Sport Pilot Talk

I'd like to encourage a little speculation...

Assuming either the regulatory or the legislative path are accepted and we can fly 172's on a driver's license.

Assume it is flying a 172 under LSA/SP limits... Day, 10K ft, clear weather, 1 passenger.

Will I (SP-ASEL) need to get a PP? Will I train at night?
Will Subpart K CFI's automatically become Subpart H?
Will time done with a Subpart K CFI count towards PP?
Do Subparts J and K go away?
What happens to LSA's?
Can I (or will I ever be able to) fly IFR on a drivers license.

.......

drseti wrote:

Merlinspop wrote:Take wife to beach, leaving 12 year old to watch 3 year old (a little scary), fetch the 3 year old, leaving the 12 year old alone (a lot scary), then finally make one more trip to get him.

What is this, the fox, the hen, and the corn?

It becomes that sort of problem if 2 pax are allowed.

Will I (SP-ASEL) need to get a PP? Will I train at night?
Neither proposal increases the privileges of an SP. The house bill does allow a PP to fly at night.

Will Subpart K CFI's automatically become Subpart H?
Not addressed in either proposal.

Will time done with a Subpart K CFI count towards PP?
Previous proposal to the FAA is still in limbo.

Do Subparts J and K go away?
Neither proposal address CFI issues.

What happens to LSA's?
Most tend to agree the LSA market will be negatively impacted, at least, for the short term. See previous 10 pages for various opinions and to at least 2 other threads for the same opinions In short, there are a set of people that fly LSA because they prefer them over other planes. There are a set of people that only fly LSA because of 3rd class medical concerns. These latter folks would likely jump back to certified if given the opportunity.

Can I (or will I ever be able to) fly IFR on a drivers license.
Not part of either proposal although I'd like to see that as well. Even looked for a loophole in the regs for those PP's with an instrument rating flying as SP. No such luck

MovingOn wrote:IMHO, nothing will change for Sport Pilots or Sport Pilot Instructors. What might change is increased privileges for Private and up flying without a medical. I seriously doubt HR-3708 will pass in it's present form. I would be happy if they let us fly 4 place, 180 HP, retractable gear, constant speed prop. Night flying and IFR would be great, but I'm not expecting either.

M20Cs, some Arrows, some Comanches, Cardinals. Can we up increase that to at least 200hp? M20Js have always been my favorite Mooney and there are a lot more Arrows sporting 200 than 180. Given my family size (and given the way my wife packs), a Cherokee 235 would be a very good fit for me.

.......

Merlinspop wrote:

MovingOn wrote:IMHO, nothing will change for Sport Pilots or Sport Pilot Instructors. What might change is increased privileges for Private and up flying without a medical. I seriously doubt HR-3708 will pass in it's present form. I would be happy if they let us fly 4 place, 180 HP, retractable gear, constant speed prop. Night flying and IFR would be great, but I'm not expecting either.

M20Cs, some Arrows, some Comanches, Cardinals. Can we up increase that to at least 200hp? M20Js have always been my favorite Mooney and there are a lot more Arrows sporting 200 than 180. Given my family size (and given the way my wife packs), a Cherokee 235 would be a very good fit for me.

Bruce -- you'd be surprised what you can legally fit in a Cherokee 180. This was our family station wagon for several years and we used to amaze the ramp staff when we pulled our luggage (emphasis on 'lug') out of the plane. We even did weekend trips with another couple although we only filled out to the 'tabs' (3 hrs of fuel + 45 min reserve). With a couple inexpensive mods like wingtips and gap seals, you can easily cruise 125-130kts.

.......

MovingOn wrote:IMHO, nothing will change for Sport Pilots or Sport Pilot Instructors. What might change is increased privileges for Private and up flying without a medical. I seriously doubt HR-3708 will pass in it's present form. I would be happy if they let us fly 4 place, 180 HP, retractable gear, constant speed prop. Night flying and IFR would be great, but I'm not expecting either.

A lot changes for SPs if there is an upgrade path to PP with no medical requirement. There is no logical reason FAA would require a medical for PP training, since there is not one flight in the PP syllabus that is outside Sport Pilot capabilities (all night flight is dual). It would be crazy if they required a medical for PP training, that you could then throw in the trash when leaving the airport from your PP checkride.

If that were to all happen, I'd probably step up to PP by training in my CT. Once I got the ticket I'd probably keep the CT since it fits my mission, but it would be nice to have the ability to fly larger airplanes at higher altitudes.

.......

MovingOn wrote:I wouldn't consider that a change for SP, it's a change for PP (no medical). It would apply to anyone going for a PP license. I don't see any of the proposals changing anything for Sport Pilots. I don't know anyone who is proposing a medical to train for PP, but no medical to fly as PP. That makes zero sense.

IIRC the original AOPA and EAA proposal was to exempt private pilots form needing a medical to basically exercise recreational pilot privileges. The exemption did not cover people training to get thier private pilot certificate.
No one was proposing the need for a medical to train for the private pilot certificate, but they also didn't ask for an exemption for it either. The regulations already require a medical to exercise the privileges of a student pilot certificate, unless you are seeking sport pilot privileges in a light sport aircraft.

.......

MovingOn wrote: Hopefully, Congress is not that dumb, but who knows?

You have more faith in those running the country than I do. It seems that by the time they get there they have lost all understanding of what it is like in the real world, and it doesn't matter what side they are on.

I notice this discourse goes on and one...and yet the one immediate and practical suggestion (most recently made by Dave) one again earns nary a response.

Is your House Rep a member of the GA Caucus? Chances are that half of us here could answer 'yes' if we only knew.

If your A is 'yes', then has s/he endorsed, verbally supported or joined in sponsoring the bill? Most GA Caucus members have not positioned themselves yet on this Bill from what I've read - is that OK with you?

Elected folks in DC depend almost not at all on written correspondence these days; I'm told the screening time for snail mail to Reps & Senators is measured in multiple weeks due to anthrax and related scares. So that leaves us with an email, a phone call and/or a visit to the local congressional office if voicing an opinion about legislation. Emails are so numerous they have been throttled down to form filling (in case you've looked for your Rep's email address lately), which is understandable. Besides, how many unsolicited emails do each of us get...and how influential are they to our thinking? A phone call will connect you to a low-level staffer, but one step up when calling is to ask for the Legislative Aide who handles aviation/transportation-related legislation. (That will probably require a call back so give your cell #). However, a visit to the local office will result in you being logged, a face-to-face chance for discussion and not just 'thank you, Mr/Ms. X will hear of your concerns) and it will put you in the top 1/10th of 1% of the Rep's constituents who express their views. Moreover, it is *highly* likely that you will know more about the facts surrounding this Bill than the Leg Aide to whom you are speaking, so you have the chance to educate as well as offer opinion.

Yes, everyone's busy. OTOH I see lots of time being spent here on a topic for which there seem to be genuine, meaningful opinion. Maybe it's time to turn off the computers and get in the car...

Jack Tyler wrote:Elected folks in DC depend almost not at all on written correspondence these days; I'm told the screening time for snail mail to Reps & Senators is measured in multiple weeks due to anthrax and related scares. So that leaves us with an email, a phone call and/or a visit to the local congressional office if voicing an opinion about legislation.

https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr3708
This link will allow you to indicate your support for HR3708. It sends your message straight to your congress-critter. I know they get it because I always get that form letter back.

I know that putting the proper tick in the proper column is very important because congress-critter staff has told me. I have seen a critter's vote change because of ticks on a yellow pad. You don't need to do any more. Pontificating makes me feel good but only makes the HS student compiling the list to put an asterisk next to my tick. Phone calls generate a tick also.

Your message needs to have three things: 1) the bill number (don't make the HS student think); 2) the word: SUPPORT or OPPOSE; and 3) if you are in their district, let them know.