Fatal Crash at Sport Aviation Expo

[flyingcheesehead]

I figured a fly-in of pilots of sport or experimental aircraft is likely to produce a fatality.

Why do you figure that? What is it about sport or experimental aircraft that makes them dangerous, in your opinion?

It's like AirVenture kills at least one person per year on average.

"Airventure kills" NOBODY. Pilots kill themselves. I bet if you took any random sample of 10,000 airplanes that all flew in a given 10-day period, you'd find the accident rate roughly equivalent to AirVenture.

From what I've been told, the coroner's office actually keeps someone at AirVenture annually because of this.

Or maybe because with an event that roughly triples the population of the city and doubles the population of the county, several people are liable to drop dead from natural causes just walking around the grounds.

My stance is that just turning people loose with less training in less sturdy aircraft is a bad idea.

So we should put them under the hood for three hours, take them out at night for three hours, and throw them in a Bonanza instead?

 

[SteveinIndy]

How about everyone learn to fly safely in the airplane they're flying... no matter what type of certificate they hold?

That is the thrust of the concerns I am addressing about lower required experience.

Also, "flying safer" is only half of the equation in terms of reducing the number of friends we bury every year. The other side of it is demanding from designers that safety concessions be made in the design of their aircraft to reduce the things that very regularly cost pilots and passengers their lives (poorly designed fuel tanks, lack of cockpit protection, inadequate restraints to name a couple....)

 

[SteveinIndy]

Why do you figure that? What is it about sport or experimental aircraft that makes them dangerous, in your opinion?

Well, a lot of them (the Vans RV series) being a good example are plagued by a serious lack on occupant protection and lack of structural integrity protecting the fuel tanks in the event of a crash. That is my main problem with the categories because the first place they normally turn to in an attempt to reduce weight or improve performance (respectively) are the things that keep persons on board from dying. Of course, most of the commercially built designs that are relying heavily on composite construction have the same issues, but whenever the experimental community is questioned about why they don't address obvious issues (when it would be much easier to overhaul an aircraft design that is not made on an assembly line), the answer normally is "We are committed to safety and the experimental community is at the forefront of the push for implementation of safety-related design modifications" (quote I received from an e-mail from an EAA chapter president after one of their pilots crashed and was killed and I asked for help with the finding out performance characteristics of his aircraft since it was not a common model at all). However, it seems that such statements are empty political whitewash given that the same issues have persisted for years and any time they are brought up, the person doing so is simply accused of being "anti-general aviation". You would think that an organization would be eager to embrace anything that would keep it from having to bury it's members and its leadership.

That being said, I've found a few EAA members and other experimental enthusiasts to be some of the best pilots I know and quite helpful in regards to answering questions about experimental and sport aircraft.

"Airventure kills" NOBODY. Pilots kill themselves. I bet if you took any random sample of 10,000 airplanes that all flew in a given 10-day period, you'd find the accident rate roughly equivalent to AirVenture.

See my clarification of that statement. My original comment was just worded kind of oddly.

Or maybe because with an event that roughly triples the population of the city and doubles the population of the county, several people are liable to drop dead from natural causes just walking around the grounds.

I asked that actually because I was curious. According to the lady I spoke with at the county coroner's office, they only lose one or two people a year to natural causes at Airventure.

So we should put them under the hood for three hours, take them out at night for three hours, and throw them in a Bonanza instead?

If you want my honest opinion, I think we should increase the PPL time requirements by a number of hours. It's not just a bias against sport pilots, it's a genuine concern that has grown out of the fact that we lose a lot of good people in the first couple of hundred hours they are flying. More training is never a bad thing.

Also, compare the fatal (%) vs. non-fatal (%) vs. non-injury (%) crash rates of Bonanzas and common sport aircraft and tell me if the added speed and complexity of a Bonanza is not offset by the redundancy and increased integrity that in most cases accompanies the increase in weight.

 

[jmaynard]

My statement was about the requirements. Those requirements are direct results of the limitations: no nights, no Delta, no Charlie, no Bravo, no high, no fast.

The requirements are in the regs I cited and in the practical test standards - which, for those things that are included, are identical for private pilot and sport pilot. (Obviously, the PTS for sport pilot don't contain anything about night flying.) The PTS includes nothing about operations in oxygen altitudes for either certificate, nor does it include anything about operations in B/C/D airspace. Yes, the candidate must receive and log training in the latter for the private ticket, but there's no real way to verify that he has done so, and he's never realistically tested on the subject. I've been studying this very subject, since I'm working on a sport pilot CFI rating.

The regs you refer do not describe the training requirements or standards for either PP or Sport. The regs you refer to do give sort of an executive level view of the requirements. If one wishes to compare sport pilot with private pilot then I suggest they look at the entire picture not just a small subset of the requirements.

The regulations are where the requirements are stated, and the practical test standards are where their required level of performance is delineated. If it's not in the PTS, the examiner is not allowed to fail you on it.

If wishes were horses then pigs would fly and we'd all carry big umbrellas.

I agree that it's a wish. I'd like to see it. In the meantime, I'm not going to be crying in my beer over it.

Sport pilot is what it is. It's a choice I investigated and declined. Other folks will make other choices. I'd rather avoid misrepresenting the requirements, privileges and limitations.

I did not do so, and would not. As with airplanes, every pilot has different mission requirements, and those who don't feel the sport pilot ticket will fulfill them should get a private ticket. My point is that the differences in requirements and training for sport vs. private are related entirely to the privileges granted, and do not mean that a sport pilot is any less proficient, or any less safe, than a private pilot when operating within the privileges his ticket grants.

There's been an argument on here that sport pilots are less safe than private pilots. That argument is silly, because it's not based in fact. It's also dangerous in that it lets those who oppose general aviation as a whole divide and conquer us: if sport pilots aren't "real" pilots, why should we defend them? We must all stand together to protect our rights against those who would destroy them.

 

[jmaynard]

How about everyone learn to fly safely in the airplane they're flying... no matter what type of certificate they hold?

That is the thrust of the concerns I am addressing about lower required experience.

You've been complaining about it, but when facts that render your argument hollow are presented, you ignore them. Just what is it that makes a private pilot at 40 hours and a shiny new piece of paper safer than a sport pilot at 20 hours with his shiny new piece of paper for operations within the limitations of a sport pilot ticket?

Also, "flying safer" is only half of the equation in terms of reducing the number of friends we bury every year. The other side of it is demanding from designers that safety concessions be made in the design of their aircraft to reduce the things that very regularly cost pilots and passengers their lives (poorly designed fuel tanks, lack of cockpit protection, inadequate restraints to name a couple....)

This is not a matter of the sport pilot rule. This is a matter of the simple fact that airplanes are expensive and safety features are heavy. Fixing it would require not only improved power to weight ratios, and lower fuel burns, but also scrapping hundreds of thousands of older aircraft that don't meet the standards you advocate. You can, and will, get just as dead in a 1946 J-3 or a 1979 172 as you will in my 2008 Zodiac. The only answer is pilots. We, as pilots, hold our safety pretty much completely in our own hands. You're right in that we need to train safe pilots - but that's true no matter what certificate they hold and no matter what aircraft they fly.

 

[jmaynard]

If you want my honest opinion, I think we should increase the PPL time requirements by a number of hours. It's not just a bias against sport pilots, it's a genuine concern that has grown out of the fact that we lose a lot of good people in the first couple of hundred hours they are flying. More training is never a bad thing.

At some point, though, you have to push them out of the nest and let them learn on their own. The reason for the bump in accident rates in the first few hundred hours is that the new pilot hasn't yet had the bad experiences to form good judgment. The problem is that you can't teach those experiences and have them stick. Learning just doesn't work that way. You can't teach attitudes, or behaviors, either. Oh, sure, you can try, and the FOI exam covers lots of things in that field, but in the end, it's all up to the individual pilot and how he approaches life - and no number of hours in an aircraft will ever be enough to overcome years of life experience.

 

[bullwinkle]

I've a friend who is a very experienced LSA instructor (and has the full "Real" CFI ratings and such too). What she has told me tracks with the message AVEMCO was supposed to announce at Sebring. LSAs are different aircraft, and they fly differently than the aircraft you are used to. My friend cites a lack of rudder proficiency in pilots transitioning to LSAs, and a completely different sight picture.

Avemco was supposed to announce that they were requiring five hours of dual for insurance purposes. These are not "just like your 172, only smaller" aircraft.

Have no idea about the cause of this accident, but my info is that the majority of accidents in LSAs are in the final approach and landing phase where control isn't maintained.

I think your last statement is generally true of most GA aircraft, is it not? My understanding is that landing and RLOC accidents are in the top 3 causes of accidents in all types.

I'm currently training for my SP certificate in a Zodiac 601XL. In my first lesson My (real) CFI said that a lot of people try to go SP to save money, but he has never seen a student that took significantly less hours to train for SP than PP.

I can confirm, having briefly been at the controls of a C-172, that the Zodiac seems harder to fly. Most of that difficulty has to do with the low weight; it is much more sensitive in all control axes, and more subject to wind and turbulence effects. My CFI has a lower wind threshold in the Zodiac than in a Skyhawk...there are days he'll just say "too windy to fly the Zodiac" when he'd happily trundle off in a Skyhawk.

That said, I think the real issue is not the piece of paper the pilot holds, but rather proper ADM. If you know the limits of yourself and your hardware and strictly avoid those limits, your chance of being a grim statistic are greatly reduced.

 

[bullwinkle]

We've debunked this one before. There are exactly two differences in the requirements for sport pilot vs. private pilot: no night flying, and no hood flying. The first is because sport pilots aren't allowed to fly at night. The second is an oversight, IMAO, and there's an NPRM out about changes to the sport pilot rule that would add such a requirement.

Agreed. In my SP training, I plan to "add in" some of the stuff not in the standard PTS. I'm planning to ask my CFI for some hood time so that I'll be a better prepared pilot. I think a SP has as much chance as any other VFR pilot to wander into a cloud (or make a mistake and get caught in the air after dark in the case of a SP); it would be foolish not to prepare for that possibility with some training in flying by reference to instruments.

 

[jmaynard]

Agreed. In my SP training, I plan to "add in" some of the stuff not in the standard PTS. I'm planning to ask my CFI for some hood time so that I'll be a better prepared pilot. I think a SP has as much chance as any other VFR pilot to wander into a cloud (or make a mistake and get caught in the air after dark in the case of a SP); it would be foolish not to prepare for that possibility with some training in flying by reference to instruments.

I agree completely. FWIW, before I took delivery of my airplane, I made a point of getting some hood time in, concentrating on holding heading and altitude and making coordinated turns...the goal being to make sure that I could make a 180-degree turn in IMC and fly back to the better weather I just came from. I think every pilot should be able to do this (assuming his airplane is suitably equipped), and plan to teach my students that much as well - whether or not it's required.

 

[Clark1961]

The requirements are in the regs I cited and in the practical test standards - which, for those things that are included, are identical for private pilot and sport pilot. (Obviously, the PTS for sport pilot don't contain anything about night flying.) The PTS includes nothing about operations in oxygen altitudes for either certificate, nor does it include anything about operations in B/C/D airspace. Yes, the candidate must receive and log training in the latter for the private ticket, but there's no real way to verify that he has done so, and he's never realistically tested on the subject. I've been studying this very subject, since I'm working on a sport pilot CFI rating.


The regulations are where the requirements are stated, and the practical test standards are where their required level of performance is delineated. If it's not in the PTS, the examiner is not allowed to fail you on it.


I agree that it's a wish. I'd like to see it. In the meantime, I'm not going to be crying in my beer over it.


I did not do so, and would not. As with airplanes, every pilot has different mission requirements, and those who don't feel the sport pilot ticket will fulfill them should get a private ticket. My point is that the differences in requirements and training for sport vs. private are related entirely to the privileges granted, and do not mean that a sport pilot is any less proficient, or any less safe, than a private pilot when operating within the privileges his ticket grants.

There's been an argument on here that sport pilots are less safe than private pilots. That argument is silly, because it's not based in fact. It's also dangerous in that it lets those who oppose general aviation as a whole divide and conquer us: if sport pilots aren't "real" pilots, why should we defend them? We must all stand together to protect our rights against those who would destroy them.

Jay, you have referred to a subset of the requirements for both PP and SP. There is no denying that. Your claim that training requirements are not part of the requirement for the certificate is just ludicrous. Then you go on to slander instructors by expressing doubt about the integrity of instructors with regard to those training requirements.

I will say that it is clear you mis-represent the difference between SP and PP with your claim that the only difference is no nights and no hoods.

I'm not going to argue further with you on this.

 

[EppyGA]

Agreed. In my SP training, I plan to "add in" some of the stuff not in the standard PTS. I'm planning to ask my CFI for some hood time so that I'll be a better prepared pilot. I think a SP has as much chance as any other VFR pilot to wander into a cloud (or make a mistake and get caught in the air after dark in the case of a SP); it would be foolish not to prepare for that possibility with some training in flying by reference to instruments.

Actually when I first started at The Flight School in the Zodiac my instructor at the time put me behind some foggles early on.

 

[poadeleted20]

Of course the night and cross country requirements are less for sport pilots but this portion of flight does not contribute significantly to the sport pilot accidents.

As well they should not, since Sport Pilots are prohibited from flying at night.

 

[jmaynard]

Jay, you have referred to a subset of the requirements for both PP and SP. There is no denying that. Your claim that training requirements are not part of the requirement for the certificate is just ludicrous. Then you go on to slander instructors by expressing doubt about the integrity of instructors with regard to those training requirements.

I'll only reply to your comment about slandering instructors with a question: If those additional requirements are so important, why doesn't the FAA test on them?

There's no requirement that a private pilot get any time at all in an aircraft with a maximum cruising speed in level flight (Vh) over 87 knots. Many private pilots got their tickets without a single hour in anything bigger or faster than a J-3.

I just looked in the rules, and there's no specific requirement that a private pilot ever have received training in operating in class B/C/D airspace. There are requirements for students wishing to operate in that airspace, and a required signoff for recreational and sport pilots, but none at all for private pilots! Before you tell me I'm full of prunes, read the rules, especially 61.105, 61.107, and 61.109. If it's not in the rules, it's not required, period. That does in no way mean it's a good idea not to include that training, but it's not required, and this discussion is about requirements (because the original comment was that sport pilots aren't as safe as private pilots because they're not required to be trained as well).

I will say that it is clear you mis-represent the difference between SP and PP with your claim that the only difference is no nights and no hoods.

That's the only difference in required training. I have not said, and will not say to anyone, that there are not limitations that apply to sport pilots and not private pilots; that would be a disservice to those looking at what ticket to get.

I'm not going to argue further with you on this.

Your choice, of course, but if you again misrepresent my statements, I'm going to call you on it.

 

[EppyGA]

So this whole thread started with the accident yesterday at Sebring. We're going back and forth about the amount of training a Sport Pilot gets.

If I were a betting man I would bet that the pilot of the plane that crashed holds a PP certificate.

Except for circumstances I would hold a Sport Pilot certificate now. Since my training has spanned 38 years and circumstances of not having an instructor for a month and the fact that I had 30 hours under my belt at that point I went ahead and with PP as I had intended to do back in 1970 when I first began.

I still have an interest in LSA airplanes since the majority of my flying will be me and my wife going on short trips. Right now I have to rent so I'll be flying 172's or and Archer that is nearby. If I were in the market for a new plane though something like the Tecnam Eaglet would be mighty attractive. They have been in business since 1948. The U.S. distributor has a lot of experience and seems commited to what he has going and for around $150,000 you can get the plane IFR equipped.

Randy

 

[jmaynard]

So this whole thread started with the accident yesterday at Sebring. We're going back and forth about the amount of training a Sport Pilot gets.

That's because one guy with an apparent axe to grind against sport pilots - or, indeed, those who do not measure up to his lofty standards, which includes every sport pilot by his definition - used the accident to push his agenda.

If I were a betting man I would bet that the pilot of the plane that crashed holds a PP certificate.

Good question. We'll find out in due course.

I still have an interest in LSA airplanes since the majority of my flying will be me and my wife going on short trips. Right now I have to rent so I'll be flying 172's or and Archer that is nearby. If I were in the market for a new plane though something like the Tecnam Eaglet would be mighty attractive. They have been in business since 1948. The U.S. distributor has a lot of experience and seems commited to what he has going and for around $150,000 you can get the plane IFR equipped.

The Tecnam (in my case, the Sierra) was the other airplane I seriously considered. They, and other available LSAs, are fine aircraft and, like any airplane, are just as safe as the pilot flying them. Yes, there's crap in the LSA marketplace, just as there is in any marketplace. That's why a buyer needs to research his options carefully before signing the paper. I daresay that it was just as possible to buy a lousy airplane in 1955 as it is now.

 

[poadeleted20]

I just looked in the rules, and there's no specific requirement that a private pilot ever have received training in operating in class B/C/D airspace.

That's not true. While there is no requirement to actually do flight training in any of these classes of airspace (the 61.109(a)(5)(iii) requirement for takeoffs and landings at a towered airport can be accomplished at a non-B/C/D towered airport), and the requirement for training in operating in class B/C/D airspace is not explicitly stated in 14 CFR 61.105/107, applicants are required by 61.39 to have received training for and be prepared to pass the practical test. Since the PP-Airplane PTS includes a requirement to know "Airspace classes—their operating rules, pilot certification, and airplane equipment requirements" to pass Area I, Task E, that training is implicitly required, at least on the ground if not in the air.

Further, even though flight training in B/C/D airspace is not specifically required by the regulations for PP-Airplane, it is my opinion that unless there is no B/C airport within fuel range of the training location, an instructor would be remiss in his/her professional responsibilities if s/he signed off a PP applicant without going into B/C airspace at least once. In addition, questions on B/C/D airspace are part of the knowledge test bank, so failure to include ground training on those areas would be equally irresponsible.

 

[jmaynard]

Since the PP-Airplane PTS includes a requirement to know "Airspace classes—their operating rules, pilot certification, and airplane equipment requirements" to pass Area I, Task E, that training is implicitly required, at least on the ground if not in the air.

That's my point...because that training is not specifically required, and not explicitly tested, for either private pilots or sport pilots, it's not a difference in the two classes of license for the purposes of this discussion. (I don't have my sport pilot PTS handy; I'll look it up when I go out to the airport in a bit, but I suspect that's in the corresponding task, too.)

Further, even though flight training in B/C/D airspace is not specifically required by the regulations for PP-Airplane, it is my opinion that unless there is no B/C airport within fuel range of the training location, an instructor would be remiss in his/her professional responsibilities if s/he signed off a PP applicant without going into B/C airspace at least once.

I absolutely agree. For that matter, I can't see a CFI-SP signing off an applicant without having done so, though the aircraft involved might change the definition of "within range". I certainly would not do so myself. Again, it's not about what should be taught, but what is required to be taught.

In addition, questions on B/C/D airspace are part of the knowledge test bank, so failure to include ground training on those areas would be equally irresponsible.

They're on the sport pilot test, too, so a sport pilot is supposed to know them just as a private pilot is, even though he may not be authorized to fly there.

 

[gismo]

Further, even though flight training in B/C/D airspace is not specifically required by the regulations for PP-Airplane, it is my opinion that unless there is no B/C airport within fuel range of the training location, an instructor would be remiss in his/her professional responsibilities if s/he signed off a PP applicant without going into B/C airspace at least once. In addition, questions on B/C/D airspace are part of the knowledge test bank, so failure to include ground training on those areas would be equally irresponsible.

Personally, I think the whole notion of training to the literal standards of the FARs and PTS is nonsense and to some extent the idea that any pilot is "fully trained" when they pass their PPL checkride is also seriously flawed even if that training exceeds regulatory requirements by a large margin. We've all been taught that any pilot certificate is really a "license to learn" and I can't believe that anyone really thinks that it will ever be practical to instill all the knowledge by expanding training requirements that most pilots interested in furthering their piloting capabilities can achieve by the time they have amassed a few hundred hours of real world experience beyond their first checkride.

Heck, I'm still learning (and hopefully at a faster rate than I'm "unlearning" good stuff) and I'm way beyond the 250 hr graduate school of flying.

So IMO, required training plus ad hoc additional efforts by good CFIs is always going to leave gaps in the capabilities of newly minted pilots that can only be filled with experience (and further training). Part of the reason for this is the varied missions of different pilots. There's little point in obtaining proficiency in night landings if you never fly past sundown. Navigation by VORs and NDBs is of no value to a pilot who limits his flying to within 25 miles of the home drome. Learning how to deal with TRACONS and control towers won't benefit a pilot who only flies aircraft with no radios. And even the limited ability to remain upright inside a cloud will be of no help to a pilot who's airplane's flight instruments are limited to altimeter, airspeed, and compass.

Where I think the current training rules and programs could be improved is in the area of recognizing one's limitations and techniques for remaining inside the limited environment where a particular set of skills and knowledge is sufficient for safe flight. For instance, in my PPL training it was made clear that I should avoid those puffy white things in the sky by very specific margins lest they wrest control of my ship from me and or allow me to be surprised by another aircraft exiting from their innards in my vicinity. Yet I was never given any methods, tools, or skills to accomplish that, just a graphic chart of the cloud separation and visibilty requirements. I wasn't even told or shown what kind of situations should be avoided to prevent accidental encounters of the IMC kind beyond the notion of "don't scud run" and "start your IR training ASAP".

Coupled with this IMO, is the propagation of the myth that airplanes are a practical means of long distance travel, much like cars only faster and more free, albeit more expensive. I think that instructors, fellow pilots (mentors etc), and schools allow this pretense out of fear that the number of pilots will decline without it, yet it's pretty clear to me that such an expectation is at the very root of a large majority of serious airplane accidents. Even the IR training leads pilots down the same rosy path to some extent. VFR pilot's are told all the time that they need to get their IR so they can "fully utilize" their flying ability yet that rating just opens several new cans of hazards like icing, embedded thunderstorms, and temptations to fly below MDAs and DAs without sufficient visual input. Again (at least in my case) the new risk areas were mentioned but little if any useful information was conveyed during training about how to use the IR in a practical manner while avoiding them completely.

BTW, I seem to have gotten a bit far off from the topic at hand: the relative lack of necesary training for SP vs PPL. And on that particular subject I wanted to say that I think that aside from the above mentioned lack of hazard avoidance training, I personally believe that both groups are on the average, equally trained to the level necessary to safely expand their knowledge and skills within the limits of their respective privileges. There are no doubt sport pilots who are undertrained but I don't feel that they comprise any greater proportion of the total SP population than the undertrainded PPLs do of theirs.

 

[EppyGA]

That's because one guy with an apparent axe to grind against sport pilots - or, indeed, those who do not measure up to his lofty standards, which includes every sport pilot by his definition - used the accident to push his agenda.


Good question. We'll find out in due course.


The Tecnam (in my case, the Sierra) was the other airplane I seriously considered. They, and other available LSAs, are fine aircraft and, like any airplane, are just as safe as the pilot flying them. Yes, there's crap in the LSA marketplace, just as there is in any marketplace. That's why a buyer needs to research his options carefully before signing the paper. I daresay that it was just as possible to buy a lousy airplane in 1955 as it is now.

Here's the answer to one of the questions:

MICHAEL THOMAS KOSTELAC

Address
Street 5163 ADVANCE MILLS RDCity EARLYSVILLE State VACounty ALBEMARLEZip Code 22936-1838Country USA

Medical
Medical Class: FirstMedical Date: 7/2008


Certificates
1 of 2
12
DOI:2/27/2004Certificate:COMMERCIAL PILOT
Rating(s):
COMMERCIAL PILOT
AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE




Obviously not a Sport Pilot. Hmmmm.

 

[PittsDriver]

Why do they need flaps in an airplane that lands at 30 MPH?

Because it might not fare well when landed at 40? It would not be wise to assume that these aircraft are as sturdy as most certified CAR 23 aircraft. There was a well known LSA type that cartwheeled on landing at my home field last year and there wasn't much of it left too large to fit in a 55 gal drum. Looking over the wreckage, it surprised me how thinly built they are. The prop was nothing more than a fiberglass cover over what looked like styrofoam.

To be clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them and it personally excites me to see how inexpensively and simply a pretty capable aircraft can be made. I just would guard against thinking you've got much substantial around you and use it with that in mind. Our certified CAR 23 aircraft have an tremendous amount of robustness built in to them that is easy to take for granted if that's all you've flown.

 

[KennyFlys]

To add to what Lance said, the PTS should be considered just that, the standard. It is by no means the minimum level to which the student should be taught. Personally, I believe the PTS falls far short in a few areas; night flight being the most likely used but requiring only three hours. Mine will get at least five hours or more if possible.

None of the primary students I have will go to a check ride with less than two hours of actual instrument time. That's going to be either solid IMC or buried in the tops with a constant distraction . The ground won't be found.

There's no limit to actual my instrument students will get. That's why I'm glad to see Nick have such an instructor.

When it comes to the Flight Review, it seems short on what should be required. Instrument currency is a joke to me. My experience with a pilot last week proved this. He'd had an instrument rating since 1991 and had kept it current all along. But, just that... "current." The concept of proficiency didn't exist in his skill set, at least not where flying was concerned. He was the prime example of GPS dependency unknowingly waiting for the point it's not going to save him.

So, where does all this hot air fit when discussing Sport Pilots? They need to be trained to meet the PTS then throw it out the window because it shouldn't stop there. Proficiency is everything regardless of what certificate or rating you hold. If you don't maintain it and do so consistently throughout your flying adventures, sooner or later it's going to catch up with you.

The Sport Pilot certificate is a good thing. It does get more folks active and adds to our ranks of pilots on the roster. But, I hope any CFI who has a prospective student show up for the Sport Pilot Certificate who mentions how it "requires less" either shows them the door. Or, he or she the guts to discuss with them the need for a high level of safety and proficiency. Without the reinforcement that any airman certificate is a license to learn, it will more likely lead to a death of certificate.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

None of the primary students I have will go to a check ride with less than two hours of actual instrument time.

That will be hard to do in a lot of places in this country.

When it comes to the Flight Review, it seems short on what should be required. Instrument currency is a joke to me.

Well, I apparently am in the minority on this one. I feel that is an IPC issue, not a FR issue.

The Sport Pilot certificate is a good thing. It does get more folks active and adds to our ranks of pilots on the roster. But, I hope any CFI who has a prospective student show up for the Sport Pilot Certificate who mentions how it "requires less" either shows them the door.

In other words, if they don't want to go all the way to PPL don't bother?

Or, he or she the guts to discuss with them the need for a high level of safety and proficiency.

Well, that goes without saying (well, maybe not) for ANY cert or rating.

Without the reinforcement that any airman certificate is a license to learn, it will more likely lead to a death of certificate.

But does that mean training to an unreasonable standard for the rating being sought?

 

[poadeleted20]

That's my point...because that training is not specifically required, and not explicitly tested, for either private pilots or sport pilots,

I think you missed my point -- it is explicitly tested for PP-Airplane, for which the applicant must demonstrate knowledge of

Airspace classes—their operating rules, pilot certification, and airplane equipment requirements

for all classes of airspace. The Sport Pilot PTS requires a lesser standard, which is only knowing:

1. Sport pilot privileges applicable to the following classes of airspace:
a. Class B
b. Class C
c. Class D
d. Class E
e. Class G

I absolutely agree. For that matter, I can't see a CFI-SP signing off an applicant without having done so,

Unless the SP trainee wants the 61.325 endorsements for B/C/D airspace, I would not bother doing so. A simple "here's what it looks like on the chart, stay out!" would be sufficient for me.

They're on the sport pilot test, too, so a sport pilot is supposed to know them just as a private pilot is,

I think you should review the relevant question banks again -- I don't believe the SP questions cover as much of the relevant material.

 

[poadeleted20]

Well, I apparently am in the minority on this one. I feel that is an IPC issue, not a FR issue.

Considering the VFR-into-IMC accident stats, I require a bit of hood time as part of a flight review, even if all you have is the 91.205(b) minimum day VFR instrumentation, in which case you will get a few minutes of S&L, a 180 turn, and at least one unusual attitude recovery (the old nose-low "dead man's" spiral is the usual killer) on "needle, ball, and airspeed."

 

[Clark1961]

I'll only reply to your comment about slandering instructors with a question: If those additional requirements are so important, why doesn't the FAA test on them?

There's no requirement that a private pilot get any time at all in an aircraft with a maximum cruising speed in level flight (Vh) over 87 knots. Many private pilots got their tickets without a single hour in anything bigger or faster than a J-3.

I just looked in the rules, and there's no specific requirement that a private pilot ever have received training in operating in class B/C/D airspace. There are requirements for students wishing to operate in that airspace, and a required signoff for recreational and sport pilots, but none at all for private pilots! Before you tell me I'm full of prunes, read the rules, especially 61.105, 61.107, and 61.109. If it's not in the rules, it's not required, period. That does in no way mean it's a good idea not to include that training, but it's not required, and this discussion is about requirements (because the original comment was that sport pilots aren't as safe as private pilots because they're not required to be trained as well).


That's the only difference in required training. I have not said, and will not say to anyone, that there are not limitations that apply to sport pilots and not private pilots; that would be a disservice to those looking at what ticket to get.


Your choice, of course, but if you again misrepresent my statements, I'm going to call you on it.

Jay, I have not misrepresented your statements. You have clearly misrepresented your position. Your position is that the only difference between SP and PP PTS (note the PTS here) is no hood and no night. That position is still false. PP PTS does not require night flight, e.g. the FAA does not test it.

In any case the PTS is a subset of the training and limitations for each certificate. In other words it is pointless to base and argument about the quality of each certificate merely on the PTS for that certificate.

Wake up and smell the coffee Jay. You can try to deal from a short deck all you want but those of us who pay just a little bit of attention recognize it for what it is.

 

[jmaynard]

I think you missed my point -- it is explicitly tested for PP-Airplane, for which the applicant must demonstrate knowledge offor all classes of airspace.

Originally Posted by PP-A PTS
Airspace classes—their operating rules, pilot certification, and airplane equipment requirements

The Sport Pilot PTS requires a lesser standard, which is only knowing:

Originally Posted by SP PTS
1. Sport pilot privileges applicable to the following classes of airspace:
a. Class B
b. Class C
c. Class D
d. Class E
e. Class G

What's there to know about sport pilot privileges for class B/C/D airspace, if not the operating rules, pilot certification, and airplane equipment requirements? The only things different from the private rules are that a sport pilot always needs 1000 and 3, and the 500/1000/2000 rule always applies except in class G below 1200 AGL and class B - but that's due to the rules being different, not a lowering of requirements.

Unless the SP trainee wants the 61.325 endorsements for B/C/D airspace, I would not bother doing so. A simple "here's what it looks like on the chart, stay out!" would be sufficient for me.

Hm. I would argue that the training provides sufficient benefit that the student should get it unless there was a really good reason not to...but then, I'm also one who believes a pilot should be completely comfortable talking on the radio and working with ATC, because the benefits are so great and the costs so minimal.

I think you should review the relevant question banks again -- I don't believe the SP questions cover as much of the relevant material.

Questions on B/C/D airspace are in the sport pilot question bank. Therefore, even if the goal is just to stay away from it, the student needs to know what it is and where it can be found, as well as what to do should he find himself in it. The questions do indeed cover the size, location, equipment, procedural, and training requirements. Again, what else is there?

 

[jmaynard]

Jay, I have not misrepresented your statements. You have clearly misrepresented your position. Your position is that the only difference between SP and PP PTS (note the PTS here) is no hood and no night. That position is still false. PP PTS does not require night flight, e.g. the FAA does not test it.

I didn't say PTS, I said the rules and the PTS. That statement is completely correct. I mentioned the PTS because there's lots of old wives' tales out there about that is or is not required, and the PTS covers what the FAA considers important enough to test. I maintain the difference between the required training for private and sport is no hood time and no night time, and that's borne out by the rules and the PTS. If I'm wrong, show me where - by citing the rules and PTS parts that back up your point. I've done so. You haven't.

Wake up and smell the coffee Jay. You can try to deal from a short deck all you want but those of us who pay just a little bit of attention recognize it for what it is.

I'm trying to show that the comment - that sport pilots aren't trained enough to be safe - is utter hogwash, by pointing out that the training and testing standards are the same except for those differences that are there because of the difference in privileges in the two tickets. There's a lot of sentiment in the aviation world that sport pilots aren't "real" pilots. That sentiment needs to go away, because it's just plain 100% wrong.

 

[EppyGA]

Back to the beginning.......

We're arguing whether sport pilots have adequate training based on an accident at Sebring.

The pilot didn't hold a sport pilot certificate he holds a commercial with an instrument and is a CFI.

So what's the point?

 

[Everskyward]

So what's the point?

Especially since we don't even know the cause of the accident yet.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Back to the beginning.......

We're arguing whether sport pilots has adequate training based on an accident at Sebring.

The pilot didn't hold a sport pilot certificate he hold a commercial with an instrument and is a CFI.

So what's the point?

While low time pilots may account for an inordinate amount of accidents as a whole, I believe a different conclusion is reached when you look at fatal accidents only.

 

[steingar]

People crash at airshows and fly-ins because they represent an unusual environment. The concerns and distractions at a big airshow are unlike those at air strips (at lease those into which I fly ). It is easy to become distracted when sighting aircraft in every quadrant, and a distracted pilot is a dangerous one.

I suspect experimental aircraft have a higher fatality rate than certificateds for two reasons. The first is that manufacturing defects in experimentals (builder errors) cause a significant number of crashes not seen in certificated aircraft. The second is that many experimentals (Vans included, if I'm not mistaken) have thinner wings, which give them higher cruise velocities, but also give them higher landing speeds. More speed means more energy, much, much more because of the inverse square laws. More energy to dissipate in the crash.

 

[Trapper John]

Especially since we don't even know the cause of the accident yet.

Since when did we let that stop us?


Trapper John

 

[KennyFlys]

...

None of the primary students I have will go to a check ride with less than two hours of actual instrument time.

That will be hard to do in a lot of places in this country.

Accomplish it were possible. At the very least, don't let it be limited to three hours under the hood. I had one guy come to me in Conroe from a "professional" pilot program at a Lousiana college. He had 2.9 hours of hood time scattered over 17 separate flights. What the heck was accomplished by that? He was also short by a half hour of night time.

I convinced him that was far from adequate by reviewing different scenarios. So, we did a night flight with most of it him being under the hood. At the time I did not have an IFR certified aircraft nor was there IMC. But, that would have been my first preference.

When it comes to the Flight Review, it seems short on what should be required. Instrument currency is a joke to me.

Well, I apparently am in the minority on this one. I feel that is an IPC issue, not a FR issue.

What I was saying is I feel the Flight Review requirements are far too lax. To take that further, the instrument currency rules are a joke and probably should be an IPC on a bi-annual basis if not annual. I don't think we have a clue how many instrument rated pilots are out there unknowingly waiting for the time to kill themselves and others.

The Sport Pilot certificate is a good thing. It does get more folks active and adds to our ranks of pilots on the roster. But, I hope any CFI who has a prospective student show up for the Sport Pilot Certificate who mentions how it "requires less" either shows them the door.

In other words, if they don't want to go all the way to PPL don't bother?

I was referring to the potential student (SP or PP) who thinks being a pilot stops at just completing the PTS and completing a checkride. We have plenty of them out there. It's the SP rules that allow one to think they can slide on less and be just as well off. That's far from the truth.

Or, he or she the guts to discuss with them the need for a high level of safety and proficiency.

Well, that goes without saying (well, maybe not) for ANY cert or rating.

It should but most of the time it doesn't.

Without the reinforcement that any airman certificate is a license to learn, it will more likely lead to a death of certificate.

But does that mean training to an unreasonable standard for the rating being sought?

I think the only way to answer that is to say I believe the PTS as published is a low standard. In other words, it produces the mediocre pilot at best. We need to meet that and continue without a ceiling on our skills. You will never be a safe and proficient pilot without doing so; regardless of your certificate level or ratings held.

Neal Boortz put it pretty much in perspective with this statement:
"Only the mediocre are always at their best."

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Considering the VFR-into-IMC accident stats, I require a bit of hood time as part of a flight review, even if all you have is the 91.205(b) minimum day VFR instrumentation, in which case you will get a few minutes of S&L, a 180 turn, and at least one unusual attitude recovery (the old nose-low "dead man's" spiral is the usual killer) on "needle, ball, and airspeed."

I have no problem with that. But to train an instrument pilot to IPC standards is beyond the scope of the FR in my opinion.

 

[EppyGA]

I'll wait for the flaming to start, but compared to the training most kids go through to get a drivers license and then the test where they drive around a parking lot and park between a couple of cones and then are turned loose on the highway our discussion here pales. At least with pilot training there is someone that determines that the student is ready for the check ride. No endorsement no check ride. Very few get signed off after 40 hours or 20 hours for sport pilot. We depend on our CFI's and then the DPE's to make sure someone is safe before he/she is anointed a pilot. To get a drivers license you just need to be the proper age and drive around the parking lot. Then we turn them loose on the highway and they end right next to you at 75 MPH or headed toward you in the opposite direction. Most of them have probably never been trained what to do or not to do should they drop a tire off the shoulder. When it actually happens, with any luck there is no one coming in the other direction that they will hit head on. I guess it's all perspective. Who do you think is more likely to kill you. Randy

 

[markb5900]

I'll wait for the flaming to start, but compared to the training most kids go through to get a drivers license and then the test where they drive around a parking lot and park between a couple of cones and then are turned loose on the highway our discussion here pales. At least with pilot training there is someone that determines that the student is ready for the check ride. No endorsement no check ride. Very few get signed off after 40 hours or 20 hours for sport pilot. We depend on our CFI's and then the DPE's to make sure someone is safe before he/she is anointed a pilot. To get a drivers license you just need to be the proper age and drive around the parking lot. Then we turn them loose on the highway and they end right next to you at 75 MPH or headed toward you in the opposite direction. Most of them have probably never been trained what to do or not to do should they drop a tire off the shoulder. When it actually happens, with any luck there is no one coming in the other direction that they will hit head on. I guess it's all perspective. Who do you think is more likely to kill you. Randy

Understand your point and it is a valid one.
I see it as just not logistically possible in a car unless you have access to a skid pan or something.
In a plane, "we" can practice things that will kill you and recover from them. In a car, to practice them, could very easily ACTUALLY kill you.
Also, since the normal "driver's ed" instructor is the football coach that has to have a "real" teaching job to justify him being there, it isn't like they are trained to the standards that a CFI is.

Mark B

 

[alaskaflyer]

Understand your point and it is a valid one.
I see it as just not logistically possible in a car unless you have access to a skid pan or something.

Mark B

It is possible. Easily possible, to get proper driving lessons. Difference is, unlike crazy pilot-wannabees, no one wants to spend the money or the time. It's in our nature as Americans to have the God-given right to take a 2000 lb projectile out onto the road with no proper training.

 

[poadeleted20]

I have no problem with that. But to train an instrument pilot to IPC standards is beyond the scope of the FR in my opinion.

Concur. It's a flight review, not an IPC. For the average nonprofessional pilot, I view it as a quick and dirty PP practical test tailored to the flying they do in the plane they fly. If they fly IFR, I'll get that stuff on the IPC (unless they want FR/IPC all together). But for a non-IR PP, we're going to do at least a tenth or two of hood work just to make sure they don't die if they blunder into a cloud.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Since Jay is not a CFI and won't be be signing anyone off to take either a PP or SP practical test, his interpretation of the rules/PTS won't affect anyone else, so I think we've covered this issue adequately.

Ron,

That is quite possibly the worst post I've ever seen from you. You not only didn't add anything to the discussion, you belittled Jay and made it seem that since he's not a CFI he's not worth the answer, AND...

...Unless you've not been paying any attention to Jay in the last several months at all, you know that Jay *IS* working on becoming a Sport Pilot CFI.

So no, you (and the other person) did not cover the issue adequately, and I have yet to see any substantiation that what Jay is saying is wrong. IMHO, nits can be picked, but when it comes down to it, Jay is correct in what he's saying in terms of the differences in required training. At least, you've yet to convince me he's wrong either, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Come on, I expect more from you as a CFI. In particular, a citation from the FAR's or the PTS that shows other areas of significant difference that Jay has not already outlined (night/hood).

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Coupled with this IMO, is the propagation of the myth that airplanes are a practical means of long distance travel, much like cars only faster and more free, albeit more expensive.

I do not think it's a myth. Airplanes *ARE* a practical means of long distance travel. Like cars and any other form of transportation, however, they have limitations and those limitations are different in airplanes than they are in cars.

I say this because recently, I decided to fly instead of drive because it was *safer.* When PJ was in Chicago in late December and several of us got together at Pilot Pete's, there was a storm that had brought widespread freezing rain to the area. The storm was past and the sky cleared before I departed, but while I was originally going to drive to the gathering to save money, I chose to fly instead because I knew that the roads would be a mess (and they were, on the way to the airport) and that it would probably be safer to fly.

I think that instructors, fellow pilots (mentors etc), and schools allow this pretense out of fear that the number of pilots will decline without it, yet it's pretty clear to me that such an expectation is at the very root of a large majority of serious airplane accidents.

I think as long as the differences between the limitations are properly taught and understood, flying can be as practical and safe as driving (not for every scenario or situation, but for many).

Even the IR training leads pilots down the same rosy path to some extent. VFR pilot's are told all the time that they need to get their IR so they can "fully utilize" their flying ability yet that rating just opens several new cans of hazards like icing, embedded thunderstorms, and temptations to fly below MDAs and DAs without sufficient visual input.

Yup - But that's why it's an entirely new rating rather than just an endorsement or other CFI sign-off. Lots more to consider. Having the IR doesn't relieve you from understanding weather, it makes it MORE important. Having a de-iced airplane doesn't relieve you from understanding the mechanisms that create ice, it makes it MORE important.

I think maybe where flight schools fall short is not in saying whether or not flying is a practical means of travel, but in understating the amount of training required to get there and the amount of time that must be spent to remain proficient to ensure that flying remains as practical as possible and as safe as possible.