I know you know this, of course, but the LSA stall speed limit is calibrated airspeed.
, but after my accident the FAA never questioned my lack of a current medical.
There is discussion in the original NPRM about multi engine aircraft with "simplified controls" that have no adverse control problems due to an engine failure (don't recall the exact words), but there is no path for a sport pilot to have anything other than a single engine rating.
In the NPRM, the FAA notes that small turbines are used for some self-launch gliders.
I stand corrected.
Of course. The point being is that I cannot PROVE the airplane meets the Light Sport standard. The FAA doesn't require such proof for homebuilts, which is kind of refreshing for a government agency.
Well yes but the sport aircraft are limited to much slower speed, over 10k vfr limits change 1000 above and below, plus 1 mile viz. the 10k rule has always irked me, wish 10.5 and 11.5 were available for mountain areas in West.
I probably should have quoted the earlier post that speculated the 10k limit was due to speed.
Don’t say that too loud. I’m sure it’s an oversight.
Which always struck me as odd. Since a Sport Pilot cannot fly IMC, they should not be at 10k anyway (except <3 AGL). So why not appropriate VFR altitude limit of either 9.5 or 10.5?14 CFR § 61.315 (c) (11), sport pilots are not permitted to fly at an altitude of more than 10k (MSL) or 2k (AGL), whichever is higher.
So going over the mountains I can let 'er rip ...
Great question. VFR cruising altitudes start above 3000 AGL
What are you taking about? I’ve spent more than a hundred hours vfr over 10k.
14 CFR § 61.315 (c) (11) limits a Sport Pilot, or someone exercising as a Sport Pilot, to 10k (or 2k AGL).
Not to worry - I posted a link to ACS standards a few weeks ago that was, if I remember correctly, 15 years old. I swear it was dated 2024!
During the two years during which I exercised sport-pilot privileges, this didn't inconvenience me at all in areas of high terrain, because the VFR altitude rules don't apply while climbing or descending.
91.159 only applies to level cruising flight. So a SP could legally climb to 10K and circle there or do aerobatics.
For a whole 2 minutes!
which seems to say a Sport Pilot can't fly over 10k because doing so would require IMC flight which a SP can't do.
Given the "<3 AGL" I took it as a reference to the hemispherical rule and would be surprised if that's not what they were referring to.
No, the 2 minutes only applies to a holding pattern:
Or, the the Sport pilot with a glider rating could be in an LSA qualified glider.
No - just that 10k is an IFR cruising altitude (which a Sport Pilot should not be flying as they can not fly IMC) unless they were flying over an area with an elevation of more than 7001 ft in which case cruising altitude would not apply.
Yes, that’s right. I forgot about the “while turning” part.
That would make the legal altitude tolerance for a Sport Pilot -whatever/+0 feet. 10,000 gives a 500-ft buffer from a legal cruise altitude before a violation can be issued.
I know some people just want new airplanes, but this is what I've been telling people who ask if MOSAIC will help the Light Sport industry. My answer is no, I think it puts the final nail in their coffin. My friend works for a company that was designing an all-metal, two-place, folding wing airplane that could be tailwheel or nosewheel. It's a cool design, but they're already talking about what they want to do next if they cancel the project.
It would not surprise me if they are intentionally disallowing that option for SP.
I agree with you. I am a PP flying as a SP. it seems to me that if a SP can get an endorsement to fly into a Bravo, you should be able to get an endorsement to fly over it. It also seems to me that there should be some sort of an allowance if you hold the next rating or higher. I'm not less qualified because I'm operating as a sport pilot. There's ATPs flying as "sport" pilot's.....
The rules make it appear that they don't want anyone flying at higher altitudes without a medical of some sort. I don't think it has anything to do with the cert level, it's about the medical.
I own a light sport and have enjoyed not dealing with medicals. I also routinely fly over congested airspace here in florida. However, I must admit that recently I have been thinking about renewing my class 3 or getting basic med. Btw, daily, I'm way more worried about the hundreds of drivers (without medicals)crashing in to me than I am a pilot without a medical crashing into my house. I wonder how many "heart attack specials" go zooming by me everyday while in close proximity while on their phones.....
You're not wrong about relative risk of distracted drivers. That's not the FAAs problem, though, and I don't think that they will change their view of pilot risk where no medical evaluation has been performed.
I'm sure you are correct. BTW, I have agreed with all your points and have enjoyed the banter.
I am eligible and probably will go that route.
If safety is the goal - wouldn’t we prefer pilots at a higher altitude? I would argue a pilot transitioning a densely populated area at 10k feet with lots of glide range/options is safer than a pilot scooting underneath the shelf at 1700 feet and (nearly) no options.
Imagine someone in a LSA over Chicago who has a sudden problem. Where are they going to go? ORD? MDW? They're not going into Lake Michigan....