Light sport doomed because of student abuse?

RalphInCA

RalphInCA

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
1,353
Location
McMinnville, OR
Display Name
Display name:
RalphInCA
I have had two different flight school managers tell me recently that he does not intend to put light sports into his fleet any longer because they do not hold up to the abuse that trainers typically get in a training environment.

Abuse that a Cessna 150 or piper 140 can take for years will down a light sport in days.

What a shame. I love flying light sports.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
A school where I taught a few years ago has had several high-wing LSA's go off the runway and get totaled. The one low-wing (Evektor) he has left has been there for years but has had a prop-strike. Not surprising to me they can't hold up.

David
 
I trained in three 152s that I'm sure have taken a beating but were still going strong. On the other hand there are three CT's at another club here at KOSU that seem to be holding up fine. Don't know how much of their flying is training though.
 
Light sport aircraft don't fly like the standard trainer. They serve a purpose,not necessarily training non skilled student pilots. Have flown quite a few light sports and enjoy them.
 
Both 152's I learned to fly in are both still kicking 20 years later.
 
Not all light sports are the same. Many are European microlights made for rich folks lunch runs. They tend to have weak nose gear, not meant for training. Others were downgraded for LS and have stronger gear.
 
BellyUpFish said:
Both 152's I learned to fly in are both still kicking 20 years later.
Click to expand...

The '66 150G which I soloed in 45 years ago this month had already been wrecked and repaired once. It's still flying after decades as a trainer.

Mark
 
It tends to come down to the quality of training. Even a 150 or Cherokee can get beat up or broken if the training is deficient and the instructor lets an incompetent student solo in it. Lighter, more fragile airplanes need a different touch, and that has to be part of the training. None of these machines are trucks, see, yet too often they're abused. When I was an instructor I often saw some really poor flying simply because the instructors either taught it that way or they let the student get away with poor technique. In the end, it means that the student didn't get what he paid for.
 
Student "use" is hard on an airplane. "Abuse" implies intentional rough use.
Yes, when students fly an airplane, any airplane, it gets beat. But it's not necessarily abused.
 
I learned to fly ultra lights. You must be gentle or you leave parts on the runway. I think all pilots should learn to fly gently and treat the equipment like it was their own.
 
Last edited:
BellyUpFish said:
Both 152's I learned to fly in are both still kicking 20 years later.
Click to expand...

There's a few 150/152s from my training days that are still flying. They are 1974/75 brand new when I flew them and still flying. I've looked a few of the N numbers up.

The first J-3 I flew is still flying at the same airport where I flew it.
 
Geico266 said:
I learned to fly ultra lights. You must be gentle or you leave parts on the run way. I think all pilots should learn to fly gently and treat the equipment like it was their own.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. In my experience, it took a little time to learn to fly gently. I student may appear to have everything in hand and be surprised by a gust and bounce he plane before the instructor can respond.

I may be blowing smoke, but I wonder if these planes are a little on the weak side to get under the weight limits.
 
I think the comments about instructor quality are probably a big part of the equation. If you have rookies flying LSA's like they just learned to fly a 172 it will probably be harder than if you have glider and tailwheel instructors.
We had an Apollo LSA at Boerne stage that had I think close to 1300 hours of flight time on it with about three instructors teaching in it in the years that it was there, and I had heard it was the ONE aircraft owned by a guy out in Florida that was actually making money. I think we had a good thing going for a while there. Dave is probably still doing great down there with the Pipistrel - www.salsaaviation.com is his website.
 
Look at an aluminum Coke can after fourty years then look at a plastic one the same age.
 
I did all my training and passed my PP in my CTSW and didn't manage to break it. Not even a little bit.
 
RyanShort1 said:
I think the comments about instructor quality are probably a big part of the equation. If you have rookies flying LSA's like they just learned to fly a 172 it will probably be harder than if you have glider and tailwheel instructors.
We had an Apollo LSA at Boerne stage that had I think close to 1300 hours of flight time on it with about three instructors teaching in it in the years that it was there, and I had heard it was the ONE aircraft owned by a guy out in Florida that was actually making money. I think we had a good thing going for a while there. Dave is probably still doing great down there with the Pipistrel - www.salsaaviation.com is his website.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the LSA that replaced the Apollo Fox (a Bristelle) got totalled on a xwind takeoff mishap (airline pilot instructor).
 
What constitutes good training?

My second to last instructor would get on me for not coming in as close to perfect as possible.

My last instructors philosophy was just get down safely and tighten up the landings with practice. That got me over the negative feelings I had about flying.

Now I have landings where other pilots get on the radio and compliment me for such beautiful touchdowns.
 
There are two 162s at my home airport used as trainers. I trained in them as well. Those planes have taken a beating and are still flying. I saw one pilot get into PIO and come down on the nose hard. Couldn't believe the nose didn't collapse.
 
Monpilot said:
What constitutes good training?

My second to last instructor would get on me for not coming in as close to perfect as possible.

My last instructors philosophy was just get down safely and tighten up the landings with practice. That got me over the negative feelings I had about flying.

Now I have landings where other pilots get on the radio and compliment me for such beautiful touchdowns.
Click to expand...
In an LSA, it especially means understanding that they are lighter and need proper crosswind technique and also in a lot of cases proper pitch control on landing. I've seen things done to 172s that would total many LSA's - or a Cirrus for that matter.

Judging by how many J-3 Cubs, Champs, and Taylorcrafts have been rebuilt at one point in their life, I think a lot of the "LSA's" of the past got damaged in landing accident's, too, but they were probably easier to repair and rebuild back in the day than some of the new breed LSAs are now.
 
Probably also cost reasons.

If I were to open up a school I'd rather get a few C150s than a single new LSA.
 
Geico266 said:
I learned to fly ultra lights. You must be gentle or you leave parts on the runway. I think all pilots should learn to fly gently and treat the equipment like it was their own.
Click to expand...

This.

I've been in the LS arena now for 10 years. I've had a Titan Tornado and two Sonex. LS takes some getting used to and they don't fly like a heavier plane ... there's less inertia. Plus each one is different. One of my friends bought a CTSW that I've spent a couple hours working on check out in and I can't say that I'm totally comfortable in it yet. It flies way different than what I've been flying. On the other hand .. my last two BFRs I've done in an older Tecnam with no checkout and had no trouble with it other than getting used to where things are. You just can't be sloppy with these aircraft and have to use some finesse.

RT
 
BellyUpFish said:
Both 152's I learned to fly in are both still kicking 20 years later.
Click to expand...

Mine isn't. I believe it was one of the one that Barron Thomas used in his aircraft investment scam. It had been pretty much destroyed in a wreck but still carried on the FAA records registered to him for years. It's now not been renewed, I'm waiting for the FAA to time out the N number so I can grab it as a reserved n number.
 
I sold my relatively low time (5000 hours) cessna 152 to a flight school.
 
txflyer said:
Aren't most of the LSA's laminate or fiberglass? :confused:
Click to expand...

I've only flown one LSA airplane that wasn't all-metal, and that was the Carbon Cub.

Part of the durability problem affecting LSA is that the SP rule envisioned that most LSA airplanes would look more like fat ultralights than like conventionally certificated airplanes. They figured they'd look something like this Quicksilver Sport 2S.

quicksilver-aircraft-sport-2s-2015-07-29-17.32.56.png


The added weight limits under the LSA ASTM standard was a vast improvement over that allowed for under the Part 103 training exemptions. One could build quite a sturdy two-place airplane using "ultralight-looking" designs and the lightweight Rotax and Jabiru engines that have traditionally powered ultralights, while providing good useful load, and staying well within the LSA limits. (The Quicksilver 2S has, IIRC, about a 550 lb. useful load and a MTOW of 1,000 pounds. The actual airplane weights less than 450 lbs.)

It's a lot harder to build in extra structural strength when you're trying to build something that looks more like a conventionally-certificated airplane while staying within the LSA ASTM standards, especially if you're using metal. Add fancy panels and avionics, creature comforts, a heavier certificated engine, and enough useful load for two lard-assed Americans, and the margin for overbuilding shrinks to zero.

Rich
 
Last edited:
txflyer said:
Aren't most of the LSA's laminate or fiberglass? :confused:
Click to expand...

Mine's about 99% fiberglass outside the engine. Struts and wheels are metal even the gear legs are laminate. I don't expect it to last as long as a metal plane.
 
I've been flying exclusively rental Skycatchers since June, after previously renting everything from Citabrias to a turbo Centurion. The only thing I had trouble with was directional control while taxing, but I got used to it pretty quickly, to the point where I seldom have to think about it anymore. The two Skycatchers at my club don't seem to suffer from any more down time than other types on the line, as far as I can tell.
 
Every time I visit my mechanic, it seems that he has an LSA from one of the local flight schools in his shop. Hard landings do most of them in.
 
Yellowbird said:
Every time I visit my mechanic, it seems that he has an LSA from one of the local flight schools in his shop. Hard landings do most of them in.
Click to expand...

Is it because the construction is too light or because people are training to land them too fast? I ask because the LSA club I briefly flew with went to high approach speeds (>1.3 Vso) after a fatal accident.
 
Clark1961 said:
Is it because the construction is too light or because people are training to land them too fast? I ask because the LSA club I briefly flew with went to high approach speeds (>1.3 Vso) after a fatal accident.
Click to expand...
Too fast, too slow, students will make all kinds of mistakes. If the structure is too weak to absorb mistakes, you end up with a broke airplane.
 
I've always flown ,y own airplanes, and I've inadvertently subjected them to quite a bit of abuse. I am unsurprised that LSAs can't handle it. All that weight had to come from somewhere.
 
Witmo said:
Too fast, too slow, students will make all kinds of mistakes. If the structure is too weak to absorb mistakes, you end up with a broke airplane.
Click to expand...

Let me re-phrase, are people flying them overrweight with resultant higher landing speeds and weights which results in more damage?
 
I learned at a school that initially specialized in LSA training in the Denver area. They had thousands of hours of instruction in LSA's with minor issues. The reason for this success? They had instructors who knew how to fly LSA's and had many hours in them. When that school merged with a "traditional" flight school, the accident rate and availability rate of those planes went up. I see this as directly attributable to CFI's who had little to no experience in LSA's trying to teach in them. The other issue was maintenance folks who weren't Rotax people trying to fix planes they knew little about.

I have seen another school in town here with many accidents in their CT's. They too have had a lot of turnover in maintenance folks and perhaps less than enough experience for their instructors.

Lastly, one other flight school here in town got one of the same types of LSA's that I own. They had a couple instructors saying they felt like the required rudder input on takeoff was too high? Ok then. Seems like a basic issue to me. I have been flying this same type of plane out of the area for over 5 years with no issues. I had a great instructor who had a couple thousand hours in type.

We also had a CFI here in town decide to take up the one LSA like mine and supposedly fly aerobatics in it with a pax and no chutes. He managed to get it into a spin he couldn't get out of and rode it all the way to the ground. Some folks pointed the finger at the plane. Of course the plane was placarded against aerobatics. Again, either insufficient training or people being idiots end up in destroyed LSA's.

Carl
 
SportPilotCO said:
I learned at a school that initially specialized in LSA training in the Denver area. They had thousands of hours of instruction in LSA's with minor issues.
Click to expand...

If that's the club that was at EIK they had much more than minor issues. They had a stall/spin with two fatalities. They also had a couple of loss of control on roll-out accidents. All of these events were in their first few years of existence. Perhaps they cleaned things up.
 
It's not about fast or slow... It's about G's on touchdown, both vertical and lateral.
 
Here's the plane I learned to fly in back in 1969. I'm pretty sure the tornado "totaled" it but it's still on the register and flying today :dunno:

Cub58H_after_twister.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top