Sport Pilot Talk

I didn't see anything in 14 CFR § 61.327 but drseti's website says this:

If Solo Cross Country was performed in an aircraft with a Vh greater than 87 Knots and appropriately equipped, student must first have received instruction in flight solely by reference to flight instruments. (Yes, even for the Sport Pilot license, and even though there is no specific hours requirement for instrument training.) Frequently, we see zero hours logged in the "Instrument" column, or the column left blank.

My CFI doesn't think this is the case although we were fine either way because I opted to get some instrument training just for the experience but I would like to see where it says this in the regs. Page 8 header "Unresolved Issues" in https://chesapeakesportpilot.com/wp-con ... -Guide.pdf says this but it doesn't explain where it got that from.

The requirement is in the student pilot sub part. 61.93 (e), (12). You also need the speed endorsement before you solo, 61.89, (c), (5).

Thank you 61.93(e)(12) answers it perfectly! Why isn't this more well known?

I think an explicit endorsement for the higher speed isn't needed if you trained in a fast enough aircraft just like you need no tailwheel endorsement for sports certificate if you trained in a tailwheel LSA.

fatsportpilot wrote: I think an explicit endorsement for the higher speed isn't needed if you trained in a fast enough aircraft

The FARs require student pilots seeking a Sport Pilot rating to receive an airspeed endorsement prior to solo. That means a low-speed endorsement to solo an LSA with a Vh < 87 knots, or a high-speed endorsement to solo one with a Vh > 87 knots.

Ref: Vh≤87 kts, 14 CFR Part 61.327(a), - or - Vh>87 kts, 14 CFR Part 61.327(b)

Thanks!

fatsportpilot wrote:Thank you 61.93(e)(12) answers it perfectly! Why isn't this more well known?

It's not well known because, apparently, CFIs aren't required to study the FARs! Some do (including many on this forum), but I'm afraid we're in the minority.

Let me elaborate on my previous statement, because it might sound like I am criticizing CFIs for not knowing the regs. If anything, I am criticizing the CFI renewal process.

I have been a CFI for nearly 40 years, which means I have taken maybe 19 Flight Instructor Refresher Courses (we CFIs have to renew every 2 years). The Sport Pilot rules came out in late 2004, which means perhaps 8 of those FIRCs took place after FAR 61.3xx (the SP training requirements) came out. Yet, I cannot remember a single FIRC in which the 61.3xx rules were emphasized.

That's probably because SP is not embraced by the majority of CFIs. In fact, SP is often regarded by the GA establishment as something less than a legitimate Pilot certificate. So, the lack of knowledge about SP rules that is endemic among CFIs is actually symptomatic of a much larger problem - the failure of the SP movement to gain traction, and legitimize itself.

There are presently about 100,000 Certified Flight Instructors in the US. How many of those do SP instruction? The FAA records don't say, but if the experiences cited by members of this forum are to be believed, the number is quite small indeed. This is why I consider SP the best kept secret in aviation. So we shouldn't be surprised that so few CFIs know the SP rules.

So, what can be done to educate CFIs about SP? I think forums like this one can help. So can WINGS safety seminars conducted by those of us who embrace SP and LSA (I'm still trying to do my part there). Incorporating more SP-specific material into FIRCs would help. But there's only so much material you can cram into a 2-day course, and new requirements keep coming out every year to fill those two days. So, it behooves SP students to learn everything they can here at SportPilotTalk, and then educate their CFIs.

Thank you, fellow pilots, for all you do to spread the word. It's not just CFIs who have to be educators!

fatsportpilot wrote:Thank you 61.93(e)(12) answers it perfectly! Why isn't this more well known?

I think an explicit endorsement for the higher speed isn't needed if you trained in a fast enough aircraft just like you need no tailwheel endorsement for sports certificate if you trained in a tailwheel LSA.

You do need a tailwheel endorsement regardless of pilot certificate held if you want to act as PIC in a tailwheel airplane. This even applies to student pilots even though they get a specific endorsement for the make and model of aircraft in which their instructor is endorsing privileges.

I have been to one renewal where sport pilot was discussed. The only problem was it was after the rules had changed in 2010, and he was discussing previous rules. After his presentation I told him the rules had changed. He argued that I was wrong, but later came up and apologized. He at least took the time to see if what I had said was true.

It was at the same renewal where I had to argue with the FSDO liaison when they tried to change my expiration date to the month of the clinic. I had to show him the regulation.

3Dreaming wrote:
You do need a tailwheel endorsement regardless of pilot certificate held if you want to act as PIC in a tailwheel airplane. This even applies to student pilots even though they get a specific endorsement for the make and model of aircraft in which their instructor is endorsing privileges.

Absolutely true! In fact, in my capacity as a DPE over these past couple of years, I have noticed that the most common discrepancy I notice when giving practical exams is missing logbook endorsements.

On my DPE website, I've posted for the benefit of both applicants and their Recommending Instructors examples of the logbook endorsements required to take an SP checkride. Here is the page:

http://SportPilotExaminer.US/endorse.htm

drseti wrote:Let me elaborate on my previous statement, because it might sound like I am criticizing CFIs for not knowing the regs. If anything, I am criticizing the CFI renewal process.

I have been a CFI for nearly 40 years, which means I have taken maybe 19 Flight Instructor Refresher Courses (we CFIs have to renew every 2 years). The Sport Pilot rules came out in late 2004, which means perhaps 8 of those FIRCs took place after FAR 61.3xx (the SP training requirements) came out. Yet, I cannot remember a single FIRC in which the 61.3xx rules were emphasized.

That's probably because SP is not embraced by the majority of CFIs. In fact, SP is often regarded by the GA establishment as something less than a legitimate Pilot certificate. So, the lack of knowledge about SP rules that is endemic among CFIs is actually symptomatic of a much larger problem - the failure of the SP movement to gain traction, and legitimize itself.

There are presently about 100,000 Certified Flight Instructors in the US. How many of those do SP instruction? The FAA records don't say, but if the experiences cited by members of this forum are to be believed, the number is quite small indeed. This is why I consider SP the best kept secret in aviation. So we shouldn't be surprised that so few CFIs know the SP rules.

So, what can be done to educate CFIs about SP? I think forums like this one can help. So can WINGS safety seminars conducted by those of us who embrace SP and LSA (I'm still trying to do my part there). Incorporating more SP-specific material into FIRCs would help. But there's only so much material you can cram into a 2-day course, and new requirements keep coming out every year to fill those two days. So, it behooves SP students to learn everything they can here at SportPilotTalk, and then educate their CFIs.

Thank you, fellow pilots, for all you do to spread the word. It's not just CFIs who have to be educators!

My daughter is a MEII, flies a corporate jet, and just passed her ATP written. She has absolutely no interest in helping me acquire my sport CFI. I'll ask her a simple question about something, her answer is "I don't know anything about that". She seems to have forgotten where the $60,000.00 came from that got her where she is today. I hate to do it, but I just don't talk to her anymore about it. But I digress, I just press on.

Anyway, It's sort of been pointed out here (by a female, no less, CFI on this forum) that we're of lower/lesser "quality" than they are.

Once again, a failure of the very system used by people to ridicule us.
If the Cfi’s don’t know the sport pilot regs by now, shame on them.
I run into the “not a real pilot” attitude a lot at fly ins. As I’m eating my pancakes with my grandkid after flying in using Foreflight on my ipad in my faster, more modern aircraft.
Especially in these times, it’s time for everyone to realize that those of us who work, study, achieve, build things, fix things, spend the time to know and practice our craft owe nothing to those that don’t.
It’s not up to me to educate anyone. Especially someone who looks down their nose at me with their gov approved rating.
I don’t have to fix what’s wrong with general aviation.
Or society, for that matter.

Type47 wrote: I don’t have to fix what’s wrong with general aviation.
Or society, for that matter.

None of us has to. But, to paraphrase Rabbi Hillel, "if not me, who?"

Type47 wrote:Once again, a failure of the very system used by people to ridicule us.
If the Cfi’s don’t know the sport pilot regs by now, shame on them.
I run into the “not a real pilot” attitude a lot at fly ins. As I’m eating my pancakes with my grandkid after flying in using Foreflight on my ipad in my faster, more modern aircraft.
Especially in these times, it’s time for everyone to realize that those of us who work, study, achieve, build things, fix things, spend the time to know and practice our craft owe nothing to those that don’t.
It’s not up to me to educate anyone. Especially someone who looks down their nose at me with their gov approved rating.
I don’t have to fix what’s wrong with general aviation.
Or society, for that matter.

There is nothing really to fix on that particular front - just ignore it, it is not like personal opinions of others end up making your LSA less capable

drseti wrote:None of us has to. But, to paraphrase Rabbi Hillel, "if not me, who?"

<Like> <Thumbs Up>