Fatal Crash at Sport Aviation Expo

[jmaynard]

It doesn't. They both need more flying experience before they should be turned loose (IMHO). My concern is with the idea that somehow putting a few restrictions on sport pilots means that reducing the minimum experience is not a logical approach.

Reducing the requirements (to match reduced privileges) and not reducing the required training time accordingly is what's not logical. Otherwise, what's the point?

Not any more than airbags being installed in most or all new cars required every muscle car to be scrapped.

The difference here - a highly significant one - is that the turnover in the aviation fleet is much, much lower than the turnover in the automotive fleet. It's quite uncommon to see a 1946 model car on the road. It's very common to see a 1946 model airplane. This means that safety improvements in the fleet made now will spread extremely slowly: when you only sell a few hundred airplanes a year, it takes decades to replace a significant percentage of a fleet numbered in the hundreds of thousands.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would think that maybe not being able to do a loop in an aircraft or sacrificing a few knots of airspeed is worth a lesser chance of burning alive after a crash.

How about sacrificing the ability to fly with an adult passenger? Adding a BRS parachute and airbag seat belts would have cost me 50 pounds of useful load. That's a significant amount in an airplane with a max gross weight of 1320 pounds. The maximum gross weight of an LSA isn't going to be raised; it was set where it was to explicitly exclude the common GA trainer such as the 150 and Tomahawk, and the FAA's not interested in changing that.

Also, a lot of the changes would not require scrapping anything. Better restraints that could be retrofitted into an older aircraft would be a major bonus to safety and would not be a burden to most aircraft.

You're assuming the structure was designed so that such restraints can be retrofitted. That's a very large assumption.

I will still do my best to make sure that new aircraft are as safe as they can be made.

More power to you...but remember what you're up against - and it's not entirely, or even significantly, the willingness of buyers, or owners, to have safety improvements to their aircraft.

we all try to work in our own ways but in a collective manner towards addressing the issues- all of them- so that regardless of what you chose to fly, another family doesn't have to grieve over a death that was avoidable.

I can't argue with the goal, but as with anything, we'll be more effective in reaching it if we work on the areas where we can have the most impact first. Tilting at the FAA's 1320-pound windmill isn't going to help as much as working to improve pilots' ADM abilities.

Even the low amount of training required now keeps the vast majority of the population out.

And that is not necessarily as terrible a thing as you make it seem.

WRONG.

The single biggest danger to general aviation is the perception that it's only fat cats flying around in their corporate jets. We saw it in spades during the hysteria over the automobile manufacturer bailout last year. If it's just for fat cats, then it can be heavily taxed and heavily regulated, and nobody will care.

General aviation needs pilots from all walks of life, and a constant influx of new pilots, in order to survive. It needs a populace that knows its value and understands that such things as airports and navigation infrastructure and a nondiscriminatory ATC system return more to the economy than they cost. It needs people looking at that little airplane flying overhead and wishing they were flying it, and knowing they could be flying it.

Without the support of the public, general aviation is doomed. Elitist attitudes such as the one you espouse are toxic.

flights that weren't technically cross countries but originated a long way from home (for example, Oregon and Florida when I live in Wisconsin).

Why wouldn't those count? See 61.1(b)(3): each section (of which there are 7(!) that almost entirely duplicate each other aside from the distance involved) simply says that the flight must include a straight line distance of at least N miles. It doesn't say that the flights must be round-robin. There are required round robin flights for each rating, but the required cross country flight time includes other cross country flights, too.

No, I don't want Joe Sixpack getting into an airplane and pulling "watch this" tricks.

Me either. However, we seem to have our share of multi-thousand-hour Joe Sixpacks now...which means that it's not a matter of raising the required experience level.

Right now, the pilot population is controlled mostly by money, not brains.

Indeed. Every airport seems to have its rich guy who has a big fancy airplane and, apparently, more money than brains. We need less of those, not only in absolute numbers, but in relation to the rest of the pilot population.

Sport Pilot is a way for those with less money but just as much intelligence to enjoy aviation, and that's a GREAT thing.

Indeed. Take a look at Able Flight. Without the sport pilot ticket and light sport aircraft, they would have a much harder time expanding aviation to pilots with physical challenges.

you've really gotta get out of the nest on your own to develop the skill of being pilot in command.

The Kings put it this way: "You get good judgment from bad experiences. Where do you get bad experiences? From exercising bad judgment!" For better or worse, we seem destined to live, as pilots, by a variation of Nietzsche's famous maxim: "That which does not kill us makes us better pilots." We can get told many times to not do things that we know intellectually are stupid, but we seem unable to truly take the lesson to heart until we scare the hell out of ourselves.

 

[Ted]

It doesn't. They both need more flying experience before they should be turned loose (IMHO).

And from what do you base this on? You aren't a flight instructor, you aren't an instrument pilot, you admit yourself to not be very experienced. I'm not trying to make this a personal attack, but I'm not seeing you having any credibility with your statements. You've read some NTSB reports, but that should tell you that high hour pilots die, too, even in planes that are simple to fly and are generally bullet-proof.

My concern is with the idea that somehow putting a few restrictions on sport pilots means that reducing the minimum experience is not a logical approach.

So increase restrictions and require the same training? Now that doesn't make sense. I'm not saying the Sport Pilot rules are perfect, but if you reduce what you can do with a rating, it makes sense to reduce how much training you need to get it. Training generally has some relation with privileges.

Remember that the training minimums are just that - minimums. There is nowhere that it says a student is required to go for his or her private check ride after 40 hours. There are very few people who actually do that. A number of my friends did theirs at over 60, a few at over 100. So, it comes down to an individual basis.

I will agree that at 40 hours you have an immense amount left to learn. I don't think anybody will argue that point. But there is one way for you to learn it, and that is to go out and do it. If you are smart and were instructed well, you will be cautious and use the resources you have available to you to gradually push the envelope. If you aren't smart, then no amount of training or restrictions will help you, because you'll kill yourself anyway.

I can't speak for anyone else...

You certainly appear to be trying to speak for others.

If you choose to fly an older aircraft or even drive a Pinto, I don't care, but I will still do my best to make sure that new aircraft are as safe as they can be made.

I have no issues with wanting to make new aircraft safer, however you will have a lot of unhappy people if it results in federal mandates that end up putting the aviation industry out of business. Aviation is not automotive, never will be. We simply can't afford to do the sorts of testing that Ford does on a Taurus for safety features. It will never happen. If this is unacceptable to you, then either find a way to get federal funding for safety testing and incorporation of these features into new aircraft without it impacting the price, or else find a new hobby. Not trying to sound mean, but I don't want you putting companies out of business that sell products people want to buy simply because you aren't comfortable with their safety.

I agree that pilots are the most important part of the solution, but engineering safer aircraft is still a goal we should work towards and not try to simply go "Oh, well you COULD die in that plane too." It seems we are working towards a similar goal but just looking at different approaches to it. My suggestion (take it or tell me to cram it up my ass.....either way) is that we not argue over it but that we all try to work in our own ways but in a collective manner towards addressing the issues- all of them- so that regardless of what you chose to fly, another family doesn't have to grieve over a death that was avoidable.

I have no issues with this. My issue is taking into account the realities of the situation. When we have an industry that has been bleeding for a while now and has a recession to worsen things, it is in our worst interest to do things that make it less likely for this industry to survive. No, I do not want to see deregulation or making things less safe. Believe me, I am very concerned with aircraft safety. Let's just make sure that we don't work to mandate changes that will end up meaning that we're all flying our 1960s planes until they simply can't fly anymore because new ones are no longer available.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think the reason that newer commercial pilots start out as FO's is that they can be an FO with only a commercial (250 hour) certificate but need their ATP (1500 hours) to be captain.

While it is true that many (if not most) new hires in the regional world are not ATP-qualified, the principal reason new hires start as FO's is the seniority system. BTW, for a while, a few regionals were starting a few new hires with ATP's as captains because the airline didn't have enough FO's who were ATP-qualified (hours or age) to upgrade to the left seat. Unfortunately, due to that seniority, those captains would still be the first to be laid off in a downturn before FO's with more seniority.

 

[TMetzinger]

The Kings put it this way: "You get good judgment from bad experiences. Where do you get bad experiences? From exercising bad judgment!" For better or worse, we seem destined to live, as pilots, by a variation of Nietzsche's famous maxim: "That which does not kill us makes us better pilots." We can get told many times to not do things that we know intellectually are stupid, but we seem unable to truly take the lesson to heart until we scare the hell out of ourselves.

Good points. One of the considered benefits of Scenario Based Training (finished Arlynn's book) is that it imparts greater experience in "real" flying rather than spending time in the local area polishing manuevers for their own sake. This "should" result in a more complete aviator, because they'll have had a wider range of experience to learn from while having a safety factor in the instructor. I am confident that some instrument rating programs that teach while literally flying across the country result in more complete instrument pilots - they'll generally have gotten lots of actual, worked with all sorts of different ATC faclities and their styles, and flown lots of unfamiliar approaches.

The drawback of SBT is the perceived amount of time, and thus the cost. When a student selects a flight school and is given a choice between traditional training based on 40 hours for a private (even though they're told the average time is higher) versus 65 hours for scenario based school (even though they're told that completion rate within the time is high and that they'll likely be safer pilots on completion), they tend to choose the lower cost. I've heard (but haven't yet read) of studies that show that students in SBT combined private/instrument courses complete both the certificate and the rating in less time than doing them sequentially in the traditional manner.

I haven't completely converted to the church of SBT, but I think that instructors can be successful in marketing an SBT course as "more complete" or "more professional", particularly to older professionals and business men who want to fly in order to go places, not to make a living. For the folks who are starting out and want to make a living, getting the ratings at the lowest cost may make sense, IF you can maintain proficiency so you can pass your regional airline hiring evaluation.

 

[gismo]

The drawback of SBT is the perceived amount of time, and thus the cost.

Perhaps a cost effective enhancement to the existing training regime would be to require that holders of newly minted ratings, (particularly SP, PPL, and IR) complete a detailed post flight (I almost wrote post mortem but that didn't sound very appropriate) report for the first few uses of their new abilities. Said reports would be reviewed by a CFI and returned with comments with particular emphasis on ADM. Maybe specific situations could be singled out for reporting such as the first n cross country flights, first flights with a passenger (SP), first time making a flight requiring a fuel stop (SP/PPL), instrument letdown (IR), etc. The CFIs could benefit by being (upder)paid for their effort and for some useful insight to the kinds of issues their students had to deal with post checkride. The reviewed reports could even be "depersonalized" and fed into some sort of national database for educational purposes.

In posting this thought I fully realize that there would likely be all sorts of details to be worked out, objections to be overcome and that the chances of actually seeing such a plan implemented but I'm curious as to your thoughts about the idea. Fire away!

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I figured a fly-in of pilots of sport or experimental aircraft is likely to produce a fatality. It's like AirVenture kills at least one person per year on average.

The EAA fly-ins started in 1953 (Hales Corners) then move to Rockford ('59) and finally to Oshkosh ('70).
The first fatal accident didn't happen until either 1980 or 1981.

But, as I recall it, the percentage of homebult aircraft attending was higher back then. On the other hand, anyone could spend part of the day in the "fly by" operating off of runway 18/36 - at any given time there were several dozen aircraft just going round and round the pattern. I joined in with a Cessna 120...

 

[Steve]

Imho, that's really not that far-fetched. The ASR program, though voluntary and fairly limited to actual or perceived problems captures some of this type of information. Also, the "mission de-brief" is used by the military. Many CFIs use a similar post-training flight discussion. It would not be much of a stretch to apply this process post-certificate. It would certainly be a pro-active opportunity to indentify pre-cursors to adverse outcomes/consequences.

Human fallibility is what keeps the safety experts in business.

\
...
In posting this thought I fully realize that there would likely be all sorts of details to be worked out, objections to be overcome and that the chances of actually seeing such a plan implemented but I'm curious as to your thoughts about the idea. Fire away!

 

[KennyFlys]

Perhaps a cost effective enhancement to the existing training regime would be to require that holders of newly minted ratings, (particularly SP, PPL, and IR) complete a detailed post flight (I almost wrote post mortem but that didn't sound very appropriate) report for the first few uses of their new abilities. Said reports would be reviewed by a CFI and returned with comments with particular emphasis on ADM. Maybe specific situations could be singled out for reporting such as the first n cross country flights, first flights with a passenger (SP), first time making a flight requiring a fuel stop (SP/PPL), instrument letdown (IR), etc. The CFIs could benefit by being (upder)paid for their effort and for some useful insight to the kinds of issues their students had to deal with post checkride. The reviewed reports could even be "depersonalized" and fed into some sort of national database for educational purposes.

In posting this thought I fully realize that there would likely be all sorts of details to be worked out, objections to be overcome and that the chances of actually seeing such a plan implemented but I'm curious as to your thoughts about the idea. Fire away!

I do encourage any new certificate holder to not let the check ride be the end to their riding with a CFI for improving their skills. It's that lack of return to instructors for revisiting skills, etc that lead to someone doing no more than their six approaches every six months and for years exercise their instrument privileges yet be on the edge of killing themselves.

That's another reason why I like to build more XC time into instrument training for those short the requirements. We can hon their skills and put them further ahead.

 

[maddog52]

I'm "anti-dead pilots and passengers" and nothing else.

That is exactly why the SP and LSA rules were designed the way they were!! They started as a way to better regulate two seat ultralights and the large number of pilots operating them outside the rules. SP and LSA did not replace, lower the standards, or lower the requirements for any existing rating or aircraft certification process. They did establish standards for the manufacture and certification of those previously unregulated aircraft as well as establish the requirements and standards for the certification of those pilots. In other words, increase the safety of those pilots and passengers. Taken in that context, SP/LSA seems to have been pretty successful.

Also, any analysis/comparison of accident/fatality rates wihout statistics from the two seat ultralights pre and post SP/LSA would be incomplete at best.

 

[CrashAxe]

I think Sport Pilots and anyone thinking of training for a Sport Pilot Certificate is reckless and should be flogged, and SP-CFI's should be hung. Darn daredevil hippies!!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Why wouldn't those count? See 61.1(b)(3): each section (of which there are 7(!) that almost entirely duplicate each other aside from the distance involved) simply says that the flight must include a straight line distance of at least N miles. It doesn't say that the flights must be round-robin. There are required round robin flights for each rating, but the required cross country flight time includes other cross country flights, too.

They don't count because, for example, I rented an airplane at KLNA, flew around over Florida for a while, and landed back at KLNA. So, while I learned some valuable things by virtue of being far away from my home airport, it wasn't a cross country by any definition. Later, I rented an airplane at X39 and flew to KEYW, which of course did count.

The other example I was thinking of (Oregon), I rented a Twin Comanche at KHIO, flew down the Columbia River, down the Pacific coast to Tillamook, turned back toward KHIO and landed. Again, doesn't fit any definition of cross country, but was still a learning experience.

The first one (KLNA) really was a very valuable lesson. Here in the Midwest, we're always told that if we have to land in a field, to avoid the darker fields because they're plowed and thus soft and your wheels will dig in and you'll nose over onto your back. So when the CFI pulled power over the sugar cane fields, I saw green, light brown, and dark. I went out of my way to make one of the light brown fields, which confused the CFI - And I was confused at his confusion, until he told me that the dark fields had been burned and were perfectly safe to land on. And that's just one example of something valuable that you can learn away from home.

 

[wanttaja]

I think Sport Pilots and anyone thinking of training for a Sport Pilot Certificate is reckless and should be flogged, and SP-CFI's should be hung. Darn daredevil hippies!!

Hey you damn kids, get off my lawn airspace! :smile:

Ron Wanttaja

 

[flyingcheesehead]

we have an industry that has been bleeding for a while now

Ted,

Could you possibly have picked a worse metaphor?

Let's just make sure that we don't work to mandate changes that will end up meaning that we're all flying our 1960s planes until they simply can't fly anymore because new ones are no longer available.

Amen. And even if new ones ARE available, that doesn't mean they'll be bought. As an example of government making things go backwards instead of forwards, the EPA's various forced deadlines for new truck emissions standards have caused many trucking companies to NOT upgrade their equipment because the newer engines get fewer MPG and/or less power and are less reliable, leading to higher fuel consumption to pull the same loads. As a result, the older smoke-belchers are kept in service longer resulting in MORE emissions. If airplanes are over-regulated, a similar backlash will occur.

Actually, the backlash is already occurring. The GA fleet is older than ever. Why? New airplanes are disgustingly expensive! For example, a brand-new Cessna 172 cost $8995 in 1956. A brand-new Cessna 172R today costs $297,000. The inflation-adjusted price of the 1956 172 is $67,912. So, effectively, there has been a 337% increase in the cost of a basic four-seat airplane!

Now, the more expensive flying gets, the less people fly and the less proficient they become, which will lead to more accidents. So, you see how an overzealous attitude towards safety can HURT safety rather than helping it!

 

[jmaynard]

Here in the Midwest, we're always told that if we have to land in a field, to avoid the darker fields because they're plowed and thus soft and your wheels will dig in and you'll nose over onto your back. So when the CFI pulled power over the sugar cane fields, I saw green, light brown, and dark. I went out of my way to make one of the light brown fields, which confused the CFI - And I was confused at his confusion, until he told me that the dark fields had been burned and were perfectly safe to land on. And that's just one example of something valuable that you can learn away from home.

Okkay, I didn't know that. I'll add something in a similar vein: Don't assume that the section lines run north/south and east/west in southeast Texas. They don't. The land boundaries were originally laid out by Stephen F. Austin in the 1820s using the Brazos River as the axis, and so the section lines run about 30 degrees offset. Since I learned to fly down there, it took me a while to internalize the idea that you could actually depend on the section lines for useful information.

 

[Ted]

Could you possibly have picked a worse metaphor?

Given enough time, you bet I could!

If airplanes are over-regulated, a similar backlash will occur.

Actually, the backlash is already occurring. The GA fleet is older than ever. Why? New airplanes are disgustingly expensive! For example, a brand-new Cessna 172 cost $8995 in 1956. A brand-new Cessna 172R today costs $297,000. The inflation-adjusted price of the 1956 172 is $67,912. So, effectively, there has been a 337% increase in the cost of a basic four-seat airplane!

You've got two things happening here. The first one is insurance, which drives up costs tremendously. Since people don't accept that sometimes accidents happen, and it's nobody's fault or else their own fault, pretty much every incident results in a lawsuit. This makes legal costs and insurance go up, which is where a lot of price increase comes. As prices increase, demand goes down, causing fewer items being bought. This means that your economies of scale go down, causing another increase in prices. You see where this goes.

If the liability issues went away, you'd see a significant decrease in cost.

Now, the more expensive flying gets, the less people fly and the less proficient they become, which will lead to more accidents. So, you see how an overzealous attitude towards safety can HURT safety rather than helping it!

I like this argument! Of course, I have generally noted that people who are overzealous about safety and feel they must impose their views on others are really just afraid to crawl out from under their rocks themselves. I have a few friends this way - they're generally convinced I'm going to kill myself because I actually leave the house in the morning... although they really think that when I leave the house on a motorcycle!

 

[bullwinkle]

You've got two things happening here. The first one is insurance, which drives up costs tremendously. Since people don't accept that sometimes accidents happen, and it's nobody's fault or else their own fault, pretty much every incident results in a lawsuit. This makes legal costs and insurance go up, which is where a lot of price increase comes. As prices increase, demand goes down, causing fewer items being bought. This means that your economies of scale go down, causing another increase in prices. You see where this goes.

If the liability issues went away, you'd see a significant decrease in cost.

You are right on here. Liability is an albatross around our necks, just like it is in so many other industries. Somehow we as a culture got the notion (reinforced by lawyers) that we should all be able to live risk-free, always comfortable lives free of stress and hardship.

Dammit, we're human beings, not veal! :smile:

 

[Ted]

You are right on here. Liability is an albatross around our necks, just like it is in so many other industries. Somehow we as a culture got the notion (reinforced by lawyers) that we should all be able to live risk-free, always comfortable lives free of stress and hardship.

Dammit, we're human beings, not veal! :smile:

This brings to mind a quote that we should keep in mind more frequently:

Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in that grey twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.

Sometimes life sucks. Sometimes we get hurt. Sometimes we die. Better to die living than live dying, at least to me.

 

[wanttaja]

Apparently the pilot forgot to put the pin in to lock the foldable wings.

I heard from a friend who was there. He says that credible witnesses state the wings were extended and intact at time of impact. Initial control continuity checks came out OK, but there were still some things being looked at.

The NTSB preliminary should be out soon.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[steingar]

I heard from a friend who was there. He says that credible witnesses state the wings were extended and intact at time of impact. Initial control continuity checks came out OK, but there were still some things being looked at.

The NTSB preliminary should be out soon.

Ron Wanttaja

Ouch! Many, many, many apologies!

 

[wanttaja]

Ouch! Many, many, many apologies!

Well... EVERYTHING is hearsay until the NTSB weighs in, so you're not necessarily wrong. Unfortunately, the NTSB preliminary may not even mention wing-fold mechanism status, so we may not know for up to a year.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[skipd]

I bet there were no fatal car accidents that morning- anywhere in the Country, making driving the safest thing anyone could do.................

Try not to speculate as to the cause until everything is looked at and confirmed.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/local/article/earlysville_man_injured_in_plane_crash/34786/

 

[webdaddy]

It think the issue is two fold and not so much a training issue.
The little secret the FAA fairly has successfully hidden is that the PTS for the Sport Pilot and Private Pilot are certificates are nearly identical. Off the top of my head the only thing I can recall that is different is the Flight by reference to instruments. 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.

One reason for a signficant number of sport pilot accidents is that it has been successful and we have quite a few low hour sport pilots flying.

The second reason is that many sport aircraft do not fly like the certified airplanes we are used to. I know two CFI's that refused to instruct in a Challenger II after flying it because they insisted on landing with full flaps.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Ha landing with full flaps. Challengers do not even have full flaps nor would you need them. The landing rollout is about 300 feet (On a bad day). The flaperons are practically useless and using them incorrectly will limit the range of the flight controls possibly making an unsafe condition if you need the full authority of the ailerons. I don't know anybody that actually uses them and they are not needed. I would be more worried about somebody not flying a Challenger coordinated. That will get you in trouble quicker than anything in a Challenger as you know.

I would fly a Challenger (that is built correctly) any day over most certificated aircraft simply because it is a safer aircraft. The glide in a Challenger is great if your not loaded down.

 

[steingar]

I bet there were no fatal car accidents that morning- anywhere in the Country, making driving the safest thing anyone could do.................

Try not to speculate as to the cause until everything is looked at and confirmed.

http://www.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/local/article/earlysville_man_injured_in_plane_crash/34786/

Oh, get off your high horse and go lead him to some water. Its an internet forum for pilots. Of course we're going to speculate! And the NTSB not saying anything means exactly nothing.

 

[BillMoffatt]

It really bugs me that private pilots think they are somehow "better" than Sport pilots. I am in perfect health and chose to be a sport pilot because its AFFORDABLE. Additionally, LSA's are not only affordable to buy, but affordable to maintain. Furthermore, I have zero desire to fly at night or great distances. I as a sport pilot have to follow the exact same FARS that you do. My aircraft is equipped with a radio and I use it just like you do. What exactly makes you a better pilot than me? I am currently preparing for my Sport Pilot CFI because I want to get others involved. I am very safety conscious and received my ticket from one of the best examiners in the country. I'd love to hear your input. Like it or not, sport pilots are here to stay and will share the same airspace with you. Just because our wallet might not be as fat as yours gives you no right to judge us. Bottom line is, we all love to fly.

 

[Trapper John]

It really bugs me that private pilots think they are somehow "better" than Sport pilots. I am in perfect health and chose to be a sport pilot because its AFFORDABLE. Additionally, LSA's are not only affordable to buy, but affordable to maintain. Furthermore, I have zero desire to fly at night or great distances. I as a sport pilot have to follow the exact same FARS that you do. My aircraft is equipped with a radio and I use it just like you do. What exactly makes you a better pilot than me?

And the winner for most butthurt in a first post is...

Seriously, I can't think of anyone here who slags sport pilots. I've seen criticism of LSA rules and criticism of the shortcomings of certain LSA designs, but nothing against LSA pilots.

 

[jsstevens]

Slinging that much anger in a very first post? Looks like a troll. Walks like a troll. Quacks like... You get the idea.

John

 

[N801BH]

Slinging that much anger in a very first post? Looks like a troll. Walks like a troll. Quacks like... You get the idea.

John

Yup.... let's award the poster with the AFLAC trophy.

 

[Gary F]

Slinging that much anger in a very first post? Looks like a troll. Walks like a troll. Quacks like... You get the idea.

John

What anger? I think that some pilots have had a condescending attitude toward Sport Pilots. I don't see anything that unreasonable with his post that would justify calling him a troll.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

It really bugs me that private pilots think they are somehow "better" than Sport pilots. I am in perfect health and chose to be a sport pilot because its AFFORDABLE. Additionally, LSA's are not only affordable to buy, but affordable to maintain. Furthermore, I have zero desire to fly at night or great distances. I as a sport pilot have to follow the exact same FARS that you do. My aircraft is equipped with a radio and I use it just like you do. What exactly makes you a better pilot than me? I am currently preparing for my Sport Pilot CFI because I want to get others involved. I am very safety conscious and received my ticket from one of the best examiners in the country. I'd love to hear your input. Like it or not, sport pilots are here to stay and will share the same airspace with you. Just because our wallet might not be as fat as yours gives you no right to judge us. Bottom line is, we all love to fly.

You won't get much grief from most of the people here. Personally, I've run into more crap over on the red board (AOPA) w.r.t flying under the Sport pilot rules. (Ok looking up the page, I see someone was goofing on sport pilots - but everyone gets made fun of on ocassion.)

I kinda miss flying at night - particularly this time of year. But what the heck. My little LSA is more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

 

[N801BH]

To clarify my position on this topic...........

LSA, in my opinion is the gateway to the next generation of pilots in the U.S for GA...... You show them the wonders of flight and alot of them will upgrade to PPL, then IFR, then Comm, then maybe ATP.. Where else are we gonna find people to share our addiction ???

Ben.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It really bugs me that private pilots think they are somehow "better" than Sport pilots. I am in perfect health and chose to be a sport pilot because its AFFORDABLE. Additionally, LSA's are not only affordable to buy, but affordable to maintain. Furthermore, I have zero desire to fly at night or great distances. I as a sport pilot have to follow the exact same FARS that you do. My aircraft is equipped with a radio and I use it just like you do. What exactly makes you a better pilot than me? I am currently preparing for my Sport Pilot CFI because I want to get others involved. I am very safety conscious and received my ticket from one of the best examiners in the country. I'd love to hear your input. Like it or not, sport pilots are here to stay and will share the same airspace with you. Just because our wallet might not be as fat as yours gives you no right to judge us. Bottom line is, we all love to fly.

Bill,

Don't let a few haters get you down. The vast majority of people here are very friendly to ALL pilots including those pilots who aren't certificated at all yet. Pull up a chair, stick around, and tell us how your SP CFI training is going! What kind of airplane are you flying?

 

[Inverted]

An aircraft should be flyable in all configurations save short of power. If it has flaps, it should be able to perform on some level with flaps fully extended and fully retracted. How else is the pilot going to learn what not only the plane is capable of but how he remains in safe flight in such configurations?

That would go along the lines of part 23 certification. We cannot assume anything with an aircraft that does not have to comply with part 23 certification.

 

[Henning]

To clarify my position on this topic...........

LSA, in my opinion is the gateway to the next generation of pilots in the U.S for GA...... You show them the wonders of flight and alot of them will upgrade to PPL, then IFR, then Comm, then maybe ATP.. Where else are we gonna find people to share our addiction ???

Ben.

Actually, LSA (Light Sport Aircraft, a certification level of aircraft) is the gateway to relinquishing certification of aircraft to industry and getting it away from government. So far though that gateway is not progressing very well.

SP (Sport Pilot, a certification level of airmen) is the gateway to getting the otherwise medically unable flying powered aircraft.

 

[Trapper John]

Actually, LSA (Light Sport Aircraft, a certification level of aircraft) is the gateway to relinquishing certification of aircraft to industry and getting it away from government. So far though that gateway is not progressing very well.

That might be, but there is a pretty long history of conventionally certificated aircraft with problems that didn't show up until fleet hours had been racked up.

SP (Sport Pilot, a certification level of airmen) is the gateway to getting the otherwise medically unable flying powered aircraft.

I'm not sure that's really fair. How many GA accidents occur because of pilot incapacitation?

 

[Henning]

That would go along the lines of part 23 certification. We cannot assume anything with an aircraft that does not have to comply with part 23 certification.

Yep, but in Kenny's stead, he did say "should" and by all rights, it should. Whether it actually does or not since it's not under PT 23 and the ASTM rules are super secret under lock and key unless you buy a very expensive unlock code is more difficult to assume.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Only Kenny could start an argument a year and a half after being banned from the board.