Sport Pilot / LSA not welcome at HQZ?

There's an article in Sunday's Dallas Morning News that has an interesting comment from the Operations director at HQZ about Sport Pilot:

"Those of us who have gone through extensive training to get a pilot's license are asking, 'Why?' " said Cynthia Godfrey, operations director of the Mesquite City Airport. "If they don't have to get a medical, or if there are ones who do this because they can't pass the medical, then they probably shouldn't be flying."

Also quoted is an instructor at HQZ:

"Sport pilot is easy because it doesn't require a medical, and that's my concern," said Thomas Nielsen, chief instructor for Mesquite Aviation. "It depends on the medical condition, but you're going to have a lot of guys who want to fly but have a disease, like epileptic attacks, who shouldn't be flying."

Note the subtle text in the url:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/061806dnmetscarypilots.e8978c.html

I am quoted in the article. I gave the reported a few, carefully formulated answers to her questions and then suggested she contact AOPA and EAA. I've forwarded this to communications people at AOPA.

It appears that Sport Pilots / LSA may not be welcome at HQZ.

Strange article

I just hope the average person reads the whole article - it ends on a much more upbeat tone.

I've gotta admire this guy:

..." said Dr. Fried, who said he does 3,500 to 4,000 aviation exams annually.

Click to expand...

That's about 20 exams a day! That doc is a machine!

I thought it strange that the article started with doom and gloom, the sky is falling announcements and predictions, but ended pretty much on a positive note. Typical 'shock' journalism. Also, It made mention that all it takes to be a Sport Pilot is to have a drivers license. But in order to use that DL to obtain an SP license the 'restrictions' noted on the DL must be adhered to. I think whats being missed here is that with certain restrictions (such as epileptic seizures) a DL is only good for ID purposes and NOT valid for 'operation of motorized vehicles', be it a car or an airplane. Such restrictions should be noted at the time the applicant attempts to certify but would disqualify them from doing so. Just having any 'ol drivers license does not mean it's valid to fly with.

Oh,...

"For me, I think it's a good idea to start here and learn the basics of the airplane, and if I'm good at this I could easily progress further to private pilot," said Mr. Reeves, 35.

"It allows you to focus on flying in good conditions and forces you to develop basic skills before taking on extra ones," he said.

Excellent qoute Doug, thats how SP should be presented.

I think it is scary that there are people in aviation who don't welcome each new plane and/or pilot with open arms. General Aviation, especially for those of us who fly light aircraft isn't exactly a growth industry. Every additional aircraft and pilot means more business for struggling FBO's and airports, more leverage against people who'd like to close airports, and a better future for all of us...

The people who are worried about the medical issue should really worry about how it relates to automobiles. Stroke out in an airplane and it is very probable that you'll be the only person hurt. Stroke out in an automobile and there is a far greater chance of causing injury to others..

Mesquite

Mesquite, Texas, USA

Some airports tried to ban experimental aircraft in the Los Angles region recently. This was illegal and the EAA after much work, I think has just resolved or is about to resolve this with the FAA and airport authorities (no help from AOPA by the way, hmmmmm write Phil).

HQZ or any airport can not legally ban LSA. When a pilot calls 5 out for landing, are they going to ask if they are a LSA and deny landing? HQZ is not even a towered airport. What's next experimental aircraft? If it's not private than they don't have a legal leg to stand on, if the pilot and aircraft are legal per federal law. It would be like a state keeping a driver from driving into another state. The freeways are paied for with fed funds.

Airports receive federal funds and can not ban a class of aircraft, even though it has been tried. There are FAR's limitations, for example for student pilots and class B airspace. Airports might deny a schedule operator or set curfews, but to ban a class of plane "N" numbered planes or pilot is just odd. A quick glance it appears a LSA pilot ban will never happen, but it could, leagle or not. Case in point is the LA thing with experimental aircraft.

I agree with George that airports receiving state or federal funding can not prohibit use to any registered public aircraft. Years back, when they tried prohibiting pilots from fueling their aircraft with auto gas, they were required to allow it if they accepted those funds; however, they could define the safety methods, fueling areas, etc., which basically kept folks from doing their own fueling.
Privately owned fields, receiving no funding, can restrict/ban whatever they want. That's the American way! However, there are probably few public use airfields that are totally privately funded. (Just a guess on my part.)
I view the people at HQZ, and others like it, as small minded and wouldn't want to be part of their clicke anyway.
I believe that LSA is a step forward for GA and I hope that the FAA allows the use of the drivers license, in lieu of a medical, for Recreational pilots as well. That would open the door for a lot of RV owners to fly their planes, under the recreational rules, in the event that a minor medical condition keeps them from renewing their medical. I think that a very high percent of pilots use good judgement about not flying when they shouldn't and would continue to do so sans the medical requirement. (Of course there are always exceptions.)
Too bad about HQZ...I won't be visiting their airfield.

Try GPM

sf3543 said:

Too bad about HQZ...I won't be visiting their airfield.

Click to expand...

HQZ certainly aren't rolling out the LSA welcome mat, are they?

The article mentions Aviator Air, a FBO/flight school at GPM that operates a VERY yellow T-211 Thorpedo, as well as the GPM airport manager. They were very welcoming of LSA.

Randy Byers, Grand Prairie's airport manager, said he doesn't think FAA officials would approve sport pilot certification if they thought it would endanger lives. He sees it as a boon to the aviation industry because it will attract more people.

"I think sport pilot is a good entry-level way into flying, and it's going to be very popular," Mr. Byers said. "We're here to lease hangars and sell fuel, so we look at it as more planes, more business."

Note also that GPM is a towered field.

Kyle Boatright said:

I think it is scary that there are people in aviation who don't welcome each new plane and/or pilot with open arms. General Aviation, especially for those of us who fly light aircraft isn't exactly a growth industry. Every additional aircraft and pilot means more business for struggling FBO's and airports, more leverage against people who'd like to close airports, and a better future for all of us...

Click to expand...

I have discussed the Sport Pilot/Light Sport rules with many "old hat" pilots who have been flying for a long time. I have even had a couple of CFI's mention that they were not interested in teaching a new pilot under the Sport Pilot rule. Most everyone that has a negative comment about the Sport Pilot rule mentions the Recreational Pilot rating stating that this is just like that rating.

I think that for the most part these people are simply misinformed about what the rule states. I think they also look at it somewhat with those "ego" glasses we tend to put on every now and then. Lets face it, we, as pilots, like to think of ourselves with a little bit of an elitist attitude sometimes. Because we are doing something very few others in the world have ever attempted, let alone accomplished, we think we are special in some way. By having all of these new "uninitiated" people strapping into the left seat after as few as 20 hours of training is not "fair" to us considering all the hard work we had to do to get where we are. I know that idea sounds a little harsh (please don't flame me for stating some truths that we all know exists about our egos).

My thoughts about aviation are that the aviation industry should be an "inclusive" industry, not an "exclusive" one. For too long now, I have heard all types of comments such as those made in this article that make pilots sound like we are an arrogant exclusive bunch of rich people who don't want the "common folks" joining our country club. This new certification is allowing for those "common folks" to have access to our country club. How well we welcome them will be a testimony to whether we are going to continue to be like the Masters Private (exclusive to Men) Country Club or more like the Wing Foot Public Course.

Full Meal deal

RVbySDI said:

I have discussed the Sport Pilot/Light Sport rules with many "old hat" pilots who have been flying for a long time. I have even had a couple of CFI's mention that they were not interested in teaching a new pilot under the Sport Pilot rule.

Click to expand...

I have nothing against LSA or the Sport Pilot rating. I still have all my CFI ratings. I would just encourage a new pilot to get the private from the start. I don't see the SP as a logical stepping stone rating. My opinion is go all the way while you are training and get the private if that is your ultimate goal.

I don't see a big savings in cost either. A medical cost? You still need a written and flight test? Hours of dual? Could be the same in the end as a Pvt. To be honest there are many questions I have about this class of pilot.

Not a 100% up on all the details of the SP rating; How hard is it to upgrade to private pilot? What's the cost for the conversion? Another written and flight test? That is why I would recommend the full meal deal from the get go, not because I look down on the Sport Pilot rating. What is the SP re-currency required? Are there SP flight reviews?

The CFI and plane cost about the same regardless of Pvt or SP. A new LSA plane that cost $90,000 will rent for less than a $20,000 C-152? Probably not. Of all my unfamiliarity with the SP rating, from my experience in teaching I just don't buy the estimated cost savings in training, per that chart in the article above.


HOURS OF TRAINING?
As a CFI, I recommend a dozen student pilots for their private check ride with 40-50 hours in their log book. Some took longer but not many and none near the nominal 70 hours, more like in 50's for a few higher time students. I know many Pvts stretch training out 70 hours or more, I would not let them. I made it clear they need to commit to steady training and even set a check ride date goal. Than I made sure they knew the requirements. I never did aimless wondering training. All training was to meet the goal of proficiency in all required task and check ride prep. If they where not on board with that I was not there instructor. Frankly I don't want or need to fly with a student pilot for 50 hours to get them thru.

I can see LSA pilots dragging training out just like some private pilot candidates do. I had 41.5 hours in my log book when I finished my Pvt pilot check ride. It can be done. It's a team effort of student, CFI and opportunity. Obviously life gets sometimes, but it is very doable.

There are CFI's who don't think to solo a primary student until they have 20 hours, almost as an after thought or on principle (may be it took them that long?). If a SP pilot is going to finish training in 20 hours (the MIN) they better be using a training program and lesson plan's that puts them on track for a 20 hour check ride. You may over shoot, but if you plan 35 hours it will be 50. Plan 50 it will be 70 hours.

The chart in the article estimates typical SP training to be 35 hours. I say you should get a private in 40 hours + check if you do it right. 5 hours is not a big deal.

You can get a private day time limitation only if you want. Even so night tranning is only 3 hours of dual, which can be combined with a dual cross country if the CFI is smart. I don't see a big difference in the initial training cost. I could be wrong.

Private pilots require instrument training basics and proficiency. A great idea right. Well a SP who can go coast to coast cross country should have the same instrument training in my opinion. I WOULD HESITATE TO SCRIMP ON HOOD TRAINING, EVEN IF NOT REQUIRED FOR A SPORT PILOT. I can see no hood for a recreational pilot that is limited to 50 miles from home. However a Sport Pilot has no instrument skill? (not sure) That is probably another sticking point. Many CFI's don't want to learn a new syllabus and requirements (laziness or principles?).

The chart showing limitations and requirements of SP, recreational and Pvt is interesting. The recrational with a 50 mile limit is too restrictive. No wounder it never took off. Also a SP rating has no range limitation but requires less training than the Rec and Pvt, just because the plane is 2 seats verses 4 and slower (may be)? It just seems odd to me. I guess CFI's not understand the purpose of the Sport Pilot rating is what breeds the contempt. The recreational rating is an enigma altogether. The sport pilot rating is an unknown.

Sport Pilot rating makes sense I suppose if you don't want (or can't get) a medical, fly fast, fly high, fly at night, fly more than one passenger or rent most of the planes in the rental fleet.

In the end it's not what I want or would do, it's what serves the student best. We shall see. If a guy has a Piper Cub and wants to cruise around his farm, a SP is all he needs. I don't see it as a safety or quality of training thing, just a practical thing. The market will show if there's value here or not. It all seems a little contrived and artificial to me, but hope it's a big success. Anything to support and promote aviation. I would teach a sport pilot if I thought that would best serve them, but no convinced it will be for most new pilots.

George,

As usual, your post is an interesting perspective, some of which I agree with, some not.

Without going into a long disertation on the subject, Dr. Gleim has devoted an entire lesson to LSA in his current CFI renewal course. It is informative, up to date, and well worth reading for anyone at or near a CFI expiration date.

The LSA certificate is a licence to fly without the requirement to know about complex airplanes, complex airports and instrument procedures. There is, however, a requirement to know what makes an airplane fly and to be able to fly it to the same standards as a private pilot. This all seems very logical to me. Not everyone wants to or needs to fly into LAX, ORD or ATL, IFR or at night.

I met a private pilot a while back in a local ramp office who was flying a purchased C-150 from Missouri back to Minnesota. He and a friend had driven down in an old farm truck to pick up the airplane. We talked about his flight plan and route and he said he always flew so as to avoid busy airports, talking on the radio, and simply followed rivers and roads. He was no young pilot, but an old timer who preferred to avoid all the complexities of aviation in favor of a more simple way of doing things. He and his friend were planning on a certain motel stop somewhere in Iowa that evening, one traveling in the truck, one in the C-150. Sometime later I asked the FBO owner if he ever heard from the 2 guys from Minnesota after they left; he had. They met at the Iowa motel and pushed on to Minnesota the next day.

LSA is about people enjoying aviation without all the BS. Just get in an airplane and go fly. That has a certain primal appeal to any true aviator.

dd

David-aviator said:

LSA is about people enjoying aviation without all the BS. Just get in an airplane and go fly. That has a certain primal appeal to any true aviator.

Click to expand...

Amen to that! There is so much pleasure in just going up and enjoying the view.

There is a great deal of talk in some of these forum threads about how important it is to keep engine systems simple to make it safer. Why not look at the learning and regulation process in the same light? Keep it simple if simple flying is what is desired. Not everyone who is currently flying, or wishes to fly, needs to muddle their minds with terminal services knowledge, the logistic issues of communicating on the radio, manipulating numerous instruments for IFR, night flying, or any of the other various aspects of complication involved in some flying experiences. Although, like an electrical system on an engine build, these can serve to enhance the flying experience, they are not necessary to be able to fly. If the LSA student is learning the same important factors that define the aerodynamic principals of flight and how to manipulate safely those principals that a private pilot student would, why would they not end up being as safe a flyer as the private pilot?

In the end everyone in aviation is fond of saying: A pilot's license is just a license to learn. Well, if that is so, then why would we think any differently of the LSA license? Surely, we would not be saying that the 20 hours it took gmcjetpilot to solo was better instructional time than the 20 hours of instructional time it takes a new LSA student to "solo".

Why SP? Good Question (long)

gmcjetpilot said:

Not a 100% up on all the details of the SP rating; How hard is it to upgrade to private pilot? What's the cost for the conversion? Another written and flight test? That is why I would recommend the full meal deal from the get go, not because I look down on the Sport Pilot rating. What is the SP re-currency required? Are there SP flight reviews?

Click to expand...

Good questions!

Upgrading your ticket requires having the necessary instruction and hours, and passing the checkride. SP currency requirement is 3 landings within 90 days to carry a pax. BFRs are required.

gmcjetpilot said:

I guess CFI's not understand the purpose of the Sport Pilot rating is what breeds the contempt. The recreational rating is an enigma altogether. The sport pilot rating is an unknown.

Click to expand...

I would agree that a lack of knowledge of something that is new / unfamiliar is what most often breeds fear and comtempt, and is this case, that's most of the issue. However, to understand SP, I think you have to separate out the "medical cases" from the "simple flying" cases.

The medical issue is very important. There are obviously those who cannot pass a medical due to conditions. This is the most simple case. They cannot fly with a private - period - unless they lie to the FAA (which has undoubtedly been done). SP allows them to continue to fly via self-certification and be legal. Remember, even if you are flying PP and passed your last medical but have an accident and the NTSB/FAA finds that you had some sort of medical problem, your ticket may be gone for good. We ALL have to self-certify; PP just have to have a medical as well.

Then, there are those who cannot pass a medical due to medications that they choose take. This may be to deal with a condition that is either allowed or prohibited by the FAA. Again, one can chose to simply stop the medication, lie to the AME or go SP. If your doctor is perscribing it and it's for something important, the choice is obvious.

Finally, throw in those who suspect that they will fail their next medical, but want to continue to fly. Let your medical lapse and fly SP. If you fail your medical, you're done.

I can't really understand the objections to the medical issue. We, as a society, accept the risk of no medical for the DL, so what's wrong with no medical for SP? I can legally drive a 15-pax van, hauling a 3000 lb boat in the rain at night with a DL and no medical, so why make a double standard for the day-VFR SP?

The last category is the one that PP struggle to understand most, IMHO. Why would someone choose to go SP instead of PP? One explination (mine) is that SP places limits on you that helps to keep low time pilots out of bad situations - Night VFR, fully loaded 172s, SVFR, etc. Now, are there plenty of ways for SP to get in trouble? Absolutely. Do SP need training beyond what is required? Absolutely - the idea of getting hood time is a perfect example.

However, I suggest that SP is a starting point for learning, not an end. Would your hood training be more useful if you were already comfortable with the airplane, had spent time flying many cross country flights? Maybe. Learn to and experience flying during the day before trying it at night? Sounds good to me.

The best anology I can make to SP is a sort of restricted drivers license - you'll want to upgrade soon (provided you can), but first get out there and start flying simple airplanes in good WX before taking on more complex things. Just like we have a high-performance endorsement, we could think of the SP as a "simple airplane" limitation.

the_other_dougreeves said:

Good questions!
I can't really understand the objections to the medical issue. We, as a society, accept the risk of no medical for the DL, so what's wrong with no medical for SP? I can legally drive a 15-pax van, hauling a 3000 lb boat in the rain at night with a DL and no medical, so why make a double standard for the day-VFR SP?

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but I will try to answer your hypothetical: I suspect that it comes from the double standard applied by the media when an aircraft accident occurs vs. an auto accident. GA simply cannot afford to have the general populace told that planes are raining from the skies because (pick one: the pilot did not file a flight plan, the plane was built in an amateurs basement, the pilot hadn't had a physical exam, the pilot only had 20 hours of instruction, the pilot had been maintaining the plane himself with only 16 hours of training, etc.)

Accidents WILL happen with LSA airplanes, which is of course completely unavoidable. It's HOW those accidents will be reported that I see as a potential problem.

Press can Help or Bite Us

Dgamble said:

Accidents WILL happen with LSA airplanes, which is of course completely unavoidable. It's HOW those accidents will be reported that I see as a potential problem.

Click to expand...

100% agreed. We are always at the mercy of the press in terms of how they report things. For example, isn't the best part about no medical for SP that you, and not the FAA/AME, tells you that you're fit to fly, just like you do when you drive / use a credit card / perform brain surgery? Isn't more freedom better? I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

However, it is clearly up to us (and our choice of alphabet group) to provide honest, factual information to the press and fight misinformation.

SP and Medical

OtherDoug said:

I can't really understand the objections to the medical issue. We, as a society, accept the risk of no medical for the DL, so what's wrong with no medical for SP? I can legally drive a 15-pax van, hauling a 3000 lb boat in the rain at night with a DL and no medical, so why make a double standard for the day-VFR SP?

Click to expand...

Forget that pipsqueak van, how about a huge motor home? I can remember when I was 16, driving the winnebago back from some MX races somewhere, with a huge trailer full of motorcycles, about 10 guys sleeping in the back, one hand on the wheel, the other holding my eyelids open. Now *that* was dangerous!

A little sport plane could not do anywhere near the amount of damage that motor home could.

I think the sport pilot ticket is a great step in the right direction. I hope that we get lots of new pilots, and I'm sure some will get other ratings.

gmcjetpilot said:

I don't see the SP as a logical stepping stone rating. My opinion is go all the way while you are training and get the private if that is your ultimate goal.

Click to expand...

Another take on "go all the way" would be adding an instrument rating also. I haven't filed in 10 years but the skills acquired are extremely helpful to the PP. Myself, I can't see why one would not pursue it but I don't look down on those that haven't. Same case could be made for commercial and ATP.

But I say that to make the point that flying is a continuum and simpler aviating is wonderful. I grew up flying in the LA basin with complex airspace and dense traffic but I'm all for the SP and hope it revitalizes new pilot starts.

My observation is that very few of us have taken it as far along the continuum as George has. Some just plan on it being a lifetime hobby.

Rob

Thanks

the_other_dougreeves said:

Good questions!
The best anology I can make to SP is a sort of restricted drivers license - you'll want to upgrade soon (provided you can), but first get out there and start flying simple airplanes in good WX before taking on more complex things. Just like we have a high-performance endorsement, we could think of the SP as a "simple airplane" limitation.

Click to expand...

I am convinced it will be popular with the ultra light comunity who want to get legit and legal. They want two seats, legally go cross country and validate their hybrid ultralight that are too fast and heavy to really be legal in that class. They just don't quite fit in. The FAA has known this for some times and covers their eyes. The early hang-glider chain saw ultra lights are a thing of the past. The new ones are just more plane and for the good. They will fit in the LSA class. Also the two seat "ultra light's" for training, had to work around the single seat rule for training purpose. The FAA gave waivers to them. The two seat ultra light trainer waver is going away and the sport pilot and LSA rules is needed for them. This is of real use and benifit to the ultra light group. I am not thinking a large group of ultralight pilots will upgrade to Sport Pilot, but the instructors will and provide a much needed service.

JUST my opinion. We shall see in 5 years, the number of student pilot starts and how it breaks down between the three entry level classes.

Thanks for the info. We shall see how popular this rating and class of plane becomes. Based on the facts you provided, I think the prudent course of action for a student pilot, whose end goal is to have a private someday, is just to get the private ticket from the start.

To answer your question, yes, hood work from the start is goodness; it's called the integrated method of training, where instrument and visual skills are taught together from the start. VFR pilots who later get an IFR rating almost always note their VFR flying improving. Any rating allowing cross country and traversing a lot of land and possibly weather should have some basic instrument skills. Clearly you can fly an airplane with VFR no gyro instruments, and the obvious solution is don't fly in low visability.

From my CFI experience I predict students will NOT get the SP ticket much cheaper than a private. The plane will not be cheaper to rent, CFI and all other cost about the same as a private in my opinion. The min 20 hours I doubt will be typical for completion. We shall see. If the private takes a national average of 175% more than the min 40 hours, I think the Sport pilot may take 200%-300% of the min. It should not, but I am going on the national average I recall. Some Sport pilots will finish with 20 hours. Those will probably be ultralight pilots with some time.

From your info about upgrade from SP to private, training, check ride total cost for the upgrade will not be trivial. I guess a sport pilot taking the private check might be more skilled than a 50 hour student, however there are practical test standards they both must meet. I can think of at least 8-9 students that received their private in 45 hours range that I taught. I think the FAA and CFI comunity should work on why it takes 70 hours to get a private.

As far as the medical you are right we are all self grounding per 61.53 - Prohibition on operations during medical deficiency.

As the Sport pilot rating stands the medical is an odd mix of rules and requirements. As you know if you where ever denied a medical you are dead in the water, even for sport pilot, until you clear it. That process in not that clear or assured. You can't revert to the driver license and sport pilot rating once you flunk. On the other hand another Pilot who never failed a medical, because they never took one or knew they would flunk stopped getting one is good to go with the drivers license. Also as you point out per 61.53, there is really no legal relief for those who have a typical conditions that ground pilots, diabetes, heart conditions and so on. I should say legal relief since some pilots ignore their condition anyway, Private or Sport Pilot.

We will see, but with a lot of ultralight pilots out there with time credited to them already for their flying time, it may just surprise you. Also, with the lack of ultralights available it will be the only way for a lot of pilots that would have gone the ultralight route to legally fly. The choice is being taken away.

I also predict that it won't happen in 20 hours but for different reasons. Flight schools and many instructors aren't interested in teaching people to fly in 40 hours. There are reason$ why a lot of people can't learn that fast. Some don't have the time or money to devote. Some schools and instructors are more intere$ted in the $tudent taking a bit longer.

There will be some instructors that will support SP and will get their students through it with 20-30 hours. The plane itself doesn't have to cost more than a 150 or a 172 to rent because you can teach a SP in a 150 or 172. Only their check ride has to be done in an LSA.

Ultimately, SP will only succeed if it has support from CFIs. Doesn't matter how much the rest of the flying world loves or hates the idea it still comes back to the CFIs. If they don't like it, see value in it, agree to teach it, it will be just another rating that hardly no one has. The one part of aviation that I do see a lot of support for SP coming from is the ultralight guys, where thousands of pilots have been taught to fly, fly safely and abide by the rules all in about 20 hours. It's flying, not brain surgery.

Blame the CFI

RatMan said:

lack of ultralights available.....The choice is being taken away.

I also predict that it won't happen in 20 hours but for different reasons. Flight schools and many instructors aren't interested in teaching people to fly in 40 hours.

The plane itself doesn't have to cost more than a 150 or a 172 to rent because you can teach a SP in a 150 or 172. Only their check ride has to be done in an LSA.

Ultimately, SP will only succeed if it has support from CFIs.

It's flying, not brain surgery.

Click to expand...

RatMan I agree with you and than I don't. We are just shooting the breeze and talking about opinon. We both agree we shall see, as the Sport Pilots and LSA is not a sure successes.

I don't get your comment that the ultralight is being taken away or there's a lack or ultralights. You can build a groovy ultralight Kolb or Skybike for not a lot of money.

I don't agree FBO's and schools don't want to deal with Sport Pilots because they'll not make enough money. The market will dictate. If a "Sport Pilot's -R- Us Flight School" opens and is a big success, other's will follow. On the other hand you are right. If there is no market or money in it, they are not going to cater to Sport Pilots. I don't think it's because the training is shorter. Sport Pilots will need to buy the same pilot supplies, gas, rent planes (if available) and so on. The big problem is the LSA plane.

There is no large supply of LSA's to rent. Many I have seen look cute but they also look VERY light duty. LSA's cost $80,000. A FBO can buy, overhaul, upgrade and paint (as needed) two or three C-152's for the price of one fancy LSA. A metal C-152 gets a wrinkled firewall from a hard landing, the mechanics can drill the rivets out and repair it with used parts. A plastic LSA looks like a delicate thing. The LSA weight restiriction dictates their light duty design and construction. Clearly a cheap heavy duty LSA to fill the mass training market is needed. FBO's and flight schools are not willing to spend 80 large on a little two seat LSA trainer's for a dubious market. A C-172 can be used for training and rental. Also in the past Cessna sold C-150's for a loss to lead people to their other planes. A LSA pilot is not going to buy that Bonanza in the future. The market is not defined and therefore business is not willing to take a risk, yet. Time will tell.

I really disagree the success and failure of the Sport Pilot / LSA class is solely wheather it's support by CFI's. That is just not true. CFI's will teach people the same way they always have. There is no differnce in the basics. Yes a CFI will have to spend some time reading the regulations, practical test standards to come up with "lesson plans", but in the end the CFI's will fill the look book endorsement and airman's application out the same way but check the Sport Pilot box. We will use the same group of DE's (designated examiners). It's not a separate isolated thing. Just because the min time is only 20 hours will not deter many CFI's. The problem is most CFI's work for a school or FBO and they need access to a LSA to teach a sport pilot.

Also it should be mentioned there will be a way for pilots with 150 hours to become "Sport Pilot Instructors". So again I see this benifit the ultralight comunity. The SP flight instructor can of course only teach in a LSA. It still will require a two writtens and one practical (flight test) just like a regular CFI.

You mention flying a Cessna and than switching to a LSA for the check ride. The availability of LSA planes for rent and for check rides is an issue. I would not like to teach a student in a C-150 and than right before the check ride switch to a LSA plane, that they have no time in. In fact the Regs require the student to be signed off for the check ride in a plane that they have received a min time of training in; I recall about 3 hours, but it's proficiency. How long will it take someone to go from C-150 to low wing stick control LSA with different engine, instruments, procedures and checklist? You are asking for problems. It could be done, but far from ideal and will add to the 20 hours. Also, I can see flying some of these little LSA might be a problem for the "Big Boys". I recall a student or two that just did not fit in a C-152. One instructor would only teach in the C-172 because he was not comfortable in a C-152. I am sure there will be some of this going on.

My instructor and I had fun when I was a student. In one day I got to fly two differnt planes, C-172 and a Piper Warrior. They were just short flights, more for fun but also a point of refrence and motivation of things to come; my main ride however for most of the 40 hours of training was the mighty C-150, the best plane to do a fly-by in, because it last just so gosh darn long.

Yes George, we are just shooting the breeze and tossing out opinions. I just tossed mine out there as well.

gmcjetpilot said:

I don't get your comment that the ultralight is being taken away or there's a lack or ultralights. You can build a groovy ultralight Kolb or Skybike for not a lot of money.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that ultralight was being taken away, I said the choice was being taken away. For the last 20+ years people have had a choice of what they could fly, that choice is now being taken away. Soon (Jan 08) those with two seat ultralight trainers will have to have them registered and have a license to fly them. Well, they have had a license but they will be forced to have a licence from the FAA, not the EAA or USUA. You are correct in that you can build these machines BUT can they be built under the weight limit of 254 pounds and if so can they safely be flown by an average sized pilot?

Yes, ultralights are still there but with the single seat weight limit and the heavier but safer two seater going away choices are going away too. Not that this is a bad thing, just different.

gmcjetpilot said:

I don't agree FBO's and schools don't want to deal with Sport Pilots because they'll not make enough money. The market will dictate. If a "Sport Pilot's -R- Us Flight School" opens and is a big success, other's will follow. On the other hand you are right. If there is no market or money in it, they are not going to cater to Sport Pilots. I don't think it's because the training is shorter. Sport Pilots will need to buy the same pilot supplies, gas, rent planes (if available) and so on. The big problem is the LSA plane.

Click to expand...

I didn't say there wasn't enough money to be made, there is more money to be made than ever with SP. It's the mindset of the CFIs that will determine the success of SP. Some have already said they aren't interested in it. Some think 20 hours isn't enough. Some just will not want to teach it. People by there very nature are resistant to change. Time will tell.

gmcjetpilot said:

There is no large supply of LSA's to rent. Many I have seen look cute but they also look VERY light duty. LSA's cost $80,000. A FBO can buy, overhaul, upgrade and paint (as needed) two or three C-152's for the price of one fancy LSA. A metal C-152 gets a wrinkled firewall from a hard landing, the mechanics can drill the rivets out and repair it with used parts. A plastic LSA looks like a delicate thing. The LSA weight restiriction dictates their light duty design and construction. Clearly a cheap heavy duty LSA to fill the mass training market is needed. FBO's and flight schools are not willing to spend 80 large on a little two seat LSA trainer's for a dubious market. A C-172 can be used for training and rental. Also in the past Cessna sold C-150's for a loss to lead people to their other planes. A LSA pilot is not going to buy that Bonanza in the future. The market is not defined and therefore business is not willing to take a risk, yet. Time will tell.

Click to expand...

Not all LSAs are plastic some are cloth covered and have been used for decades to teach people to fly in. I agree a heavy duty one is needed for training and the Cub has a pretty good reputation for that. Maybe a T-Craft, Champ even?

gmcjetpilot said:

I really disagree the success and failure of the Sport Pilot / LSA class is solely wheather it's support by CFI's. That is just not true. CFI's will teach people the same way they always have. There is no differnce in the basics. Yes a CFI will have to spend some time reading the regulations, practical test standards to come up with "lesson plans", but in the end the CFI's will fill the look book endorsement and airman's application out the same way but check the Sport Pilot box. We will use the same group of DE's (designated examiners). It's not a separate isolated thing. Just because the min time is only 20 hours will not deter many CFI's. The problem is most CFI's work for a school or FBO and they need access to a LSA to teach a sport pilot.

Click to expand...

Like I said above, the CFIs will have to accept the rating first, then teach to the new standards without imposing self made requirements on the students like "hood time" or night flying, just in case. I've heard statements to that effect made by CFIs. Develop a lesson plan that will teach what is needed then stick to the curriculum. Then it's up to the student to determine how much time it will take.

gmcjetpilot said:

You mention flying a Cessna and than switching to a LSA for the check ride. The availability of LSA planes for rent and for check rides is an issue. I would not like to teach a student in a C-150 and than right before the check ride switch to a LSA plane, that they have no time in. In fact the Regs require the student to be signed off for the check ride in a plane that they have received a min time of training in; I recall about 3 hours, but it's proficiency. How long will it take someone to go from C-150 to low wing stick control LSA with different engine, instruments, procedures and checklist? You are asking for problems. It could be done, but far from ideal and will add to the 20 hours. Also, I can see flying some of these little LSA might be a problem for the "Big Boys". I recall a student or two that just did not fit in a C-152. One instructor would only teach in the C-172 because he was not comfortable in a C-152. I am sure there will be some of this going on.

Click to expand...

If I implied that they ONLY use the LSA for a checkride, I was wrong. Most of the training could be done in a 150 or 172 then the last few hours on an LSA, then the checkride. As I said earlier, Plenty of older, larger LSAs around that the "Big Boys" could fit in. If they are too big then that's not a problem either as SP defines what they must weigh. Gross weight is just that, gross weight and if they are over, then they can't fly anyway.

Don't take these comments wrong George, they are just opinions.

Rat

SP must use LSA for Solo

RatMan said:

If I implied that they ONLY use the LSA for a checkride, I was wrong. Most of the training could be done in a 150 or 172 then the last few hours on an LSA, then the checkride.

Click to expand...

Remember that all solo work must be done in LSA. I see no reason why some of the instruction can't be done in a 150/152, as these are cheap and readily available.