Oshkosh: Mosaic for Private and Sport Pilots session on Wed

[Baked Potato]

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....

Now you've got a LSA at best glide of, say, 62 knots slowly trundling along under a declared emergency right into one of the busiest airport areas on the planet. Put yourself in ATCs office for a moment and ask yourself how you feel about that.

The pilot may feel safer at the higher altitude over the Bravo, but I would surmise (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that ATC (and the FAA by proxy) doesn't want that hazard in their Class-B airspace.

See the incident below - play it out with him dropping from above into ORD, JFK, or ATL. Listen to the pilot and how he responds, then think about whether or not he has a driver's license that would qualify him to fly SP without a medical cert.

Every video I've seen like this (including this one) is from someone with a PPL

 

[jbarrass]

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.

Maybe not the FAA's "problem" but it is the DOT's. Some internal consistency at DOT would be welcome.

 

[Learnin’ to fly…]

I begin from the premise that planes don’t fall out of the sky due to the class of medical of the pilot (or the absence of a medical). The FAA agrees.

When they do fall from the sky, it is (statistically) an engine issue. The ability of the PIC to successfully handle that situation is more highly correlated to hours of experience and levels of recurrent training than to certificate level.

So - transiting the ORD Bravo - I would stand by my statement that the LSA with a 10x glide ratio at 10.5k or 11.5k feet has a MUCH better chance of making it to an open field or suitable airport than they would scooting under the shelf at 1700 feet. 20 miles of glide vs 3.

Above the shelf with 20 miles - C81, PWK, 3CK, 06C, DPA, ARR, 1C5, LOT - all in glide range from nearly anywhere. There are more - but I rest the point. Below the shelf, you are on short final for wherever you are going to land - you just don’t know it yet.

 

[TCABM]

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.

From a safety perspective >10K and hypoxia starts to become a real issue, so O2 becomes a requirement, which increases risk and complexity for the sport pilot.

 

[Learnin’ to fly…]

From a safety perspective >10K and hypoxia starts to become a real issue, so O2 becomes a requirement, which increases risk and complexity for the sport pilot.

No argument there - but that risk is present regardless of certificate level. It’s not like we are teaching management of o2 systems to a PPl ‘learner’ that is not being taught to SPL ‘learners’. If o2 systems introduce undue complexity - require systems training and endorsement for flight above 12.5 for SPL and PPL.

In the end - the climb performance of *most* GA or light sport a/c make it mostly theoretical anyway.

My point was in response to the notion that someone with an SPL should not fly over urban areas out of some concern for safety and that they might try to make an emergency landing at a class B or crash into masses of humanity. If that’s a real argument - higher is safer.