Sport Pilot CFI

Paul Hamilton is one of the first persons to become a DPE (Designated Pilot Examiner) for sport pilots. As a full-time author and sport pilot expert, he writes books and produces DVD's for Aviation Supplies and Academics (ASA). Now Paul has graciously agreed to answer your questions here. Thanks Paul! For more information about Paul, please visit www.Paul-Hamilton.com and www.Sport-Pilot-Training.com.

Moderators: drseti, Paul Hamilton

VL Roberts
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:41 pm
Location: Leesburg Executive Airport

Re: Sport Pilot CFI

Postby VL Roberts » Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:30 pm

Once you get your ticket the big obstacle will be those that advise prospective sport pilot students to "make sure you receive your instruction from a Subpart H instructor".

Even the moderator of this forum who specializes in sport training has said he won't hire a sport CFI .

IMHO, it is bad advice. People who want to be Sport CFI's have a certain passion for this segment of aviation and no secondary motives to be a CFI. A student could pass over a great instructor and end up with some one horrible .

So what is the penalty for a student trained by a Sport CFI who later wants a Private? The student will have to receive 20 hours of instruction before taking a PPL check ride. If the student had taken all instruction for Sport Pilot from a Subpart H instructor, I conservatively estimate the student will need an additional 10-13 hours of instruction to be ready for a PPL check ride.

So the penalty is at the most $500 of additional instruction. But is it a penalty? The extra time could be used for the finer points or have fun and take an extra long cross country, or fly into an airport (like a class B) that the student is leery of.

For most pilots, when they do fly it is of a frivolous nature, such as let's fly to KXX, heard there is a good restaurant. If you get into this hobby, you're going to spend a lot of money flying one way or another .

When selecting an instructor the most important criteria should be is he/she good, do we click, and availability .

CTLSi
Posts: 783
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: Sport Pilot CFI

Postby CTLSi » Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:39 pm

......
Last edited by CTLSi on Mon Dec 01, 2014 11:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

comperini
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 10:37 am
Location: California

Re: Sport Pilot CFI

Postby comperini » Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:47 pm

Good post, and I agree with everything you said...

CTLSi wrote:Private Pilots that want to fly LSA have to get checked out in an LSA for a reason.


... except this. There is NO FAA requirement for a private to get "checked out" in an LSA (same category/class of course).
- Bob
COMM, CFI, DPE, Light Sport Repairman/Maintenance
http://www.sportpilotinstructor.com

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5399
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: Sport Pilot CFI

Postby drseti » Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:48 pm

VL Roberts wrote:Even the moderator of this forum who specializes in sport training has said he won't hire a sport CFI .


Please don't take my posts out of context. I said that I will not hire a Subpart K CFI for my flight school until the FAA approves the joint EAA/AOPA/NAFI proposal to let Subpart K training hours count toward higher ratings. I served on the Committee that drafted that proposal (along with Paul Hamilton, Helen Wood, Rod Machado, and other top-notch instructors), and believe we made a good case. Now, all we can do is wait.

BTW, I had two of my Sport Pilot graduates upgrade to Private in the past few weeks. One needed 10 hours of additional dual. The other needed only 6. Both would have had to spend a bunch more if they had done their SP with Subpart K instructors. That's not right, but that's the way the rules now stand.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC, iRMT
AvSport of Lock Haven
fly@AvSport.org
http://AvSport.org
http://facebook.com/SportFlying

CTLSi
Posts: 783
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: Sport Pilot CFI

Postby CTLSi » Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:55 pm

......
Last edited by CTLSi on Mon Dec 01, 2014 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

VL Roberts
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:41 pm
Location: Leesburg Executive Airport

Re: Sport Pilot CFI

Postby VL Roberts » Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:00 pm

drseti wrote:
VL Roberts wrote:Even the moderator of this forum who specializes in sport training has said he won't hire a sport CFI .


Please don't take my posts out of context. I said that I will not hire a Subpart K CFI for my flight school until the FAA approves the joint EAA/AOPA/NAFI proposal to let Subpart K training hours count toward higher ratings. I served on the Committee that drafted that proposal (along with Paul Hamilton, Helen Wood, Rod Machado, and other top-notch instructors), and believe we made a good case. Now, all we can do is wait.

BTW, I had two of my Sport Pilot graduates upgrade to Private in the past few weeks. One needed 10 hours of additional dual. The other needed only 6. Both would have had to spend a bunch more if they had done their SP with Subpart K instructors. That's not right, but that's the way the rules now stand.


I don't want to make a big thing of it, but I don't believe I took anything out of context. If a Subpart K Instructor walks in you door , you're not going to hire him. That proposal went in a long time ago and everyone appreciates your effort.

Is it safe to assume that the student who only required 6 hours did some training that exceeded the Sport Pilot requirements?

FlyingForFun
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:41 pm

Re: Sport Pilot CFI

Postby FlyingForFun » Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:01 pm

Delete
Last edited by FlyingForFun on Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5399
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: Sport Pilot CFI

Postby drseti » Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:31 pm

VL Roberts wrote:Is it safe to assume that the student who only required 6 hours did some training that exceeded the Sport Pilot requirements?


Not in terms of tasks, but yes, in terms of flight hours -- my curriculum exceeds the FAA minimum hours (as does that of any flight school that's honest about what it takes). If you look at my syllabus, you'll see that it includes 19.5 hours of dual for the SP. (FAA only requires 15, but that's probably unrealistic for most.) The FAA requires a minimum of 20 hours of dual for the PP, so this student was only slightly above FAA requirements at time of completion. The take-home message here is that, with a properly integrated SP curriculum, and a dedicated student, the PP add-on can be done with minimum additional hours.

Had this student gotten his SP with a Subpart K instructor, he would have had to log an additional 14 hours of dual to qualify for PP. The cost would have been $500 for the CFI, and $1680 in Hobbs time -- i.e., over two grand wasted. Not fair, but that's why I can't hire Subpart K instructors until that changes.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC, iRMT
AvSport of Lock Haven
fly@AvSport.org
http://AvSport.org
http://facebook.com/SportFlying

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5399
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: Sport Pilot CFI

Postby drseti » Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:41 pm

VL Roberts wrote:If a Subpart K Instructor walks in you door , you're not going to hire him.


Absolutely true. I just want to emphasize the reason why. It's not that I don't consider these folks fine instructors. It's because it would be a disservice to those students using SP as a portal of entry (the stepping stone to PP that it was intended to be). If I had both K and H instructors on staff, I'd have to tell my new students "If you fly with Jane, all your hours count toward the Private. If you fly with Bob, they don't." How fair is that to Bob, and how many students would choose to fly with him? (That was a rhetorical question...)
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC, iRMT
AvSport of Lock Haven
fly@AvSport.org
http://AvSport.org
http://facebook.com/SportFlying

CTLSi
Posts: 783
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:38 pm

Re: Sport Pilot CFI

Postby CTLSi » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:14 pm

......
Last edited by CTLSi on Mon Dec 01, 2014 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
drseti
Posts: 5399
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: Sport Pilot CFI

Postby drseti » Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:58 pm

Avemco was the first insurance company to require 5 hours of transition training for anyone flying an LSA, regardless of certificates or other experience. I expect others will follow suit. It just makes good sense.

For a detailed discussion of transition training, log on to my EAA Webinar "Stepping Up to Light Sport", tonight at 8 PM EDT. See http://www.eaa.org/webinars/ to register.
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC, iRMT
AvSport of Lock Haven
fly@AvSport.org
http://AvSport.org
http://facebook.com/SportFlying

VL Roberts
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:41 pm
Location: Leesburg Executive Airport

Re: Sport Pilot CFI

Postby VL Roberts » Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:22 pm

drseti wrote:
VL Roberts wrote:Is it safe to assume that the student who only required 6 hours did some training that exceeded the Sport Pilot requirements?


Not in terms of tasks, but yes, in terms of flight hours -- my curriculum exceeds the FAA minimum hours (as does that of any flight school that's honest about what it takes). If you look at my syllabus, you'll see that it includes 19.5 hours of dual for the SP. (FAA only requires 15, but that's probably unrealistic for most.) The FAA requires a minimum of 20 hours of dual for the PP, so this student was only slightly above FAA requirements at time of completion. The take-home message here is that, with a properly integrated SP curriculum, and a dedicated student, the PP add-on can be done with minimum additional hours.

Had this student gotten his SP with a Subpart K instructor, he would have had to log an additional 14 hours of dual to qualify for PP. The cost would have been $500 for the CFI, and $1680 in Hobbs time -- i.e., over two grand wasted. Not fair, but that's why I can't hire Subpart K instructors until that changes.


You can calculate the additional HOBBS time, but the way I look at, they want to fly regardless if an instructor is in the other seat or not. IOW, they are going to spend that money anyway.

I think the main motivation for someone to move from Sport to PPL is to be able to fly non LSA aircraft. If your students did the PPL in an LSA, then when they want to fly that non LSA airplane they will pay for 3-4 hours rental/intsruction for the transition. Of course that money is not calculated in the costs to move from Sport to PPL because people like to compartmentalize their spending, but they still spent it.

User avatar
dstclair
Posts: 966
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:23 am
Location: Allen, TX

Re: Sport Pilot CFI

Postby dstclair » Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:23 pm

drseti wrote:Avemco was the first insurance company to require 5 hours of transition training for anyone flying an LSA, regardless of certificates or other experience. I expect others will follow suit. It just makes good sense.

For a detailed discussion of transition training, log on to my EAA Webinar "Stepping Up to Light Sport", tonight at 8 PM EDT. See http://www.eaa.org/webinars/ to register.

Hi Paul -- might just attend tonight. I registered but how does one get Wings credit?
dave

VL Roberts
Posts: 135
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:41 pm
Location: Leesburg Executive Airport

Re: Sport Pilot CFI

Postby VL Roberts » Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:32 pm

drseti wrote:
VL Roberts wrote:If a Subpart K Instructor walks in you door , you're not going to hire him.


Absolutely true. I just want to emphasize the reason why. It's not that I don't consider these folks fine instructors. It's because it would be a disservice to those students using SP as a portal of entry (the stepping stone to PP that it was intended to be). If I had both K and H instructors on staff, I'd have to tell my new students "If you fly with Jane, all your hours count toward the Private. If you fly with Bob, they don't." How fair is that to Bob, and how many students would choose to fly with him? (That was a rhetorical question...)


I never thought the the Sport rating was intended to be a "stepping stone". It could be an end of itself. Just depends on how far you want to take a hobby. Many people are content with just the Sport rating.

User avatar
dstclair
Posts: 966
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:23 am
Location: Allen, TX

Re: Sport Pilot CFI

Postby dstclair » Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:35 pm

You can calculate the additional HOBBS time, but the way I look at, they want to fly regardless if an instructor is in the other seat or not. IOW, they are going to spend that money anyway.

This is my view as well. I enjoy all types of flying and having company (even a paid CFI) makes it even better. We lose sight that the probably goal of each student pilot is to just fly with quite a bit being around the patch. If you use a SubPart K instructor, you may 'waste' $500 for the extra CFI time when working towards your PP but you'll still be flying (and could even log PIC time if you're in an LSA).

Let's assume we have two student pilots that fly the 3 hours/week, each earn an SP then PP. One goes with a SubPart K, the other H. The 'H' student gets their PP in 48 total hours in 16 weeks and continues to fly happily on their own for another 4 weeks (gaining 12 more hours). S/he now has 60 hours logged in 20 weeks. The K student is just as good but lacks countable time and now has to log 12 more CFI hours. Using the same instruction cycle, they complete PP in 4 weeks. They now have 60 hrs over 20 weeks. Of course, they received 12 more hours of instruction but, maybe, they are now a better pilot at 60 hrs than the 'H' student. Maybe not, but both routes produce the same amount of flying.
dave


Return to “Ask The Examiner”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests