What are the chances?

[mhaleem]

With all the hard work that EAA, NAFI, and GAMA (along with Helen Woods) have put into having sport training from sport instructors count towards higher ratings/certificates, what do you think the chances are for the FAA to agree and institute these changes? Also does this mean that it may be a wise time to pursue the sport instructor rating?

[zdc]

With all the hard work that EAA, NAFI, and GAMA (along with Helen Woods) have put into having sport training from sport instructors count towards higher ratings/certificates, what do you think the chances are for the FAA to agree and institute these changes? Also does this mean that it may be a wise time to pursue the sport instructor rating?

I don't see the FAA changing their position on this matter. I wouldn't let that deter you though from becoming a Sport Instructor. It cost a lot less to become a Sport Instructor than a subpart H instructor. Why spend the extra money? The Flight Instructor occupation has one of the lowest rates of return on investment that I can think of. As long as the students understand the situation there is no poblem. I think there are plenty of potential students out there who just want to be Sport Pilots and nothing else.

[drseti]

I think there are plenty of potential students out there who just want to be Sport Pilots and nothing else.

This is true, and an independent (i.e., freelance) Subpart K instructor will be able to attract and serve those students. However, until the FAA acts favorably on the NAFI/EAA/AOPA/GAMA proposal (and I'm hopeful they will, since I was on the committee that wrote it), Subpart K instructors will have to accept the reality that few established flight schools will hire them. Heck, even I can only hire Subpart H CFIs, because I never know which students are specifically planning not to go on to more advanced ratings -- and I can't afford the luxury of always matching the right instructor with the right student. As a small flight school, I have to know that any of my students can be assigned to any of my students, as schedules require. (Why do you think I'm so anxious to see this rule changed?)

[drseti]

The Flight Instructor occupation has one of the lowest rates of return on investment that I can think of.

This is true of higher education in general. Nobody goes into teaching for the money -- you have to want to do it for some other reward. Return on investment? Not even a factor.

Case in point: after 10 years of college to earn a PhD, along with 33 years of teaching experience, I ended my career as a Full Professor of Physics -- for a $30k annual salary! Compared to that, starting a flight school seems almost lucrative.

The point is well taken, however, that it's expensive to become a Subpart H CFI. Traditionally, youngsters got the Commercial/Instrument/CFI tickets as a way of building hours toward a future airline career. Thus, we had people teaching flying for all the wrong reasons. They were not dedicated educators, just jumping through hoops to achieve some other goal. Strangely, most of the Subpart K (Sport Pilot) instructors are better teachers -- true educators who pursue the craft for the pure love of teaching. They crank out better students than the future jet jocks train. This makes it all the more unreasonable for their training not to count for Private pilot or above.

[chucky]

I came across this earlier today. it looks like it could be a long battle.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/GA ... 134-1.html

[Helen]

Our sources tell us that the chances of getting a rule change are good but that it probably won't be any time soon.

It was not the FAA's intention to not credit CFI-S hours. That was an unfortunate result of the way they worded the original rule. They would like to reword the rule to match their intentions.

That being said, the Colgan air crash has had major ramifications within the FAA that the FAA will likely be dealing with for some time. Because of that, don't expect this petition to be acted on any time soon.

Helen

[GaffSD]

I'm taking a slightly different path.

The logged CFI-S hours can't be used towards higher ratings, and this might not change.

I recently got rated as a sport pilot out of San Diego Sport Flyers, and am building hours toward my CFI-S. I LOVE teaching, and intend to do it part time (weekends and evenings).

If I get a student that intends to go to private and beyond, I intend to teach them up to the point of Solo... Or the first 15-20 hours or so, whichever comes first.

I figure that the average private pilot takes 60 hours to finish training at a complex controlled airport like I fly out of (KSEE). They can then complete the 30 hours of dual with a CFI, and their10 hours of solo time for private.

I think it's actually a good thing to switch instructors. I learn a ton from every new pilot I fly with.

As it is, I like to go up with other sport and private pilots, and even students just to build hours and learn. It's of huge training value to both pilots and students, and gets us wheels up at half the cost... Less if you count the cost of a CFI!

Of course, you need to make sure that you are flying and logging these flights in accordance with the FARs...

Just my two cents... Maybe worth less. I'm just a humble, starving flight student!

[Jack Tyler]

"I think there are plenty of potential students out there who just want to be Sport Pilots and nothing else."

That was certainly part of the rationale for creating the SP license. It was hoped it would infuse the GA population with both continuing licensed pilots who were aging and threatened with medical disqualification AND new pilots who could (it was believed at the time) afford a shorter and also less expensive training syllabus.

But that doesn't turn out to be what's happening insofar as new students are concerned, at least so far. With over 600,000 licensed pilots remaining on the FAA data base and after six full years of an approved SP license being in place, there are only some thousands of new certified SP pilots. (I'd offer the exact # but the AOPA website is kaput at the moment). Lots of reasons for this - the shear inertia of 'change' explains some of it and the economy certainly has helped - but the degree to which the SP license has appealed to new students is, it seems to me, pretty underwhelming given what was expected. Which is a real shame since the joy of flying isn't in most respects restricted to PPL's!

[Jon V]

It was around 2700 according to something I read - that may be dated but under 5k seems safe. Of course many more are flying under SP rules.

I suspect most of the "SP is all I want" crowd overlaps with the PPC/Weight Shift crowd.

[Jack Tyler]

Yup, the last SP tally I remember seeing was <3000, so less than 500 new SP's per year. And as Jon points out, there may be many PPL holders who fly with SP privileges now. Some (perhaps many, or even most?) of these folks may likely be older folks for whom getting a current medical was becoming a problem. But of course while this older pilot population helps fund GA in the short term, it is not the future of General Aviation, longer term.

But perhaps even the assumption that there are many PPL pilots flying under SP rules is more generous than factual. I would think we'd see far stronger LSA sales if this were true, especially so to the extent the active SP population is older and therefore has more discretionary income.

No matter how one tries to interpret the data, it would seem the SP license has not been the fuel that was hoped for WRT growing the pilot population and the health of the GA infrastructure. At least not yet...

[roger lee]

Of the 10 SP pilots at my field all are from the PP side except one. They all let their medical go.

[Jack Tyler]

Ah, a chance for a little case study...

Roger, do all 9 of the PPL's rent...or do some of them own, if you know?

[dstclair]

With over 600,000 licensed pilots remaining on the FAA data base and after six full years of an approved SP license being in place, there are only some thousands of new certified SP pilots

Jack --The total represents a huge number of 'legacy' pilots not freshly minted ones. So isn't the better comparison the number of new SP's versus the number of new PP's? Still might not paint a rosy picture but would be more accurate and interesting.

[zaitcev]

So isn't the better comparison the number of new SP's versus the number of new PP's? Still might not paint a rosy picture but would be more accurate and interesting.

Numbers are difficult to come by, but I cobbled together the following picture: number of new SPs about plateus at 200 (TWO HUNDRED) per year, numbers of PPs continues to decline and dipped below 20,000 per year. So about 100 times more new PPs than new SPs. No idea where the ratio is going. Interestingly, numbers of PP enrollments remains stable despite the death of GA: about 60,000 per year. However, the graduation rate is falling in a stable way, every year. In 2000 it was 43%, in 2009 it was 33%. That is why they are having these training summits at AOPA. They feel that they can arrest the decline of GA if only graduation rate were back to 2000 levels. Sport pilots absolutely are not saving the GA. We are completely on the margin even in the zombie GA of 2011.

P.S. I should mention my story though: getting SP cert was... not entirely impossible, but somewhat dubious. So I got a PP with an intention to let the medical lapse in 2 years if it looks that my health is marginal. Meanwhile I enjoy available rentals. There may be as many new medical-loss "SPs" (or "downgraded" PPs) coming in as there are newly-minted SPs. So we're not 1% of GA, but 2%. Hah!

[Jack Tyler]

"The total represents a huge number of 'legacy' pilots not freshly minted ones."

Exactly. That's why I tried to point out that existing pilots choosing to fly under SP rules isn't where the future of aviation lies.

And the numbers just above are very similar to ones I posted in another thread not long ago. The mainstream GA training effort remains aligned with the PPL curriculum as conventionally, historically taught. And that's understandable in that it's what flight schools know, what the bulk of the instructor cadre knows, what fits most of the training/rental fleet out on the ramp, and so forth.

I think it's also fair to say that the SP license, and the ripple effect it has on available LSA/SP-compliant training aircraft, is not a sea change financially speaking. Because most LSA a/c will be fairly new, they will be fairly expensive. Training hours for a SP license aren't a small fraction of the PPL hours needed, but rather perhaps 2/3 of those needed for a PPL checkride. And despite the better fuel economy of an LSA, its hourly rental rate is still quite expensive when matched to most student pilots' budgets. And what's the existing flight school's incentive to begin training SP students? Fewer hours for their instructors, fewer hours for their planes, the need to purchase different a/c, and a SP population trend that - so far - is underwhelming.

It's a very interesting and evolving side of aviation...