Instuctor interview

Sport aviation is growing rapidly. But the new sport pilot / light-sport aircraft rules are still a mystery to many flight schools and instructors. To locate a flight school offering sport pilot training and/or light-sport aircraft rentals, click on the "Flight School And Rental Finder" tab above. This is a great place to share ideas on learning to fly, flight schools, costs and anything else related to training.

Moderator: drseti

TimTaylor
Posts: 1594
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:17 pm

Re: Instuctor interview

Post by TimTaylor »

Or we could vote on the internet to eliminate Sport Pilot and require all pilots to be Private or higher with a 3rd class FAA medical or Basic Med. Then, open up the definition of LSA to include all single engine aircraft.
Retired from flying.
User avatar
drseti
Posts: 7227
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Lock Haven PA
Contact:

Re: Instuctor interview

Post by drseti »

Warmi wrote:Something as simple as stall speed alone could potentially cover the entire rule.
I think you'd still have to include 2 seats maximum.
But, you're right that the more restrictive the definition, the more the Law of Unintended Consequences impacts us. Example: in order to disqualify jets, the 2004 rule stated "single reciprocating engine." Though not their intent, that wording also precludes electric vehicles. :(
The opinions posted are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof H Paul Shuch
PhD CFII DPE LSRM-A/GL/WS/PPC iRMT
AvSport LLC, KLHV
[email protected]
AvSport.org
facebook.com/SportFlying
SportPilotExaminer.US
Type47
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: Instuctor interview

Post by Type47 »

TimTaylor wrote:Or we could vote on the internet to eliminate Sport Pilot and require all pilots to be Private or higher with a 3rd class FAA medical or Basic Med. Then, open up the definition of LSA to include all single engine aircraft.
Yes. Freedom is never fun unless you can limit others.
Type47
LSRI
INTJ
2006 Tecnam P92 Echo Super
Don’t do the thing that almost killed you until you at least get the staples taken out of your head first….
TimTaylor
Posts: 1594
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:17 pm

Re: Instuctor interview

Post by TimTaylor »

drseti wrote:
Warmi wrote:Something as simple as stall speed alone could potentially cover the entire rule.
I think you'd still have to include 2 seats maximum.
But, you're right that the more restrictive the definition, the more the Law of Unintended Consequences impacts us. Example: in order to disqualify jets, the 2004 rule stated "single reciprocating engine." Though not their intent, that wording also precludes electric vehicles. :(
That's why things aren't always as simple as someone sitting on the outside looking in seems to think. Once you're involved and part of the decision making group, you soon find out how complicated it can become. "Who knew healthcare could be so complicated?"
Retired from flying.
3Dreaming
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Instuctor interview

Post by 3Dreaming »

Warmi wrote:They just need to simplify definition of LSAs using basic criteria rather than limiting it in every way possible.

Something as simple as stall speed alone could potentially cover the entire rule.

It would indirectly limit the gross , the maximum speed and keep the spirit of simple and easy to fly planes while still allowing manufacturers to make different tradeoffs ( fast and light vs heavier and slow etc )
From before the rule came out I thought a simple 100 horsepower limit would be a good way to define the class. No limit on weight or number of seats.
TimTaylor
Posts: 1594
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:17 pm

Re: Instuctor interview

Post by TimTaylor »

Type47 wrote:
TimTaylor wrote:Or we could vote on the internet to eliminate Sport Pilot and require all pilots to be Private or higher with a 3rd class FAA medical or Basic Med. Then, open up the definition of LSA to include all single engine aircraft.
Yes. Freedom is never fun unless you can limit others.
I'm just pointing out the fallacy.
Retired from flying.
TimTaylor
Posts: 1594
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:17 pm

Re: Instuctor interview

Post by TimTaylor »

Actually, I think the current LSA rule is very adequate as is. There are plenty of LSA available to meet the mission of most Sport Pilots. Seems to me the current Sport Pilot rule and LSA definition have served well.

People are always going to want more. It doesn't matter what the limits, someone wants more. You could argue to leave LSA as is and just make and sell more airplanes to lower the cost and price.

For instance, look at the CTLS. Why does any Sport Pilot need more than that? That would certainly work for me. If that doesn't work, go get a Private.
Retired from flying.
Type47
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: Instuctor interview

Post by Type47 »

TimTaylor wrote:Actually, I think the current LSA rule is very adequate as is. There are plenty of LSA available to meet the mission of most Sport Pilots. Seems to me the current Sport Pilot rule and LSA definition have served well.

People are always going to want more. It doesn't matter what the limits, someone wants more. You could argue to leave LSA as is and just make and sell more airplanes to lower the cost and price.

For instance, look at the CTLS. Why does any Sport Pilot need more than that? That would certainly work for me. If that doesn't work, go get a Private.
And I am pointing out the absurdity of begging some bureaucracy to “allow” us to do the things we should be free to do as Americans.
I want what I want. May I persue happiness?
Type47
LSRI
INTJ
2006 Tecnam P92 Echo Super
Don’t do the thing that almost killed you until you at least get the staples taken out of your head first….
TimTaylor
Posts: 1594
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:17 pm

Re: Instuctor interview

Post by TimTaylor »

Type47 wrote:
TimTaylor wrote:Actually, I think the current LSA rule is very adequate as is. There are plenty of LSA available to meet the mission of most Sport Pilots. Seems to me the current Sport Pilot rule and LSA definition have served well.

People are always going to want more. It doesn't matter what the limits, someone wants more. You could argue to leave LSA as is and just make and sell more airplanes to lower the cost and price.

For instance, look at the CTLS. Why does any Sport Pilot need more than that? That would certainly work for me. If that doesn't work, go get a Private.
And I am pointing out the absurdity of begging some bureaucracy to “allow” us to do the things we should be free to do as Americans.
I want what I want. May I persue happiness?
That certainly is a political viewpoint you and a couple others here share.
Retired from flying.
Type47
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: Instuctor interview

Post by Type47 »

“That certainly is a political viewpoint you and a couple others here share.”

Ya. Me, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and a few others.
Type47
LSRI
INTJ
2006 Tecnam P92 Echo Super
Don’t do the thing that almost killed you until you at least get the staples taken out of your head first….
TimTaylor
Posts: 1594
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:17 pm

Re: Instuctor interview

Post by TimTaylor »

Type47 wrote:“That certainly is a political viewpoint you and a couple others here share.”

Ya. Me, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and a few others.
Since this forum is about Sport Pilots and the airplanes we fly, what is wrong with the airplane you already own? I would be proud to own that airplane. And, if you're a Sport Pilot, there is not much more you could do with a Private except carry more people, fly at night, or fly IFR. If that's the problem, go get a Private.

I've been flying 55 years and have flown 40 different makes and models. I'm flying a rental SkyCatcher now and enjoying every minute of it. If I still needed to carry more than one passenger, fly at night, or fly IFR, I would pay for all the CT scans and other test required to get my medical back and take the risk of all that.

As far as aviation is concerned, I just don't agree that we are over-burdened with restrictions. I don't want to share the airspace with some "wild-west yahoo" who wants to express his individuality while flying.
Retired from flying.
User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2880
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Instuctor interview

Post by FastEddieB »

drseti wrote: But, you're right that the more restrictive the definition, the more the Law of Unintended Consequences impacts us. Example: in order to disqualify jets, the 2004 rule stated "single reciprocating engine." Though not their intent, that wording also precludes electric vehicles. :(
And Wankels?
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA
CFI, CFII, CFIME
[email protected]
Type47
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: Instuctor interview

Post by Type47 »

TimTaylor wrote:
Type47 wrote:“That certainly is a political viewpoint you and a couple others here share.”

Ya. Me, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and a few others.
Since this forum is about Sport Pilots and the airplanes we fly, what is wrong with the airplane you already own? I would be proud to own that airplane. And, if you're a Sport Pilot, there is not much more you could do with a Private except carry more people, fly at night, or fly IFR. If that's the problem, go get a Private.

I've been flying 55 years and have flown 40 different makes and models. I'm flying a rental SkyCatcher now and enjoying every minute of it. If I still needed to carry more than one passenger, fly at night, or fly IFR, I would pay for all the CT scans and other test required to get my medical back and take the risk of all that.

As far as aviation is concerned, I just don't agree that we are over-burdened with restrictions. I don't want to share the airspace with some "wild-west yahoo" who wants to express his individuality while flying.
Ah, the old “wild west” argument.
I never said I was dissatisfied with my rating nor my airplane.
My opinion is that over regulation is killing general aviation.
Along with the I got mine, now screw you, attitude exibited by (some) mostly older pilots.
I believe I have been clear on that.

The story of the Cfi at the beginning of this thread is a perfect example.
Type47
LSRI
INTJ
2006 Tecnam P92 Echo Super
Don’t do the thing that almost killed you until you at least get the staples taken out of your head first….
TimTaylor
Posts: 1594
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:17 pm

Re: Instuctor interview

Post by TimTaylor »

I don't see any significant increase in regulations in 55 years of flying. If anything, the FAA and others have worked to make flying easier and open to more people with Sport Pilots, LSA, Basic Med, etc.

From my perspective, the main problem is flying is just too expensive for most people. Fewer and fewer people are able to purchase new standard certificated aircraft and the inventory of used standard certificated aircraft is getting older and smaller.

While Sport Pilot and LSA have been good for aviation, I believe it's more of a boost for well heeled older guys to take up a new hobby.

I could go into other issues, but that would be a political discussion that is not allowed here. But as far as getting in an airplane and flying from point A to point B, it's easier now than ever. Over regulation is clearly not the problem. As someone who has flown in the IFR system for many years, I would not want to see any reduction in regulation of the aircraft industry.
Last edited by TimTaylor on Mon Jan 28, 2019 7:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Retired from flying.
User avatar
Warmi
Posts: 1230
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Frankfort, IL

Re: Instuctor interview

Post by Warmi »

3Dreaming wrote:
Warmi wrote:They just need to simplify definition of LSAs using basic criteria rather than limiting it in every way possible.

Something as simple as stall speed alone could potentially cover the entire rule.

It would indirectly limit the gross , the maximum speed and keep the spirit of simple and easy to fly planes while still allowing manufacturers to make different tradeoffs ( fast and light vs heavier and slow etc )
From before the rule came out I thought a simple 100 horsepower limit would be a good way to define the class. No limit on weight or number of seats.
Yeah but then again, a carbon cub with 180hp engine won’t break any speed records or make the plane unsafe or overly complicated in any way - it will just make for a nicer climbing stool plane that can get in and get out from more places than a 100 hp cub.

I think what makes planes inherently harder to handle and requiring a lot more skill and attention are high wing loadings and consequently high approach and stall speeds - and of course, thighs like twin engines, only two seats etc but that’s given.

I am sure I am missing some more subtle points but, as it stands right now, the rules are just unnecessarily detailed and rigid.
Flying Sting S4 ( N184WA ) out of Illinois
Post Reply