Sport Pilot Talk

FastEddieB wrote:The other thing that can bite a pilot "stepping up" to Light Sport is the increased effect of any given crosswind.

We get accustomed to thinking "we" can easily handle a 12G20 crosswind, let's say, in a Cirrus or Bonanza or Mooney.

But then we find that same wind is a much larger factor in a plane that lands more slowly.

I know I have to periodically remind myself of that fact when making go/no go decisions.

I had no problem with my Cirrus at Demonstrated Crosswind or slightly above.

There's no way I'd land my Sting in a 12G20 crosswind.

FastEddieB wrote:The other thing that can bite a pilot "stepping up" to Light Sport is the increased effect of any given crosswind.

We get accustomed to thinking "we" can easily handle a 12G20 crosswind, let's say, in a Cirrus or Bonanza or Mooney.

But then we find that same wind is a much larger factor in a plane that lands more slowly.

I know I have to periodically remind myself of that fact when making go/no go decisions.

There is only 1 knot difference max demonstrated crosswind between my CT and Piper Warrior, 16 and 17 knots respectively.

Demonstrated crosswind component reflects merely the experience.of one particular test pilot on one particular day. It is neither a performance specification nor an operating limitation. Thus, max xwind comparisons between various acft are meaningless.

I kinda-sorta think that demonstrated crosswind has more to do with the financial/litigation risk to the manufacturer than any airplane performance measure... note that, say, Cessna, is very conservative...whereas maybe Pipistrel can brag about 25 knots of crosswind...

Excellent point about personal minimums in a LSA versus say a 172/182. I flew today in the Skycatcher and got my ass bounced around by updrafts, turbulence, and a gusty wind. Not that strong, well less than 12G20, but moving around from headwind to 90 degree crosswinds. The same conditions would have been sporty in a 172...they were downright challenging in the Skycatcher. And this was a bluebird 80F day without anything special going on other than afternoon heating.

There was a new student at the airport and I considered offering him the right seat for the flight but thought better of it after watching the windsock for a few minutes. Glad I made that choice. No one wants to clean puke off the avionics stack.

chavycha wrote: There was a new student at the airport and I considered offering him the right seat for the flight but thought better of it after watching the windsock for a few minutes. Glad I made that choice. No one wants to clean puke off the avionics stack.

I don't take passengers if the winds or turbulence is up significantly. I took my sister up a few months ago in the late morning (I wanted to go earlier, but she showed up late), and the air was dead smooth. On the way back to the airport we descended into some ground turbulence, and I swear the *first* bump we hit, she said "I need to get on the ground, now!" She didn't puke, but it was close. Most non-aviation types are pretty intolerant of even "normal" aircraft movements, just from lack of exposure.

Plus I think the pilot flying is less prone to sickness, just because he has airplane feedback through the controls that "telegraph" what the airplane's doing so that what happens is not surprising to him/her.

.......