Light Sport Safety

[propilot512]

Hello everyone, I am new to the forum. I am a Grad student and CFI in South Florida trying to gather Pilots feedback on LSA training and safety records to write my Thesis paper. The survey takes less then a minute and there is no personal information to enter. If anyone is willing to be interviewed or wants to provide a comment, I would like to include them in my Thesis as additional pilot feedback. I would also be happy to share my findings with the forum if anyone wants to find out how the aviation community feels about LSA. My goal is to promote LSA as a new means of flying safely at an economical price. Thanks

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/aviationsafety

[CharlieTango]

i took the survey but i don't think it will paint a fair picture of lsa safety.

in many ways lsa (at least some of them) require more skill to fly and there is more risk. on the other hand the skill required increases proficiency and awareness and makes the lsa pilot safer.

some of each.

[Pawlander]

ProPilot512, please understand this reply is meant in the spirit of constructiveness. I think the results from your survey instrument, as currently worded, will be meaningless because of incorrect phrasing that will mean different things to different people who participate.

Your survey instrument seems to confuse the terms "Sport Pilot" and "Light Sport Aircraft" and you created a new term "Light Sport Pilot" for your questions and that is ambiguous.

Pilots can be trained as "Sport Pilot." They can also be trained and licensed as anything up to ATP but exercising the privileges of a "Sport Pilot," allowing them to fly without a current medical, but they have to follow the rules that a person licensed as a Sport Pilot has to follow.

"Light Sport Aircraft" or "LSA" is a term which describes a particular group of aircraft without regard to the license of the pilots flying them. Many LSA's are flown by pilots with advanced licenses (some with current medicals, and some without), but the LSA is still an LSA.

So, when you ask a question like "#8. The Restrictions on Light Sport Pilots reflects their level of training" it really uses confusing terminology. The answer might be 'yes' if you mean people who are licensed as Sport Pilots.

If, however, you mean the restrictions on an ATP with 15,000 hours who is now exercising the privileges of a Sport Pilot and flying an LSA reflect his level of training, then the answer is probably 'no.' In that case, it more likely reflects his lack of a valid medical certificate.

You might try rewording your questions with a bit more precision and let us have another go at it.

[propilot512]

I completely agree, orginally it was worded to "pilots acting as sport pilots" but my thesis review committee disagreed with me. With your approval I would like to use your post as example of why the question needs to be reworded. Until then I hope pilots understand the underlying meaning of the question. Thanks for the input.

[drseti]

I completely agree, orginally it was worded to "pilots acting as sport pilots" but my thesis review committee disagreed with me.

I'm not defending your committee, but as a retired academic, I think I see where they're coming from. "Acting as" has no legal or regulatory basis. To convey what you intended, and stay within the FAA's framework, I would suggest (and your committee may agree): "pilots exercising Sport Pilot privileges".

[Jim Stewart]

I took your survey and I have the same reservations as the others. In addition, the experience range of 0-500 encompasses an excessively diverse level of pilot experience. A granularity of 0-20, 20-100, 100-200 and 200-500 might telll you a lot more.

I wish you luck with the survey, but I think that you could make a much greater contribution with a detailed analysis of light sport accident reports in the NTSB database. That could give some real insight into pilot training, aircraft types, accident types, and fatal vs non-fatal. The data would be pretty much incontestable as opposed to an anonymous survey.[/list]

[Pawlander]

With your approval...

You certainly may use my post for any purpose you see fit, including bird cage liner!

[zaitcev]

The horror stories I hear about the modern quant research are just nightmarish, even vis a vis 10 years ago. The return rates are plummeting, selection bias is exploding across all social fields and disciplines. As this is happening, efforts to normalize to the curve create bigger and bigger skew in data. It's a bad time to be in propilot512's shoes. No wonder people migrate to quali in droves. Sure it's more work to code etc., but then you only need to interview some 30..50 people for PhD, 15 for MA.

P.S. I agree about the suggestions above about the 0-500 hours etc., but making the survey even a little more granular (e.g. longer) will depress the return rate yet again.

[drseti]

I must be getting dyslexic. I read propilot512's username as propilot152, and was wondering, "what kind of pro pilot flies a 152?"

[drseti]

The return rates are plummeting, selection bias is exploding across all social fields and disciplines.

Quite true. But, possibly not a factor in propilot512's research. After all, this study appears to be not so much about actual LSA and Sport Pilot safety as it is about perceived safety. When quantifying perceptions, we are merely expressing subjective data in a pseudo-objective form, so sample size and stratification are irrelevant, and any convenience sample will suffice. And too, this study is less about physical science than it is social science.

[propilot512]

I agree with the gradual scaling of pilot hours. The committee thought the study would become to complex. I originally wanted to research and follow pilots who were just starting their training or who were still in training, in an attempt to determine which direction (Sport, Private) each pilot choice and why? My committee however wanted me to gather feedback from the entire aviation community. Thanks again for taking the survey and giving me feedback.

[tadel001]

I disagree with CharlieTango and the survey. LSAs generally do not require more skill. In fact, flying a Cirrus, C-182, C-210, and many more I could list require far more skill than an "SP only" has. WHen I use the term SP only, I am refering to a pilot that has only been trained to a SP level. They never were a private pilot. Limiting the survey even to a pilot exercising SP privileges does not help. The overwhelming accident data shows that the airplane accidents in LSAs are from Private Pilots flying LSAs (some of which are now acting as a SP). Their skills, however, are that of a Private Pilot.

WHy are the accidents higher, the leading conscensus is that pilots flying heavier aircraft are to heavy on the controls, don't use rudder and are not as proficient in wind correction in the landing/take-off phase. The reality is that in terms of a piloting skills (i.e. landing, taking off, stalls, etc.) the SP and PP receive the same training. THe difference is what aircraft each learns on and what initial experiences they have.

I am not sure how someone can rate the "safety of LSAs." THere really is no test group to compare it to. First, a significant amount of LSA flight hours over the past 4 years have been in the training phase. Much more proportionatlly than the part 23 phase. As more pilots are checked out and flying planes, that number will decrease. Because LSA encompasses so many different kinds of aircraft, you generally need to compare S-LSA to part 23. It wouldn't be fair to comment on Part 23 safety by including what used to be Part 103 aircraft.

Finally, if the idea is to find out about the training of SPs, the best way to do that is to look at the number of students in S-LSA and the number of accident by these students. I think you will find very few SP accidents in a S-LSA.

[CharlieTango]

I disagree with CharlieTango and the survey. LSAs generally do not require more skill...

...in many ways lsa (at least some of them) require more skill to fly...

Gee tadel001, i said ""in many ways" and "at least some of them" and you disagree saying "...LSAS generally do not require more skill..."

I have had a CFI with many thousands of hours give up trying to learn to land my CTSW in calm conditions. He didn't possess the energy management skills required to avoid excessively firm landings.

A strong gusty crosswind coupled with other wind sheer that we often see here in Mammoth Lakes is the perfect example. The light gross weight coupled with the light wing loading requires dramatic and correct control inputs where in a typical spam can has far more stability due to the increased weight, increased wing loading, increased kinetic energy and longer coupleing.

Otherwise I agree with your post.

[tadel001]

CharlieTango,

Nothing personal. I just disagreed. I have heard people talk about LSAs being harder to fly. I have flown and taught in over 14 brands and I have not found them to be difficult to fly or teach in. With that said, there are some fundamental pilot skills that are being lost with the bigger more technically advanced aircraft. I get in the plane with a 1,500 hour Cirrus pilot and he is so focused on the instruments, he doesn't fly the airplane. I get in the plane with a 1,000 hour C-182 pilot and he is too busy looking for cowl flaps, mixture, manifold pressure, etc. These pilots have focused so much on one aircraft, that they forget how to "fly".

You know, "fly"...feel and hear the airplane. People want to fly by the numbers or by a predetermined scrip. I know some of the people on this forum know what I am talking about when I say fly be hearing the plane. I can tell you what RPM and airspeed I am at just by feeling the airplane. That is skill that is lost and as a result, that is why we have more accidents.

People are too busy worrying about a number and not truly understanding how to fly the airplane. Then they stop using the rudder pedals, pull too much on the stick and loss control. It isn't the plane, it isn't SP training, it is PP not being used to flying a plane.

[Helen]

Wording aside, a survey posted to a group of sport pilots will not provide you with a scientifically valid statistical sample and hence will not provide you with data you can use in a thesis. If you wish to collect an unbiased data sample from which you can run a valid statistical analysis you should contact Avemco that has been doing exactly this since the inception of light sport in an effort to set appropriate insurance rates. Here's a good article that interviews an Avemco rep who might be a good contact for you to start with at their company:

http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/pilot-t ... art-1.html

Helen