Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on this?

[N918KT]

If one sport pilot was planning to start up a organization to advocate for sport pilots, sport pilot students, and light-sport aircraft, do you think it would be a good idea?

I know there is already an organization for it called the Sport Aviation Association, but IIRC they are not really an advocacy group.

Maybe some key issues an organization could advocate include:

1. Get rid of the Catch 22 LSA medical jeporady clause
2. Loosen the criteria for LSAs, especially increasing the legal LSA max gross weight to include 152s, 172s, Cherokees, and Warriors.
3. Try to reduce costs of brand new LSAs
4. Promote Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot training at flight schools and at airport events
5. Gain acceptance of the sport pilot movement in the aviation community
6. Remove the negative sport pilot stigma by private pilots and higher (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I heard somewhere that sport pilot license is not a real license)
7. Strongly encourage flight schools to have a sport pilot curriculum to make sport pilot training more widespread across the U.S.

 

[zaitcev]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

The bullet items agenda seems like a worthy cause overall, even if I'm not ultimately in great agreement with every detail, but the demographic appears too small for this having any effect. We already have so many great splinter civic organizations for narrow causes, my favourite being the Recreation Aviation Foundation. I think the most effective course of action would be to worm into EAA and use their resources to point out that many homebuilts and antiques are SP compatible etc. Well, they already know that, but they have the right contacts for propaganda locally and nationally. As for the rest, leave it to non-organizational spokesmen such as Dan Johnson and Jim Lawrence.

 

[bqmassey]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

I'm not necessarily arguing for to the contrary, but is there some kind of justification for an increase of the max gross weight, besides "We want it".

 

[N918KT]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

The bullet items agenda seems like a worthy cause overall, even if I'm not ultimately in great agreement with every detail, but the demographic appears too small for this having any effect. We already have so many great splinter civic organizations for narrow causes, my favourite being the Recreation Aviation Foundation. I think the most effective course of action would be to worm into EAA and use their resources to point out that many homebuilts and antiques are SP compatible etc. Well, they already know that, but they have the right contacts for propaganda locally and nationally. As for the rest, leave it to non-organizational spokesmen such as Dan Johnson and Jim Lawrence.

Forgive me for asking this, but when you say "worm into EAA", what exactly do you mean?

 

[steingar]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

If one sport pilot was planning to start up a organization to advocate for sport pilots, sport pilot students, and light-sport aircraft, do you think it would be a good idea?

I know there is already an organization for it called the Sport Aviation Association, but IIRC they are not really an advocacy group.

Maybe some key issues an organization could advocate include:

1. Get rid of the Catch 22 LSA medical jeopardy clause

The FAA will never do it for good reason. They can't be seen allowing unfit pilots into the sky. It's a nonstarter.

2. Loosen the criteria for LSAs, especially increasing the legal LSA max gross weight to include 152s, 172s, Cherokees, and Warriors.

The LSA makers will object to that. Still, if they agreed with the petition submitted by the EAA and AOPA, then the SP would be unnecessary, since you wouldn't need a medical to fly your Cherokee or Skyhawk.

3. Try to reduce costs of brand new LSAs

How? The certification requirements have already been relaxed to the point where aircraft are falling from the sky.

4. Promote Sport Pilot and Sport Pilot training at flight schools and at airport events
5. Gain acceptance of the sport pilot movement in the aviation community
6. Remove the negative sport pilot stigma by private pilots and higher (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I heard somewhere that sport pilot license is not a real license)
7. Strongly encourage flight schools to have a sport pilot curriculum to make sport pilot training more widespread across the U.S.

All laudable goals for such an association.

 

[Jayhawk]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

I like the idea. I don't see any justification besides "we want it" for a weight increase, but getting rid of the Catch 22 on the medical process is a worthy goal. There's also a definite negative stigma around sport pilots at a lot of schools- I started mine at a school that seemed to have outright contempt for anyone going for sport, and constantly was pushed to getting a "real" license, even after explaining my rational for the sport certificate. New flight club's all about LSA's, the complete shift in attitude was pretty refreshing. An advocacy group would be great for the LSA community. I could see it being part of EAA and not an independent group, but either way.

 

[LandSickness]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

If the weight increase were to have "light sport" include Cessna 150's it would immediately change the number of people who (1)would fly sport pilot and (2) could afford it, whether renting from the local flight school or partnering in one. Take the medical away and the need for a six figure LSA and Sport Pilot would immediately be much more successful. The only group that wouldn't appreciate it is probably LAMA.

Edited to add: The current weight limit comes from a 600kg European microlight standard, I think.

I'm not necessarily arguing for to the contrary, but is there some kind of justification for an increase of the max gross weight, besides "We want it".

 

[Old Geek]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

I felt there was and is a need for representation and advocacy for owners of light sport airplanes. I joined the ASTM light sport committees and found them packed and dominated by the manufacturers. I think that owners should have some voice in the standards. Likewise, all discussion of maintenance is pretty much dominated by the LSRM schools and repairmen. I went as far as registering a domain name for the group, but did not follow through. I'd still be interested in such a group, but the focus would have to be on aircraft owners.

 

[bqmassey]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

If the weight increase were to have "light sport" include Cessna 150's it would immediately change the number of people who (1)would fly sport pilot and (2) could afford it, whether renting from the local flight school or partnering in one.

Those are subjective reasons aimed to promoting the SP rating.

I'm curious if there is any objective justification for raising the limit.

 

[N918KT]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

Those are subjective reasons aimed to promoting the SP rating.

I'm curious if there is any objective justification for raising the limit.

Well, what do you think would be an example of an objective reason to raise the LSA weight limit?

Would an objective reason is because safety may be an issue with LSAs for those PPLs transitioning to LSAs which have different handling characteristics and more prone to more weather conditions such as high winds and turbulence. Most accidents in LSAs are PPLs who transition to LSAs because they are not familar with the characteristics of LSAs.

 

[bqmassey]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

Well, what do you think would be an example of an objective reason to raise the LSA weight limit?

I can't think of any. That's why I'm asking. Every time I've see someone hell-bent on having the limit raised, they haven't provided any objective justification. It's always been "because flight schools want is", "because I want it", "because it will make the SP rating more popular"....

Like I said before, I don't necessarily disagree with the idea. I'm just curious about it.

Would an objective reason is because safety may be an issue with LSAs for those PPLs transitioning to LSAs which have different handling characteristics and more prone to more weather conditions such as high winds and turbulence. Most accidents in LSAs are PPLs who transition to LSAs because they are not familar with the characteristics of LSAs.

I think that phenomenon, if true, is a really weak argument for the expansion of the SP privileges. But yea, something along those lines.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

Sure why not. I'd stay out of the removing stigma/upping status stuff and work the lobbying to keep or expand sp rights. Stay out of the training standards business as well. Don't climb into bed with eaa or aopa no reason to hate on them just provide lobbying value to sp pilots. I'm always impresed by the legal stuff ssa is able to pull off and they only have @12,000 members.

 

[SportPilotCO]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

Can you cite some specific cases of S-LSA's "falling from the sky"? I own one and know of many others who do and know of exactly one failure in air and it was a propeller that came apart in air. This is not something unique to LSA's and in fact the pilot on his check ride for his private made a great landing. I am all ears if there are specific cases of S-LSA's with mechanical issues but I am not aware of them.

Carl

The FAA will never do it for good reason. They can't be seen allowing unfit pilots into the sky. It's a nonstarter.



The LSA makers will object to that. Still, if they agreed with the petition submitted by the EAA and AOPA, then the SP would be unnecessary, since you wouldn't need a medical to fly your Cherokee or Skyhawk.



How? The certification requirements have already been relaxed to the point where aircraft are falling from the sky.



All laudable goals for such an association.

 

[N918KT]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

Can you cite some specific cases of S-LSA's "falling from the sky"? I own one and know of many others who do and know of exactly one failure in air and it was a propeller that came apart in air. This is not something unique to LSA's and in fact the pilot on his check ride for his private made a great landing. I am all ears if there are specific cases of S-LSA's with mechanical issues but I am not aware of them.

Carl

Well, I know that there were a series of accidents in SLSAs where there were Zodiac LSAs breaking up in mid-air, probably due to something wrong with the wing structures. I believe there is a fix for that problem now.

 

[markmn]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

The reason for the LSA weight increase is to build a safe and desireable aircraft.
The manufactures have been unable to build LSAs that can take the runway pounding most pilots give them and stay under the 1320GW. Many have said the modern LSA is like a cessna 150 with 200lbs taken out of the landing gear and that why we have all the landing gear issues.

As it is right now many insurance companies have either stopped insuring LSAs or have decided to insure only select models. Allowing them an additional 150lbs would let manufacturers beef up the landing gear and that would prevent alot of folded nose gears and snapped gear legs. A a snapped composite gear leg on a composite LSA usually results in the aircraft being totalled.
I believe the best idea would be to give additional weight increases for safety equipment such as a parachutes and airbags. This would encourage manufacturers to build safer aircraft which in turn encourages more people to get pilots licenses.

There are definitely older pilots who look down on these new LSAs and seem bent on discouraging their success. This is not good for General Aviation. We are losing pilot population fast and if the trend continues there is not going to alot left general aviation in a few years.


Mark

 

[maddog52]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

The reason for the LSA weight increase is to build a safe and desireable aircraft.
The manufactures have been unable to build LSAs that can take the runway pounding most pilots give them and stay under the 1320GW. Many have said the modern LSA is like a cessna 150 with 200lbs taken out of the landing gear and that why we have all the landing gear issues.

As it is right now many insurance companies have either stopped insuring LSAs or have decided to insure only select models. Allowing them an additional 150lbs would let manufacturers beef up the landing gear and that would prevent alot of folded nose gears and snapped gear legs. A a snapped composite gear leg on a composite LSA usually results in the aircraft being totalled.
I believe the best idea would be to give additional weight increases for safety equipment such as a parachutes and airbags. This would encourage manufacturers to build safer aircraft which in turn encourages more people to get pilots licenses.

There are definitely older pilots who look down on these new LSAs and seem bent on discouraging their success. This is not good for General Aviation. We are losing pilot population fast and if the trend continues there is not going to alot left general aviation in a few years.


Mark

The 1320/1430 lb GW is already a compromise in order to be able to put in the extra safety equipment like BRSs. The original weight proposal was 1232 lbs that more closely aligns with the Advanced ultralight and VLA rules in the EU. Once you start pushing for more weight where does it stop? Some body will always push for more weight for no other reason than their airplane won't fit into the category.

Unfortunately the dinosaurs that bad mouth LSA and Sport Pilot are still out there and no amount of information or logic will convince them other wise.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

The reason for the LSA weight increase is to build a safe and desireable aircraft.
The manufactures have been unable to build LSAs that can take the runway pounding most pilots give them and stay under the 1320GW. Many have said the modern LSA is like a cessna 150 with 200lbs taken out of the landing gear and that why we have all the landing gear issues.

As it is right now many insurance companies have either stopped insuring LSAs or have decided to insure only select models. Allowing them an additional 150lbs would let manufacturers beef up the landing gear and that would prevent alot of folded nose gears and snapped gear legs. A a snapped composite gear leg on a composite LSA usually results in the aircraft being totalled.
I believe the best idea would be to give additional weight increases for safety equipment such as a parachutes and airbags. This would encourage manufacturers to build safer aircraft which in turn encourages more people to get pilots licenses.

There are definitely older pilots who look down on these new LSAs and seem bent on discouraging their success. This is not good for General Aviation. We are losing pilot population fast and if the trend continues there is not going to alot left general aviation in a few years.


Mark

Well....

Adding 150 pounds would more likely result in increasing the useful load 150 pounds without actually changing the aircraft design at all.

You can build an aircraft that will last at less than 1320 pounds. Piper, Taylorcraft, Luscombe, American Champion did that back in the 1930's and 40's.

But, there does seem to be a lot of pilots crying "It's not fair - I have to get a medical so should those sport pilot losers."

Oh, and Welcome to POA.

 

[markmn]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

What is best for aviation general aviation?

Just because they do that way somwhere else does not make it a good idea here.

Although the older rag and tube design was durable enough it is not a design that is popular with todays pilots. Many of us say who cares, let them fly old rag and tube aircraft. What I am saying is we need to be encouraging new pilots or soon there wont be anything left of GA. I am a young guy as far as pilots go and when I go to the airport and its dead eventually I will decide to do something else also. I am sick of being the only one out there. I am asking you guy to away your pride and do what best to increase participation.

As far as where it stops we know that cessna was able to design a durable two seat aircraft aircraft at 1550lbs. with new tecnology we can likely do it at 1450.

As I said giving weight increases for safety equipment would be a good idea becuase then we would be making an even more desireable aircraft that ecourages future pilots. Safety is one on the main reasons we dont have more pilots.

Mark

 

[jnmeade]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

Mark, I know you are passionate about flying. I'm afraid I'm going to be somewhat of a wet blanket.

What is best for aviation general aviation?

This is a good question and one that maybe is best addressed through AOPA and EAA.

ust because they do that way somwhere else does not make it a good idea here.

But, they have clout and a lot of experience. An SP or LSA organization would have neither.

Although the older rag and tube design was durable enough it is not a design that is popular with todays pilots. Many of us say who cares, let them fly old rag and tube aircraft.

And this is the answer to some SP and some PP and above who like this kind of aircraft, so since they are addressed through type clubs and EAA/AOPA, why should they make a new alphabet organization?

What I am saying is we need to be encouraging new pilots or soon there wont be anything left of GA. I am a young guy as far as pilots go and when I go to the airport and its dead eventually I will decide to do something else also. I am sick of being the only one out there. I am asking you guy to away your pride and do what best to increase participation.

What reason do we have to assume that a $70k-150k glass airplane will attract people who fly $25k Champs and $100k Pipers/Cessnas that do all and more than the new LSA do?

As far as where it stops we know that cessna was able to design a durable two seat aircraft aircraft at 1550lbs. with new tecnology we can likely do it at 1450.

We can chase numbers all day. There are enough of us overweight pilots that we could justify a 1600 lb LSA based on our own perspectives alone.

As I said giving weight increases for safety equipment would be a good idea becuase then we would be making an even more desireable aircraft that ecourages future pilots. Safety is one on the main reasons we dont have more pilots.

Mark

I don't see that safety is an issue with someone wanting to learn to fly. Of all the students I taught, none wanted to have an accident, but they were not focused on safety as a primary aspect - it was simply one of many factors. I don't think "safe" airplanes will bring in lots and lots more pilots, and if it does, we already have BRS.

As I see it, we have some SP types who are happy to fly low, slow airplanes. There are plenty of LSA and LSA compliant, both old and new.

We have SP pilots who in their heart want to fly cross-country, at night, in IMC with multi-engines. Maybe the private pilot with no medical movement will succeed, but short of that what this group wants is to fly higher, faster, longer, farther, with more people and they want to get there through a redefinition of SP or LSA or both. Why is it in any one's interest to permit that?

I'd think SP can do as much or more good working within EAA/AOPA to make sure those organizations represent our interests as we are to form a little niche group that will seem to add to the cacophony rather than augment the main message of supporting GA.

Would I join an SP group? Probably so, but I wouldn't expect much of it.

 

[wabower]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

The demise of pilot population will occur with or without any change in these regs. Thinking that some change to the LSA certs will slow or reverse this attrition makes no sense.

The reason for the LSA weight increase is to build a safe and desireable aircraft.
The manufactures have been unable to build LSAs that can take the runway pounding most pilots give them and stay under the 1320GW. Many have said the modern LSA is like a cessna 150 with 200lbs taken out of the landing gear and that why we have all the landing gear issues.

As it is right now many insurance companies have either stopped insuring LSAs or have decided to insure only select models. Allowing them an additional 150lbs would let manufacturers beef up the landing gear and that would prevent alot of folded nose gears and snapped gear legs. A a snapped composite gear leg on a composite LSA usually results in the aircraft being totalled.
I believe the best idea would be to give additional weight increases for safety equipment such as a parachutes and airbags. This would encourage manufacturers to build safer aircraft which in turn encourages more people to get pilots licenses.

There are definitely older pilots who look down on these new LSAs and seem bent on discouraging their success. This is not good for General Aviation. We are losing pilot population fast and if the trend continues there is not going to alot left general aviation in a few years.


Mark

 

[steingar]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

Can you cite some specific cases of S-LSA's "falling from the sky"? I own one and know of many others who do and know of exactly one failure in air and it was a propeller that came apart in air. This is not something unique to LSA's and in fact the pilot on his check ride for his private made a great landing. I am all ears if there are specific cases of S-LSA's with mechanical issues but I am not aware of them.

Carl

The Zodiak CH 601 XL.

 

[jnmeade]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

The Zodiak CH 601 XL.

Sure. Name a couple of more?

The fact is, there have been very, very few.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

Sure. Name a couple of more?

Wing spar A/Ds have been issued for Beech 18s, Bonanzas, Cessna 210s, etc.

Some models of Blaniks have been permenantly grounded following wing failures.

But, none of those are LSAs.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

Although the older rag and tube design was durable enough it is not a design that is popular with todays pilots

Yes. Expectations have changed.

People expect air bags, ballistic parachutes, nosewheels, fancy plastic swoopy shapes, etc. All that stuff costs money.

What I am saying is we need to be encouraging new pilots or soon there wont be anything left of GA. I am a young guy as far as pilots go and when I go to the airport and its dead eventually I will decide to do something else also. I am sick of being the only one out there. I am asking you guy to away your pride and do what best to increase participation.

Can't disagree with that.

10 foot razor wire fences around the airports, absurd maintenance rules for type certified aircraft, the cost of avgas, etc. None of this helps.

 

[zaitcev]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

Wing spar A/Ds have been issued for Beech 18s, Bonanzas, Cessna 210s, etc.

Some models of Blaniks have been permenantly grounded following wing failures.

But, none of those are LSAs.

Exactly. So a forum member found 1 (ONE) type of an LSA with a wing design issues -- which have been addressed -- and now all LSAs are somehow no good. And then we complain about members of a public writing comments on newspaper websites how little airplanes are death traps because a Mooney went down.

BTW, I guarantee you that more LSAs will come up against fatugue of spars as the fleet gets older, and some will be cycle- or lifetime limited, in the same way PA38s are (or any number of other certified aircraft). And when it comes, it's not going help steingar's FUD one bit. In the same time some trainer Allegros went beyond 4000 hours by now. LSAs are even more varying in their robustness than certified light singles.

 

[markmn]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

Jim,
I kind of hijacked the thread and did not intend to suggest we start another group outside of the EAA or AOPA. I apologize for not clarifying.

Other countries have light aircraft weight classes starting around 1200lbs up to 1800lbs. I dont see where or why other countries are influencing what weight we decide to use here in the US. Could you explain?

I see no reason why we cant have rag and tube along with full metal and new composite aircraft. As a CT owner I am surprised to hear you advocate against the newer style aircraft. Why did you choose to buy one then?

I would like to see new pilots get into aviation. Keeping the current pilots we have is important too. I dont have any reason to try to get Rag and tube guy into new style aircraft. Why not let pilots have a choice to fly what they want and encourage new pilots also?

As a salesperson for Tecnam I see that new potential pilots are not as comfortable flying over gross as the older generation was. It seems that cessna150 pilots have no problem putting two full size adults in but the newer generation is not so comfortable with this. Tthere are alot of potential pilots that give up because they dont have any desire to fly a 50 year old cessna but would fly a newer LSA if they could do it without being over gross with two full size adults.

Not evey LSA has a parachute. Mant more would if they could do it within the legal weight. By the time a potential pilot comes to a cfi for lessons he or she has already decided to take the risk of being a pilot. If you think safty does not discourage some would be potential pilots i would have to dissagree. I would think you would at least agree some wives are discouraging their husbands from becoming pilots due to the danger.

Mark

 

[markmn]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

Wayne,

If you believe changes to the LSA regs have no chance of changing GA for the positive do you believe there are other changes that could be benificial for GA?

Or do you believe it is hopeless no matter what we do?

Mark

 

[JHW]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

I guess this explains why rans, Texas sport, etc have never sold an airplane.

What is best for aviation general aviation?

Just because they do that way somwhere else does not make it a good idea here.

Although the older rag and tube design was durable enough it is not a design that is popular with todays pilots. Many of us say who cares, let them fly old rag and tube aircraft. What I am saying is we need to be encouraging new pilots or soon there wont be anything left of GA. I am a young guy as far as pilots go and when I go to the airport and its dead eventually I will decide to do something else also. I am sick of being the only one out there. I am asking you guy to away your pride and do what best to increase participation.

As far as where it stops we know that cessna was able to design a durable two seat aircraft aircraft at 1550lbs. with new tecnology we can likely do it at 1450.

As I said giving weight increases for safety equipment would be a good idea becuase then we would be making an even more desireable aircraft that ecourages future pilots. Safety is one on the main reasons we dont have more pilots.

Mark

 

[wabower]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

Mark,

The die is cast insofar as pilot numbers are concerned, and it's all about demographics as the older ones die off in great numbers over the next ten years. The big shrink is going to happen, and LSA's are never going to be sufficiently attractive to sustain more than a splinter group within GA due to their limited performance as traveling machines.

For those who remain or start fly, the staggering costs of everything associated with aviation, including training, will continue to be a huge detriment to new starts. An article in today's Dallas paper enumerated all of the reasons that the younger generation is falling short of the earnings and net-worth of their parents at a similar age, so the tea leaves aren't lining up well for the future of high-priced discretionary activities. The club model that has become common in many other countries may emerge here as well, but how it will play out remains to be seen.

I soloed in 1959 and am still involved as an active pilot and plane owner, so I'm all for anything and everything that might help. I've simply come to accept that whatever it is will be at least 50% less than today. Rearranging the deck chairs never was and never will be a viable option.

Wayne,

If you believe changes to the LSA regs have no chance of changing GA for the positive do you believe there are other changes that could be benificial for GA?

Or do you believe it is hopeless no matter what we do?

Mark

 

[bqmassey]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

Jim,
I see no reason why we cant have rag and tube along with full metal and new composite aircraft.

The current weight limit has proven to be enough to build a safe two-seater... slow or fast, taildraggers and trigear, classic or modern styling.

So, besides the fact that you or someone else simply desires it to be, why should it be raised? How would you pick the new limit? Why would that limit be adequate, but the current limit isn't? Why would that limit be good, but 200 lbs more is too much?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

For those who remain or start fly, the staggering costs of everything associated with aviation, including training, will continue to be a huge detriment to new starts.

And, why are the costs so staggering?

An airplane isn't that different from an automobile in terms of mechanical complexity. My airplane is easier to work on than my 2002 Ford Focus. Way easier.

They both burn gasoline (unless you have a turbine) and get similar mileage.

The volumes are lower so you should expect to pay more for a new aircraft / parts - but many parts can be found at AutoZone or an electronics supplier like Mouser.

The electronics can be more complex, but not always. My Focus has way more electronic boxes than my airplane.

So, why are the costs so staggering?

 

[wabower]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

How much did you pay to learn to drive?

When the cost difference between a gallon of auto fuel and a gallon of avgas is greater than the total cost/gal we've been accustomed to paying, demand will drop. Everybody in aviation knows that hamburgers should cost about $100. When the price increases to $200, some just eat at home.

And, why are the costs so staggering?

An airplane isn't that different from an automobile in terms of mechanical complexity. My airplane is easier to work on than my 2002 Ford Focus. Way easier.

They both burn gasoline (unless you have a turbine) and get similar mileage.

The volumes are lower so you should expect to pay more for a new aircraft / parts - but many parts can be found at AutoZone or an electronics supplier like Mouser.

The electronics can be more complex, but not always. My Focus has way more electronic boxes than my airplane.

So, why are the costs so staggering?

 

[markmn]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

Brandon,

If you are in touch with LSAs You know they are built very light and there has been a number of LSA runway incidents and accidents due to weak landing gear. Many insurance companies have become unwilling to provide insurance on the newer LSAs and especially composite LSAs because of this.

In order to build in even a modicum of durability the manufacturers have raised the empty weights so that it is not possible to fuel them up and have two normal sized legal passengers.

Being in aviation sales I regularly hear the reasons why potential buyers choose not to buy an aircraft. If the past pilots did not seem to be concerned about flying overweight like we have in a cessna 150 when you have two normal sized adults. New potential pilots dont want to break rules and when they find out they cant legally carry two adults they are turned off.
Of course I want to sell aircraft. But being in the situation I am, I can see some of the reasons why people choose not to be involved in GA.

Changing the rules slightly would allow manufacturers to build in more durability and still maintain a reasonableuseful load. This would allow a more desirable yet much less expensive aircraft to be produced. This would increase participation in GA and safety at the same time.

Mark

 

[murphey]

Re: Should there be a sport pilot/LSA advocacy organization? What's your take on thi

And, why are the costs so staggering?

An airplane isn't that different from an automobile in terms of mechanical complexity. My airplane is easier to work on than my 2002 Ford Focus. Way easier.

They both burn gasoline (unless you have a turbine) and get similar mileage.

The volumes are lower so you should expect to pay more for a new aircraft / parts - but many parts can be found at AutoZone or an electronics supplier like Mouser.

The electronics can be more complex, but not always. My Focus has way more electronic boxes than my airplane.

So, why are the costs so staggering?

Liability issues. Mom told me to go to law school, and I ignored her. Stupid me. But then, my interest was always IP and not personal injury.

But a more practical discussion - Part 23. I have no doubt that most Experimental aircraft I see at my home field would easily pass the Part 23 criteria, it's that the time & effort & $$$ required are not worth it to the EA manufacturing community.

I would dearly love to install a Dynon or other avionics in my cherokee, but the moment I do, the cherokee becomes an Experimental Cherokee. I don't have the $$$ to install an Aspen (welcome to being unemployed as of last Thursday afternoon). I don't have the $$$$ or the 2-3 years to build an RV10 when my 30 yr old cherokee was $40K.

I waited to learn to fly until I could afford it without cringing or skimping. Which means I'm not one of the kids that are the future of GA.

And, of course, we all know the other reason - volume.

"Ford Invests Millions in Cleveland Engine Plant, Supports Growing Customer Demand for EcoBoost* Engines To meet rising consumer demand for the award-winning 2.0-liter EcoBoost® engine, Ford Motor Company will invest nearly $200 million and add 450 new jobs at its Cleveland Engine Plant."

Most people need a ground transportation vehicle (translation - car) unless they live in metro NYC. Few people need an airplane.