Jack Tyler wrote:
If I were running the flight school <snip> small time operation at a relatively small field, <snip> I'd struggle to accept the rationale for a more limited use, more expensive LSA training product over a Part 23, less expensive, broader use product
That logic probably applies for most flight schools, Jack (certainly is true for Charlie and his Skipper), but I went in a completely different direction when I forged my business plan. I saw a need for LSA in training, because I live in an area with aging population, and many prospective students and renters have concerns about the medical certificate. And, nobody was filling that need. When I started, there were was only one
rental Sport Pilot eligible aircraft within a 100 mile radius (that being Charlie's Cub). Even now, over a year later, there's only one other game anywhere in the region -- a Flight Design CT at Heritage Aviation, Selinsgrove. The overwhelming bulk of FBOs and flight schools have completely rejected the LSA concept. That means there was an unfilled need, which played heavily in my planning process.
I had instructed in 150s, 172s, Cherokees, Traumahawks, and even Skippers for decades, and was ready to try something different. My decision to go LSA instead of Part 23 was deliberate, and aimed at filling a niche in which there is little competition. (Seems to have worked, too -- I'm busier than I wanted to be.)
_________________The opinions expressed in this post are those of one CFI, and do not necessarily represent the position of the FAA or its lawyers.
Prof. H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D., CFII, LSRM-A/GL/WS
AvSport of Lock Haven