change in the rules

The Federal Aviation Regulations (also know as FAR's). This is the Bible of aviation, the rules under which we operate. This is where you'll find everything you want to know about pilots and airplanes in the United States. Ask questions. Get answers.

Moderator: drseti

MikeM
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:34 pm
Location: Bucyrus, Ohio

change in the rules

Postby MikeM » Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:22 pm

I was at the airport yesterday and got into a conversation with a couple of friends. We were discussing the cost and availability of Light Sport aircraft when one of them mentioned that the FAA was in the process of changing the Light Sport regulations to allow Light Sport pilots to fly aircraft such as the Cessna 150.

Has anyone heard of this? I would love to be able to fly/buy a regular certified aircraft and fly it as a light sport. Personally I think that current Light Sport aircraft manufacturers would fight this tooth and nail.

User avatar
CharlieTango
Posts: 1225
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:04 am
Location: Mammoth Lakes, California

Postby CharlieTango » Thu Aug 21, 2008 2:28 pm

Mike,

There is a proposed rule change in process, it does not include the option to fly 152's.

CTflyer
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:17 am
Location: eastern Connecticut

Postby CTflyer » Thu Aug 21, 2008 5:13 pm

Mike - here's the list of proposed changes.

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

FAA closed the comment period on 13 August. Usually takes 12-18 months for a final ruling.

Tom

MikeM
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:34 pm
Location: Bucyrus, Ohio

Postby MikeM » Thu Aug 21, 2008 6:04 pm

Thanks for the info. I knew about most of the updates to the regulations that were posted. I thought that I would have heard about any more changes, especilly ones that would allow sport pilots to fly heavier aircraft. I guess I'll have to question the guys who gave me this mis-information a little closer.

Chuckhhill
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:15 pm
Location: Concord, CA

Postby Chuckhhill » Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:56 am

I know the origin of this. AOPA is asking the FAA to raise the weight limit, but this is not the first time this was proposed, and FAA stood firm against it in the past. Cessa 120/140 owners group tried to get the weight limit raised to include their aircraft, but FAA would not budge. Of course AOPA is a larger group.
Chuck

CTflyer
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:17 am
Location: eastern Connecticut

Postby CTflyer » Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:22 am

"AOPA is asking the FAA to raise the weight limit"

Chuck - do you have any references on that? I knew about the 120/140 request, but never heard about AOPA asking for a "blanket" weight increase for planes eligible to be flown by sport pilots.

I'm also really interested in what Mike finds out from the guys who told him about the 150/152 "change". Amazing what mis-information you can get at a local FBO: several around here still tell folks that sport pilots are limited to flying within a 25 nm radius of the home field.

Thanks.
Tom

User avatar
Moe
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Beavercreek OH

Postby Moe » Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:49 am

The only thing I've seen published that AOPA's petitioned regarding SP/LSA is driver's license medical for recreational pilot and removing the Sport Pilot "Catch 22." FAA has turned that down before.

The 25 mile limit misinformation is probably someone's assumption that if recreational pilots are limited to 50 miles, then sport pilots must be limited to something less. That was the second kiss of death (besides the medical) for the recreational pilot certificate program.
Moe

CTflyer
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:17 am
Location: eastern Connecticut

Postby CTflyer » Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:00 am

This reminds me of some discussion here last year, about just why the heck is a Sport Pilot limited to flying only Light Sport Aircraft.

Talking with Earl Lawrence (VP of industry and regulatory affairs at EAA), I learned that Sport Pilot was never originally intended to "make flying more affordable" when discussions started between EAA and FAA. It was intended to bring ultralight fliers under FAA control. And to encourage the development, production, and sales of a whole new class of aircraft the "light sport aircraft".

http://sportpilottalk.com/viewtopic.php?t=741

It's commendable that there are some experienced Private Pilots who can now legally fly (under Sport Pilot rules) without a medical. And we read posts here from FBO owners who say they have lots of students taking Sport Pilot lessons.

But I'm still amazed we have so few members here who are actually flying as Sport Pilots. This forum is called Sport Pilot Talk - but where is the Sport Pilot Talk? Man - if Sport Pilots weren't limited to Light Sport Aircraft (or at least allowed to fly a C-152) - what a difference in the number of new pilots, and in keeping FBO's in business.

Tom

ka7eej
Posts: 191
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:54 pm
Location: Taylor, Az
Contact:

Postby ka7eej » Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:48 am

This is were the APOA information came from.....

http://www.aopa.org/training/articles/2 ... sport.html


Are you not a member of APOA and get their Email Newsleters????

A Light Sport Airplane owner and Sport Pilot student(soon to take practical!)
Owner of N3081X (Cover Girl) A Beautiful Allegro 2000 as seen on the cover and inside of several magazines!!

CTflyer
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:17 am
Location: eastern Connecticut

Postby CTflyer » Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:07 am

ka7eej wrote:This is were the APOA information came from.....

http://www.aopa.org/training/articles/2 ... sport.html


Are you not a member of APOA and get their Email Newsleters????

A Light Sport Airplane owner and Sport Pilot student(soon to take practical!)


Brian - it's AOPA, not APOA. And yes I get the newsletters. But where in that AOPA info does it mention the 150/152 that Mike is asking about? You're posting the same info I already posted myself just a few hours ago. Did you check out the link in the post?

Edit: I *do* see in the AOPA document the recommendation that FAA at least study a weight increase for LSA. It's not a change proposed by FAA - it's just a recommendation from AOPA. AOPA has been pushing that for over ten years. It would be a *great* benefit, but as it's not even in the proposed changes yet, it would be years away if it ever really happened.

In other words, the FAA hasn't even begun to think about changing the weight limit.

Tom

User avatar
Moe
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Beavercreek OH

Postby Moe » Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:15 am

CTflyer wrote:It was intended to bring ultralight fliers under FAA control.


Should that perhaps be worded "those flying ultralights overweight?" Were there any changes for FAR 103-compliant flying (besides the loss of the training exemption)?

Reading the history of SP/LSA, the original weight limits were much lower (i.e. overweight ultralight level) and negotiated up by the EAA over time. I believe the 1320/1430 pound limits are as high as they're ever going to get, at least for a very long time. What's needed to make flying heavier aircraft more available/practical is to remove the 50 mile limit and 3rd class medical requirement from Recreational Pilot. The FAA has twice rejected AOPA petitions to do the latter (and eliminate the Catch 22 from Sport Pilot).

CTflyer wrote:And to encourage the development, production, and sales of a whole new class of aircraft the "light sport aircraft".


It does indeed seem that SP/LSA was at least in part a general aviation manufacturer bail-out effort. Not allowing SP to fly the gazzilion 152s and 172s used for training now seems intended to encourage pilots and FBOs to purchase new LSAs.*

CTflyer wrote:It's commendable that there are some experienced Private Pilots who can now legally fly (under Sport Pilot rules) without a medical.


In my opinion, the only reason the FAA allowed that was so they could justify keeping the medical requirement for Recreational Pilot. Again, this seems part of the "bail-out," requiring those PP flying without a medical to replace older, larger aircraft with new ones.*

* Fortunately for those of us who love Cubs, Champs, etc. the FAA seems to have built in a defense against the above accusations by including those affordable aircraft (at least they were before SP/LSA increased demand).

In my opinion, new LSAs may be cheaper than new GA aircraft, but putting them in perspective, they're still for those who can afford toys like a new Porsche 911 or BMW M6. No envy here, but that's not most folks and may not be for smaller FBOs that can only afford used aircraft.

CTflyer wrote:But I'm still amazed we have so few members here who are actually flying as Sport Pilots. This forum is called Sport Pilot Talk - but where is the Sport Pilot Talk?...


Exactly. As a prospective SP, it seems to me this forum is more about new Light Sport Aircraft than it is about Sport Pilot. I don't check in here any more, but I do subscribe to the RSS feed to see if there are ever any Sport Pilot-related posts.
Moe

CTflyer
Posts: 363
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:17 am
Location: eastern Connecticut

Postby CTflyer » Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:17 pm

As an aside, note that per FAR 61.101, rec pilots just need instruction and endorsement to fly beyond 50 nm, and/or in class B, C, and D airspace:

"(c) A person who holds a current and valid recreational pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft on a flight that exceeds 50 nautical miles from the departure airport, provided that person has—

(1) Received ground and flight training from an authorized instructor on the cross-country training requirements of subpart E of this part that apply to the aircraft rating held;

(2) Been found proficient in cross-country flying; and

(3) Received from an authorized instructor a logbook endorsement, which is carried on the person's possession in the aircraft, that certifies the person has received and been found proficient in the cross-country training requirements of subpart E of this part that apply to the aircraft rating held.

(d) A person who holds a current and valid recreational pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft in Class B, C, and D airspace, at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace, and to, from, through, or at an airport having an operational control tower, provided that person has—

(1) Received and logged ground and flight training from an authorized instructor on the following aeronautical knowledge areas and areas of operation, as appropriate to the aircraft rating held:

(i) The use of radios, communications, navigation system and facilities, and radar services.

(ii) Operations at airports with an operating control tower to include three takeoffs and landings to a full stop, with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern at an airport with an operating control tower.

(iii) Applicable flight rules of part 91 of this chapter for operations in Class B, C, and D airspace and air traffic control clearances;

(2) Been found proficient in those aeronautical knowledge areas and areas of operation specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section; and

(3) Received from an authorized instructor a logbook endorsement, which is carried on the person's possession or readily accessible in the aircraft, that certifies the person has received and been found proficient in those aeronautical knowledge areas and areas of operation specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section."

As most folks never realize this, they go either for full PPL or SP. Seems that the rec pilot, with proper endorsements, actually has a *great* advantage over Sport Pilots, if he/she is content with VFR daytime flight. And I'd bet that is the type of flying 99% of new pilots do anyway.

And the rec pilot can fly/rent just about any small single engine aircraft at any FBO across the country.

Yikes - if this "secret" got out ... why would people go for Sport Pilot in the first place? Get certified in "stages": student, rec, rec with endorsements, then ppl (if desired), and not be limited to Light Sport Aircraft.

Tom

User avatar
Moe
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Beavercreek OH

Postby Moe » Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:12 pm

Thank you for the enlightenment on Recreational Pilot, Tom. I had not looked into it too far because of the medical. That's why many of us would go Sport Pilot in the first place.

The airfield at which I plan to learn believes in the Recreational Pilot certificate. Note that all three licenses start out in a tail-wheel aircraft.
Moe

User avatar
Paul Hamilton
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 2:42 pm
Location: Reno/Tahoe Nevada

Postby Paul Hamilton » Sun Aug 08, 2010 9:35 am

As most of us know the new rules finally came out with no weight increase and no change in the medical. See my post in this FAR subject area for the actual rule changes.
Paul is a Sport Pilot CFI/DPE and the expert for ASA who writes the books and produces the DVD's for all pilots flying light sport aircraft.
See www.SportAviationCenter.com www.Sport-Pilot-Training.com and www.BeASportPilot.com to Paul's websites


Return to “FARs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests