things I would like to see changed besides the higher gross weight....is thge ability to carry more than one passenger.....if there was a push to allow the use of 152's-172's and other four passenger type aicraft by SP's why not let them carry more than one passenger...
Just train to carry more than one pax...get signed off just as an SP would for airspace......water operations and exceeding 100mph.....train get checked and signed off on....to me it seems like a waste to use a plane that can carry four but only be allowed one + pilot..... great topic though.....
Planes with no more than 4 seats
No more than one passanger.
Change the ceiling to 10000 feet or 2000 ft over terrain, which ever is higher.
I'm pretty much ok with the rest of the rule.
I agree with most of what you posted there. The things I would like to see changed besides the higher gross weight....is thge ability to carry more than one passenger.....if there was a push to allow the use of 152's-172's and other four passenger type aicraft by SP's why not let them carry more than one passenger...
Just train to carry more than one pax...get signed off just as an SP would for airspace......water operations and exceeding 100mph.....train get checked and signed off on....to me it seems like a waste to use a plane that can carry four but only be allowed one + pilot..... great topic though.....
Ron B.
Midwest USA
Home Airport KDEC
Midwest USA
Home Airport KDEC
What of a Recreational Pilot License with NO MEDICAL
The FAA licensing rules are a little out of kilter.
As I understand them, a person with a recreational pilot's (RP) license (which is often overlooked or looked down on by those intent on getting a private pilot's license (PPL) AND their CFIs) has to obtain a medical and keep it current, as does a private pilot, can fly with only one passenger no matter the capacity of the airplane, and is limited to flying only during the day, within 25 miles of the home airport and not into Class B, C or D towered airspace.
I suppose that the training must be less rigorous for a RP, from the perspectives of (i) the written test requirements, as cross country flying and airspace limitations at towered airports are not necesssary to obtaining the RPL, and (ii) of the minimum flying time requirements, which need not cover these aspects of flying and, as a result, may be closer to a SP. I don't know but suggest this is worth checking.
However, what makes the RPL attractive is that the limitations on cross country flight and flying into towered airports disappear if a CFI appropriately endorses the recreational pilot's log book as receiving the necessary training, which can take place after the RP license has already been obtained.
With these log book endorsements the major differences between a RP and a SP license are in the catogary of plane that can be flown and whether the pilot is required to renew the medical or can rely on having a driver's license. To a novice like me, it would seem that the first and major step to get more (and bulkier) pilots into larger piston airplanes is to persuade the FAA that RPs should be treated no differently than SPs, at least when it comes to medical requirements. The proposal could be coupled with the weight and power limitations that would encompass most low performance and non-complex single engine planes as suggested in the original posting.
As I understand them, a person with a recreational pilot's (RP) license (which is often overlooked or looked down on by those intent on getting a private pilot's license (PPL) AND their CFIs) has to obtain a medical and keep it current, as does a private pilot, can fly with only one passenger no matter the capacity of the airplane, and is limited to flying only during the day, within 25 miles of the home airport and not into Class B, C or D towered airspace.
I suppose that the training must be less rigorous for a RP, from the perspectives of (i) the written test requirements, as cross country flying and airspace limitations at towered airports are not necesssary to obtaining the RPL, and (ii) of the minimum flying time requirements, which need not cover these aspects of flying and, as a result, may be closer to a SP. I don't know but suggest this is worth checking.
However, what makes the RPL attractive is that the limitations on cross country flight and flying into towered airports disappear if a CFI appropriately endorses the recreational pilot's log book as receiving the necessary training, which can take place after the RP license has already been obtained.
With these log book endorsements the major differences between a RP and a SP license are in the catogary of plane that can be flown and whether the pilot is required to renew the medical or can rely on having a driver's license. To a novice like me, it would seem that the first and major step to get more (and bulkier) pilots into larger piston airplanes is to persuade the FAA that RPs should be treated no differently than SPs, at least when it comes to medical requirements. The proposal could be coupled with the weight and power limitations that would encompass most low performance and non-complex single engine planes as suggested in the original posting.
Steve G (the flynful)
lgoodman1ATcomcast.net
sgoodmanATweirpartners.com
lgoodman1ATcomcast.net
sgoodmanATweirpartners.com
Recreational pilots
that would be worth trying. especially since SP has a little track record now.
I wonder how many Recreational pilots are out there?
Is there any weight limit on motor gliders with no medical? A standard glider does not need a medical certificate.
I wonder how many Recreational pilots are out there?
Is there any weight limit on motor gliders with no medical? A standard glider does not need a medical certificate.
"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away." Antoine de Saint Exupery
Recreational Pilot
You would think the stats would be easily ascertainable, but then you have to remember we're dealing with the FAA!
Though I could not find the exact number of current recreational pilots, in 2003 there was a grand total of 310. Compare that to active PPL's that same year, airplane only, of 241,045.
Another telling statistic is the number of airman knowledge tests administered by the FAA in 2006: private pilot, 27,491; sport pilot, 679; and recreational pilot, 84.
I know that AOPA pushed last year to have the third class medical waived for recreational pilot in view of the lack of medical-related accidents or incidents connected with sport pilot. Now you would think such a change would be no big deal since it would affect a pilot population of fewer than 500, but I'm pretty sure I heard that the FAA denied AOPA's request, saying that it was too soon since the start of sport pilot to make such a comparison. My guess is that the real reason is either or both of these: 1. it would put a chill on the sport pilot movement, since student pilots without medicals would FLOCK to recreational pilot because of the availability of planes and instructors, and/or 2. the FAA is just resistent to change!
Though I could not find the exact number of current recreational pilots, in 2003 there was a grand total of 310. Compare that to active PPL's that same year, airplane only, of 241,045.
Another telling statistic is the number of airman knowledge tests administered by the FAA in 2006: private pilot, 27,491; sport pilot, 679; and recreational pilot, 84.
I know that AOPA pushed last year to have the third class medical waived for recreational pilot in view of the lack of medical-related accidents or incidents connected with sport pilot. Now you would think such a change would be no big deal since it would affect a pilot population of fewer than 500, but I'm pretty sure I heard that the FAA denied AOPA's request, saying that it was too soon since the start of sport pilot to make such a comparison. My guess is that the real reason is either or both of these: 1. it would put a chill on the sport pilot movement, since student pilots without medicals would FLOCK to recreational pilot because of the availability of planes and instructors, and/or 2. the FAA is just resistent to change!
Some of this makes perfect sense. I'm learning more as I approach the point of starting lessons (the financial stars are beginning to line up).
From what I've read, a Sport Pilot learns the same stick & rudder skills as a Private Pilot. If so, why not expand the rule to at least include 150/152 type aircraft? There are sooooooo many of them out there.
Am I very far off base thinking that skill-wise a Sport Pilot is basically like any other pilot with a daytime VFR limitation? I realize that there is more training for a Private, but I'm talking about just safely driving the airplane from point A to point B.
As a student I would be able to fly 152s, 172s, etc. to proficiency, and fly them solo after checking out OK. Then when I get my Sport Pilot license I'm restricted to smaller & slower airplanes. Yep, it's an imperfect system.
Some countries have a graduated motorcycle licensing system. The size of bike you can ride is limited by your experience and training.
Picture a similar system for flying.
Step 1: A Sport Pilot rating that allows daylight VFR ops of aircraft with no more than four seats. Fixed gear, fixed or ground-adjustable prop.
Subsequent steps could be a series of endorsements that expand the pilot's operating boundaries, similar to getting tailwheel or seaplane endorsements. Examples of endorsements could include:
- Night VFR
- Controlled airspace operations (like now)
- Retractable gear endorsement
It could be a system for people who have the interest to gradually work toward a full Private license. For those who are happy at lower levels of certification, they would go on flying within the limits of their ratings and endorsements.
From what I've read, a Sport Pilot learns the same stick & rudder skills as a Private Pilot. If so, why not expand the rule to at least include 150/152 type aircraft? There are sooooooo many of them out there.
Am I very far off base thinking that skill-wise a Sport Pilot is basically like any other pilot with a daytime VFR limitation? I realize that there is more training for a Private, but I'm talking about just safely driving the airplane from point A to point B.
As a student I would be able to fly 152s, 172s, etc. to proficiency, and fly them solo after checking out OK. Then when I get my Sport Pilot license I'm restricted to smaller & slower airplanes. Yep, it's an imperfect system.
Some countries have a graduated motorcycle licensing system. The size of bike you can ride is limited by your experience and training.
Picture a similar system for flying.
Step 1: A Sport Pilot rating that allows daylight VFR ops of aircraft with no more than four seats. Fixed gear, fixed or ground-adjustable prop.
Subsequent steps could be a series of endorsements that expand the pilot's operating boundaries, similar to getting tailwheel or seaplane endorsements. Examples of endorsements could include:
- Night VFR
- Controlled airspace operations (like now)
- Retractable gear endorsement
It could be a system for people who have the interest to gradually work toward a full Private license. For those who are happy at lower levels of certification, they would go on flying within the limits of their ratings and endorsements.
Your pretty close. The seaplane is a seperate rating not an endorsement. Tailwheel is an endorsement like you said, along with high performance and complex.
PPL with high performance endorsement can fly anything single engine, fixed gear up to 12,500 lbs. Cessna caravan comes to mind.
Also AN-2 with a tailwheel rating.
Techincally a private pilot could jump into any of these airplanes with no training and takeoff and be perfectly legal.
Same for a private pilot with no endorsements.
A person who learned in a Cub could buy a 180 hp 172 and fly it home.
Sport pilot is limited to airplane sets of similar performance and layout for the endorsement or training you have had.
PPL with high performance endorsement can fly anything single engine, fixed gear up to 12,500 lbs. Cessna caravan comes to mind.
Also AN-2 with a tailwheel rating.
Techincally a private pilot could jump into any of these airplanes with no training and takeoff and be perfectly legal.
Same for a private pilot with no endorsements.
A person who learned in a Cub could buy a 180 hp 172 and fly it home.
Sport pilot is limited to airplane sets of similar performance and layout for the endorsement or training you have had.
"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away." Antoine de Saint Exupery