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.
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.