Sport Pilot "one of the worst things to happen to GA"?

[TMetzinger]

I vaguely remember the film. Seems like one of them was John Ritter, but I can't be sure. Don't think it was Space Balls, though. Wouldn't be my cup of tea, in any event. What Henning and I are yakking about takes me back to my days of being an active fighter pilot. The practice was pure fun! It only stopped being fun when the other guy was pulling the trigger for real. That's when all the playing and practice paid off.

Yes, it was John Ritter movie. It had the line "There IS a God! And he's a gag writer!" in it. I think it was a Blake Edwards film.

I understand you and Henning - I was just poking some fun. Occasionally I run into another puddle pirate rescue swimmer or a PJ and we compare notes about who could swim the farthest or the coldest water we've been in.

 

[ScottM]

Yes, it was John Ritter movie. It had the line "There IS a God! And he's a gag writer!" in it. I think it was a Blake Edwards film.

I understand you and Henning - I was just poking some fun. Occasionally I run into another puddle pirate rescue swimmer or a PJ and we compare notes about who could swim the farthest or the coldest water we've been in.

Skin Deep

 

[SteveinIndy]

I am so pleased to know we have such a formidable and talented aviator in our midst. I wonder if you'd be interested in going to one of those places that use T-34s and lasers to simulate dog-fighting with me? I feel sure you could teach me more about combat maneuvers and sharpen my pathetic skills.

Former USAF (combat) fighter pilot
Future LSA pilot

I have no doubt you could teach me more than a few things (and would actually welcome it). I never claimed (and never will) to be a supreme all knowing pilot, but when a student can look at someone's flying and go "That's not good" the person at the controls has issues. In your case, I would imagine you could teach us all a few things.

BTW, I suggest you take a look at my previous comment about how I have no serious problem with someone who is previously trained by other means (and reasonably healthy) flying under the sport pilot regulations. It's the completely new pilots who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground that concern me.

Your comment that people should be regulated away from doing dangerous things sure doesn't sound like it came from someone with this background.

It's not to stop them from taking themselves out of the gene pool, it's more to protect others from them. Also, it has a lot to do with the belief that there is a definite difference between "right" and "privilege". In this case, all I request is adequate training, not a Cliff Notes version of flight training for newbies before we give them the privilege of being a pilot. Several people who have PMed me over this have made it sound like they were offended by my suggestion that the 'right' of every person to become a GA pilot should be curtailed. Everyone has a right to try to become a pilot, but the privilege should be reserved for the few who can exceed the standards set forth as providing at least a reasonable degree of safety.

Again, I ask: If someone's safe to drive with a cardiac history, why aren't they safe to fly? Be specific, please; "we need to be as safe as possible" won't cut it. The same goes for diabetes, asthma, sleep apnea, depression, and lots of other conditions that the FAA makes getting even a third class medical difficult.

The fact that you can quickly pull over if you encounter a medical problem under most driving circumstances but don't have that option when flying is probably the #1 reason for the difference. The number of car crashes due to truly instantly incapacitating medical conditions is very small given the number of drivers and miles traveled.

Also, the FAA is a lot less likely to yield to the interest groups that tend to pitch a huge fit if you suggest that someone (normally elderly) be curtailed from driving for a "well-managed" (note the quotation marks) medical condition. One state (I forget which...it was down south somewhere) attempted to stiffen the vision requirements for a driver's license a few years back and the AARP promptly threw a fit, made some political threats and the suggestion (which would have been a great idea BTW) died somewhere in the mire of bureaucracy . I would imagine that also plays a role in why you see some seriously ill and seriously blind people driving (my grandfather who passed away last year being a great example of this...it wasn't until he struck a pedestrian that he admitted he couldn't see and stopped driving).

The percentage of those is no smaller than the percentage of them in aviation

I would agree with that....but you see those fields pushing for increased education, not creating loopholes to let people in with less training.

I spent 17 years in volunteer EMS, 10 of those as a paramedic, 8 of that as team lead, with a service that won two Texas volunteer EMS provider of the year awards while I was there. ANY EMS training program turns out its share of turkeys. Further, no freshly minted paramedic is ever as competent as one who had been out on the street for a few years and had seen the real world. Is the fix for that to require four years of training for a paramedic? At some point, you have to kick them out of the nest and let them actually treat patients and manage scenes. The same goes for aviation: at some point, you have to let them go off and learn

I've actually argued that requiring degrees for paramedics would certainly help improve the career field, but I have no hard evidence that it would improve outcomes. Weeding out the slow and stupid in our ranks as much as we can definitely will. Did I pass students who were still wet behind the ears and had a lot of learning to do? Yeah, but then again I'm coming up on 12 years out of my training and I still learn something every day. The best advice I was ever given by one of my EMS instructors was "The day you stop learning or start to think you know it all, please find a different line of work." I think that applies well both to aviation as well as medicine.

Because of this, Light Sport Aircraft breed a better "Sitck and Rudder" pilot than the average spam can(especially if it's a tail dragger) IMO

I've heard the same thing from many people and tend to believe it (assuming all other things being equal). However, I believe that may be evidence to support the use of LSAs as the initial aircraft for private pilot training (before transitioning to other more traditional aircraft), not as the end of the road for teaching persons who may not receive any further training.

Next step is elimination of certain disqualifying medical concerns in the first place, followed by making the practical test less intensive

I agree 100% with the first part of this statement (within reason) but think the latter part of it is simply asking for that "hump" of fatalities of low hour pilots to grow even higher.

More people flying = more educated people related to flying.

Actually that might not work, assuming that you mean "educated" as a way of indicating people who are intelligent and have achieved things like degrees, etc. The people who currently fly meet this standard for the most part, and the uneducated and therefore have less income are the ones who are hindered by the PPL requirements and resultant cost. I don't think many doctors, lawyers or engineers (as examples of groups with high levels of average intelligence) who really want to fly are going to be brought into the fold by the LSA standard who would not otherwise be already seeking training or have already received it. To me it would seem likely you would simply be reducing the average educational level of a pilot and that may or may not improve our position with the general public, especially if you have some twit downs his LSA into a schoolyard or do something like those EAA dimwits out in North Las Vegas did.

Of course, education and good decision making are not entirely positively correlated, but I trust someone with a high level of education to make a better choice than say....my brother who is a loser who has a menial job and no education. I certainly don't want him flying (hell, I don't want him breeding let alone putting others at risk) but he has some disposable income and exactly the sort of mentality that would attract a young non-pilot to sport pilot training. That is the most likely scenario for the majority of people attracted by lowered standards. My brother (or anyone like him) certainly would not make a good mouthpiece for the aviation world so perhaps reducing the standards to anyone with a pulse and a temperature above ambient is not the best recourse simply to increase the number of persons familiar with our chosen hobby (or profession as it may be).

 

[TMetzinger]

It's the completely new pilots who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground that concern me

Since you can magically tell that completely new pilots don't know anything, why don't you apply to be an inspector with the FAA? Here are the basic requirements for a GA inspector position.

General aviation operations inspectors are responsible for single and multiengine aircraft (including multiengine aircraft over 12,500 pounds gross takeoff weight) used for pleasure, air taxi service, industry, and agriculture. Some of their duties are to:
* Examine airmen (pilots, flight instructors, etc.) for initial and continuing certification;
* Evaluate airmen training programs, equipment, and facilities;
* Evaluate the operations of air taxis and similar commercial aviation operations for adequacy of facilities, equipment, procedures, and overall management to ensure safe operation of the aircraft; and
* Investigate and report on accidents, incidents, and violations.

To qualify for general aviation operations inspector positions, applicants must possess the following qualifications:
* An airline transport pilot certificate or commercial pilot certificate with instrument airplane rating;
* Single and multiengine land airplane ratings;
* A valid flight instructor certificate with single and multiengine airplane and instrument airplane ratings;
* Pilot experience which provided a comprehensive knowledge of operations requirements, facilities, practices, procedures, and flight activities of aircraft;
* A minimum of 1,500 total flight hours as a pilot or copilot;
* Some aviation work experience within the last 10 years;
* A minimum of 300 flight hours within the last 3 years;
* A minimum of 1,000 flight hours within the last 5 years;
* Professional flying skill as demonstrated in a flight check to commercial pilot certificate with an instrument rating standard; and
* Not more than 2 flying accidents within the last 5 years.

=================
When you meet these minimums, and can pass the application and interview process and get hired, you can start to wander around your area of responsibility and inform the LS instructors and examiners that they don't meet standards, and you can violate pilots too.

I don't think many doctors, lawyers or engineers (as examples of groups with high levels of average intelligence) who really want to fly are going to be brought into the fold by the LSA standard who would not otherwise be already seeking training or have already received it

Actually, my experience has been the opposite. The ability for folks to be set free in 20 hours (and dammit, most private students are given similar "solo" freedoms in 20 hours too) has attracted quite a few high-income folks to aviation. My CTO bought a light sport airplane, got his light sport certificate, flew 100 hours in his first year, and recently got his private. He's thinking about his instrument rating when he can free up the required time.

Of course, education and good decision making are not entirely positively correlated, but I trust someone with a high level of education to make a better choice than say....my brother who is a loser who has a menial job and no education.

Boy, I'm sorry your brother is a schmuck, but even if he were a PhD he'd probably still be a schmuck. I don't believe there's any meaningful correlation between education level and aviation judgment. I look at some of the young (not even/barely in college) aviators like our own Jason Herman, and I look at all the pilots I know, and some of the best aviators don't even have any college at all. Some of the "braniacs" are folks I wouldn't fly with if you paid me to do it.

In summary - It's not that I don't want to make flying safer - I do, just as you do. It's just that I think your approach and attitude are completely wrong.

 

[markb5900]

I have been following this thread for awhile and figured it was time to chime in:

Steve, what has given you your vast experience to be able to judge someone on their landings?
Do you know what they were trying to accomplish? i.e. maybe practicing a "keep up your speed approach" or maybe practicing a high and fast approach?
Do you know that?
More times than I care to count I have gone out and REQUESTED the runway with the most x wind to practice my x wind technique. Am I unsafe then? Would you be sitting in the FBO drinking coffee talking about that crazy guy out there and how bad my technique is? Does that make me UNSAFE because you don't like my technique?

My point is, unless you were in the aircraft with the pilot you DON'T know what the circumstances were for the landing that YOU thought was not up to snuff.
If there is any pilot on this board that can say they haven't botched one and still got it down with out dinging some metal PLEASE speak up. LOL

Mark B.

 

[tonycondon]

interesting discussion.

the most scared i have ever been in an airplane was with a Ph.D Mathematician with a Private Pilot cert. in the left seat. We've got about 3 guys at the airport here exercising sport privileges and ive never seen anything out of them that worried me as far as airmanship. seen plenty to be scared of out of renter and transient private pilots and beyond.

 

[jmaynard]

In this case, all I request is adequate training, not a Cliff Notes version of flight training for newbies before we give them the privilege of being a pilot.

Before you say that too loudly, I suggest you compare 61.107(b)(1) with 61.311, and 61.105(b) with 61.309. The only differences relate to operational privileges sport pilots don't have anyway.

Several people who have PMed me over this have made it sound like they were offended by my suggestion that the 'right' of every person to become a GA pilot should be curtailed. Everyone has a right to try to become a pilot, but the privilege should be reserved for the few who can exceed the standards set forth as providing at least a reasonable degree of safety.

Anyone who can meet the standards should get a ticket. The standards should be set to match the knowledge and proficiency required to exercise the privileges granted.

The fact that you can quickly pull over if you encounter a medical problem under most driving circumstances but don't have that option when flying is probably the #1 reason for the difference. The number of car crashes due to truly instantly incapacitating medical conditions is very small given the number of drivers and miles traveled.

So is the number of airplane crashes due to medical conditions of any stripe - and, as has been pointed out before in this thread, the folks who have had those accidents have (or should have) been flying with a medical anyway.

I've actually argued that requiring degrees for paramedics would certainly help improve the career field,

For heaven's sake, why?! What possible benefit is gained by requiring a paramedic to have a degree? I do not have one. Neither did several others, including one chief of the service I belonged to. The others were fine medics who I was proud to serve with; I like to think I was pretty good too. This is another case where you're seekiing to impose a requirement that has no bearing on what it actually takes to do the job, especially if:

but I have no hard evidence that it would improve outcomes.

If it won't improve outcomes, there's no reason to do it - and artificially cutting the applicant pool, especially for those places where EMS is a volunteer service, is a bad idea.

Did I pass students who were still wet behind the ears and had a lot of learning to do? Yeah, but then again I'm coming up on 12 years out of my training and I still learn something every day. The best advice I was ever given by one of my EMS instructors was "The day you stop learning or start to think you know it all, please find a different line of work." I think that applies well both to aviation as well as medicine.

Indeed it does - as does the corollary: you don't graduate people who are top-notch in the field straight out of school. It takes experience to gain wisdom.

However, I believe that may be evidence to support the use of LSAs as the initial aircraft for private pilot training (before transitioning to other more traditional aircraft), not as the end of the road for teaching persons who may not receive any further training.

Why are these two mutually exclusive?

Actually that might not work, assuming that you mean "educated" as a way of indicating people who are intelligent and have achieved things like degrees, etc.

This is sheer intellectual snobbery. Some of the most intelligent people I've ever met have not had degrees.

The people who currently fly meet this standard for the most part, and the uneducated and therefore have less income

Don't paint me with that broad brush. Not all people without degrees have "less income" than those you compare them too. I had no trouble getting through my private.

I don't think many doctors, lawyers or engineers (as examples of groups with high levels of average intelligence)

More intellectual snobbery. We need people from all walks of life in aviation, lest we get tagged as "those rich guys who fly" and get hammered with heavy taxes.

To me it would seem likely you would simply be reducing the average educational level of a pilot

Not only is this totally unsupported by the facts, it's more naked elitism.

and that may or may not improve our position with the general public, especially if you have some twit downs his LSA into a schoolyard or do something like those EAA dimwits out in North Las Vegas did.

How do you explain the Bonanza's reputation as the "fork-tailed doctor killer"? Just because someone's educated doesn't make them a safe pilot. Is it acceptable to dump your 172 into a schoolyard just because it's not an LSA? This is as elitist as anything I've ever read.

Of course, education and good decision making are not entirely positively correlated,

Any correlation is weak at best. Good decision making comes not from lots of book learning, but from experience and wisdom - neither of which you can teach in 4000 hours, much less 40.

reducing the standards to anyone with a pulse and a temperature above ambient is not the best recourse simply to increase the number of persons familiar with our chosen hobby (or profession as it may be).

Not everyone without a degree is like your brother, and you would do well to keep that in mind in your interactions wiht the world at large, not just the world of aviation.

 

[westslopeco]

T-6? Hmm...never flown one. Whatever, it's got to have enough power so we can play in the vertical. I love yoyos, high and low. Needs a good roll rate, too, for those RARE occasions when you get lucky enough to be on my six for half a second. Guess it'll never happen, but sure is fun to contemplate. Yep, yep, yep!

Seeing how this discussion is about LSAs, I think you two are going to have to duke it out in a couple of Zodiacs or 162s...

 

[Ted]

Steve, for a kid who indicates that he's still working on his PPL, you sure seem to know a lot more about flying than the collective, I don't know, 100,000 hours and probably around 150 years of flying that the other pilots who clearly disagree with you have. Add me to that list, of course, although I've only been flying for a year and 160 hours, so I KNOW I don't know jack. You sure think you know a lot for someone who has less experience than me.

I'll let Ray be PIC of my airplane (once I own one) any day, after he can no longer pass his medical... in known ice with an engine out. Furthermore I hope I get to meet the man some day and have him teach me things. You indicated the same. So either you want to tell someone who is clearly more qualified to fly an airplane than you to stop flying, or you want to make an exception for him? Elitist.

You are advocating a nanny state here, that you know what's best for everyone. Furthermore, you are clearly a know-it-all and an elitist, despite your claims to the contrary. I suggest that you go practice being introspective and examine yourself closer. I do not want to share the skies with you, but I accept that so long as you pass your check ride, that indicates that some people out there (who I believe know more than me on such matters) have determined to the best of their abilities that you are capable of flying an aircraft safely enough to go out and actually learn how to fly.

This is the only post I'm going to make on this thread. You're entiteld to your opinion, but clearly the rest of us disagree with you, so perhaps you should go find a crowd that agrees with you. You're sure not going to convince any of us.

 

[Sportpilot]

Very well said Ted.

 

[2256Q]

those EAA dimwits out in North Las Vegas did.

Of course, education and good decision making are not entirely positively correlated

I would dearly love to know what you base the "EAA dimwits" statement upon.

As to the second part of your statement that I quoted above, military aviation most definitely disagrees with you.

 

[2256Q]

Seeing how this discussion is about LSAs, I think you two are going to have to duke it out in a couple of Zodiacs or 162s...

Taking a 162 into the vertical ought to be interesting. For a couple of seconds, anyway.

 

[dmccormack]

This entire thread seems to revolve around the notion that dual training is the only viable "training."

It's not.

It is a component of training, but as soon as possible -- even in the case of a private pilot student -- the fledgling pilot needs to go out and fly -- solo.

We learn what to look for, what to expect, how to think, and how it should be during dual.

We really learn how to fly alone.

 

[2256Q]

This entire thread seems to revolve around the notion that dual training is the only viable "training."

It's not.

It is a component of training, but as soon as possible -- even in the case of a private pilot student -- the fledgling pilot needs to go out and fly -- solo.

We learn what to look for, what to expect, how to think, and how it should be during dual.

We really learn how to fly alone.

Precisely on the mark, Dan. Well said.

 

[jmaynard]

We really learn how to fly alone.

I'll second Ray's "well said", and add that we have only begun that process at the time of the checkride, even a private checkride.

 

[Everskyward]

To me it would seem likely you would simply be reducing the average educational level of a pilot and that may or may not improve our position with the general public, especially if you have some twit downs his LSA into a schoolyard or do something like those EAA dimwits out in North Las Vegas did.

If this is the accident in North Las Vegas you are referring to, the pilot was an ATP.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20080826X01330&key=1

The pilot held an airline transport pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single engine land, multiengine land, and instrument airplane. He additionally held a flight engineer certificate, mechanic certificate, and a flight instructor certificate for airplane single engine, multiengine, and instrument airplane. On his latest FAA third-class medical application, dated September 7, 2006, the pilot stated that he had amassed 6,250 hours of total flight time.

The report doesn't say what his educational level was...

I agree with all the rest who don't think that educational level correlates to being a good pilot. One of the most safety-oriented and conscientious pilots I have ever known and worked with never set foot in college.

 

[2256Q]

I agree with all the rest who don't think that educational level correlates to being a good pilot. One of the most safety-oriented and conscientious pilots I have ever known and worked with never set foot in college.

No argument with that. I think the reason the military requires the education in its pilots is the college degree allows the military to presuppose a certain level of learning ability. The fact that so many wash out is proof that's not always a good indicator.

 

[jmaynard]

I think the reason the military requires the education in its pilots is the college degree allows the military to presuppose a certain level of learning ability.

How much of it is that, and how much of it is simply that they think a pilot needs to be an officer and an officer must have a degree?

 

[2256Q]

How much of it is that, and how much of it is simply that they think a pilot needs to be an officer and an officer must have a degree?

At the beginning of my career, I asked that question. I had managed to make it into one of the few remaining OCS courses that would be given in the Air Force. A year or so after my class, OCS was discontinued and OTS (for college grads only) was the only path to a commission. I was told, as I said in the earlier post, that having the drive and ability to obtain the degree was what USAF wanted. The degree itself didn't matter so much. So, if I was lied to, I'm lying to you. 'Bout the best answer I can give.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Simply requiring any pilot of any designation to comply with the following should solve the problems:

http://www.secureav.com/AMCC-Listings-Page.html

 

[2256Q]

Simply requiring any pilot of any designation to comply with the following should solve the problems:

http://www.secureav.com/AMCC-Listings-Page.html

Primarily a good, common sense document. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone followed such procedures.

 

[docmirror]

Of course, education and good decision making are not entirely positively correlated, but I trust someone with a high level of education to make a better choice than say....my brother who is a loser who has a menial job and no education. I certainly don't want him flying (hell, I don't want him breeding let alone putting others at risk)

Whew, you're a persistent guy, I'll give you that. This statement right here tells me all I need to know about you. This goes beyond your aviation discussion right to the heart of your problem, and yes - you do have a problem.

I don't know you or your brother. I can tell you right now, I'd trust his lesser intelligence as long as he doesn't want to judge me(just like you have judged him) further than I trust you.

People like you always think they know what is best for the populace. You just can't keep your damn hands and regulations, rules, laws, codes, notices, etc. to yourself. While it would be interesting to limit breeding to only those that you qualify, I don't think that's a world I want to live in. Ever seen THX-1138? You'd fit right in.

I'm not frightened by much but you scare the **** out of me. Seek help, from someone that you putatively trust with lots of letters behind the name.

 

[TMetzinger]

Simply requiring any pilot of any designation to comply with the following should solve the problems:

http://www.secureav.com/AMCC-Listings-Page.html

I like this - the only issue I have with it is the way it lumps passengers and people on the surface as the same priority. I put the innocent folks on the ground first, then my pax.

 

[ScottM]

I'm not saying LSA's aren't fun to fly nor usefull. All I am saying is I think the intent the FAA has with LSA is to replace GA as a form of transportation. Can you go as far, as fast and carry as much in an LSA as you can with a C-182, Bonanza, Tiger, Cherokee Six, etc? See where I'm going with this?

Didn't mean to bash anyone's plane, I just see a disturbing trend.

I haven't really followed the LSA movement but I don't get that feeling at all. I thought LSAs were mainly aimed at people who just wanted a way to get up in the air, bum around their local area and get their $100 hamburger. Of course there would be some who would use it as transportation but I never got the idea that was their real purpose.

I think Mari has it right. It was also a way to stop the growing ultralight movement from getting out of control with the use of uncertified aircraft. I think there was a regulatory fear that the ultralight crowd was doing something that could reflect poorly on the FAA if accident started getting up to a noticeable amount and the suits did not want to appear as though they had been remiss in not regulating the ultra light pilots.

 

[jmaynard]

I think Mari has it right. It was also a way to stop the growing ultralight movement from getting out of control with the use of uncertified aircraft. I think there was a regulatory fear that the ultralight crowd was doing something that could reflect poorly on the FAA if accident started getting up to a noticeable amount and the suits did not want to appear as though they had been remiss in not regulating the ultra light pilots.

Everyone who worked on it had different goals, and that shaped the final rule. The FAA wanted to get "fat" ultralights under control. The EAA and AOPA wanted to expand the ranks of pilots. The manufacturers wanted to create a new market. Everyone got what they wanted.

I don't see it as a way to explicitly squeeze out larger GA airplanes, although the market may have some of that effect. Nobody building the rule had that in mind, as it would have been inopposition to some goals of all of them.

 

[PittsDriver]

I'm not frightened by much but you scare the **** out of me. Seek help, from someone that you putatively trust with lots of letters behind the name.

I'd like to think this guy is just a troll. It's an interesting discussion to talk about the correlation between regulatory oversight and safety. I said my peace about that a while back in this thread. I don't think there's any reason to be frightened by this guy as I believe that as an industry and society we're generally smarter than to let this guy ever be in a position of responsibility.

 

[ScottM]

From a historical point did the current evolve from a lessening certification requirements or by adding them?

What that means is was there a pilot certification and then at some point someone said that we do not need to do all those things for pilots who are not flying for money and lets take a few requirements out and then create a 'private pilot' certificate.

Or was there a pilot certificate and someone at some point said we should test those that are making money at this at a higher level and thus was born the commercial pilot certificate?

 

[t0r0nad0]

I am so pleased to know we have such a formidable and talented aviator in our midst. I wonder if you'd be interested in going to one of those places that use T-34s and lasers to simulate dog-fighting with me? I feel sure you could teach me more about combat maneuvers and sharpen my pathetic skills.

Former USAF (combat) fighter pilot
Future LSA pilot

I'm game old man, teach you how to do that crap without having a burner to stand on....

You forget, kid, that my initial training was in the T-34, including combat maneuvers. We're old friends, and sure I'll play. Be fun to do a little turnin' and (well, almost said burnin') whatever. I've been wondering for some time now how many Gs I can still handle. Ha! Probably black out at 1.5 after 5 seconds.

I would love to watch this. My money is on Ray

+1! I'd also love to see this... I'm in Ray's corner too, gotta support the H-town guy!

You really think we could find somebody crazy enough to let Henning and me fly their T-34s? Got to admit, it would be a BLAST! Bet I could still handle 5 or 6 Gs. That oughta be enought to pull a lead on Henning. (I can dream, can't I?)

Well, I know the owner of this one based over at HOU... I don't know for sure, but the guy may let you take the controls with him in the other seat if you buy the gas...

Why don't you two put on fluorescent condoms and have a swordfight in the dark?

(Can't remember the movie where that scene took place accompanied by StarWars sound effects - Space Balls)?

There was a scene in Spaceballs, but it was the Shwartz rings and not fluorescent condoms... with Bill Pullman and Rick Moranis.

This entire thread seems to revolve around the notion that dual training is the only viable "training."

It's not.

It is a component of training, but as soon as possible -- even in the case of a private pilot student -- the fledgling pilot needs to go out and fly -- solo.

We learn what to look for, what to expect, how to think, and how it should be during dual.

We really learn how to fly alone.

Precisely on the mark, Dan. Well said.

+1! Steve... you said that you requested more dual time before your solo... are you of the mind that students shouldn't be allowed to go out and learn solo until they have well in excess of 20 hrs?

I'm of the opinion that SP is like student solo flying, except you can take a passenger with you. You don't have to worry about learning the night flying and extra stuff you do for the PPL, which allows you to concentrate on basic airmanship and navigation. It's a great way for people to get into aviation, and all the hours count towards the PPL minimums, should you decide you want to expand your privileges later! Were I to do it all again, I might be tempted to go for my LS license first, as that pretty much satisfies the type of flying that I currently do, albeit in a slightly smaller airplane. It would have been a much more economical choice, and I would probably be able to afford to fly a little more frequently than I do now. I would eventually have gone after my full-bore PPL, but to get my feet wet, the SP would have been a great option!

 

[GigG601XL]

How much of it is that, and how much of it is simply that they think a pilot needs to be an officer and an officer must have a degree?

That's exactly what it is. Please note though you can go straight from high school to flight school in the Army through the Warrant Officer program. I think I read a while back that the Navy was thinking addpoting the same sort of program for helicopters.

I didn't realize until now that Steve R was only a student pilot (though I probably should have). Steve, I want to tell you that you are a prime candidate for a aviation related accident. You think you know a lot about flying that you don't really understand.

 

[2256Q]

Hi, PJ. Dang, that's a beautiful Mentor! I have got to get over to Hobby one of these days soon.

 

[t0r0nad0]

No kidding Ray! It was on our ramp for Vietnam Heritage Day just a couple weeks ago!

 

[GigG601XL]

I think Mari has it right. It was also a way to stop the growing ultralight movement from getting out of control with the use of uncertified aircraft. I think there was a regulatory fear that the ultralight crowd was doing something that could reflect poorly on the FAA if accident started getting up to a noticeable amount and the suits did not want to appear as though they had been remiss in not regulating the ultra light pilots.

With the exception for what aircraft are used for training LSA didn't effect the legal UL movement at all. Part 103 is still there.

 

[Paul Lewis]

Some observations and comments:

I don't think the Sport Pilot rating is "one of the worst things to happen to GA." That statement is not well thought out and a bit elitist. Quite to the contrary, I think it is an evolutionary effort deserving of praise and a lot of future work to make it as safe as possible for pilots and those on the ground. I do think it is the child of airplane manufacturers in their lobbying mode, although some of those manufacturers appear to have been taken by surprise. With proper nurturing, it should prove to be a boon for GA, but only if nursed correctly.

I have had a PPL for 41 years and I still do with the 3rd class medical. I fly for fun and fly regularly; usually on 200 km to much longer cross country flights alone or with my wife to get a burger. I go where ever I want and have had few difficulties over the years. I just sold my Cessna and bought a brand new VFR LSA that I think will meet my future mission requirements.

To fly this plane, my new insurance says I must have 3 hours dual with a CFI and 2 hours solo before taking passengers. That seems reasonable, but a new Sport Pilot with zero previous time needs only 20 hours minimum, which pales to my experience. My insurance also says that any pilot I give the keys to must have 15 in type (there are no such specimens at my fbo). The CFI I have used for years and who has 6,000+hours in 32 different types of planes must get 5 hours in type prior to providing me instruction. The irony is that after I get my 5 hours, I can provide the 5 hours of experience to my instructor who can then be legal to instruct me as a CFI.

Any PPL can get and become a Sport Pilot CFI with 15 hours and a test. Currently, the nearest Sport Pilot CFI to me is 200 miles from here. It is not similar to finding a CFI for a check ride for a 172 or a Warrior. Still and so far, these rules seem reasonable, but are quite restrictive and make buying a light sport more difficult when you consider who can check you out (there are few, very few). My suggestion: if you are committed to buy a Light Sports Airplane and you are a PPL, get your in type endorsement prior to placing your order, even if it is at your expense.

If I ever decide not to take my 3rd class medical, I will be restricted to 10,000 feet (why not the service ceiling of my plane at 12,500?), daytime VFR, and only fly when visibility is 3 miles or greater. Just by not taking a 3rd class medical, how did this fact alone dictate the above restrictions? Exactly what assumptions are being made relative to the medical about (perhaps) vision and ability to breathe? Perhaps, the FAA should look at the logbook of the pilot and prior qualifications and allow certain waivers. For example, I fly into class C and B now and have for years, do I need to get a new entry in my logbook that I can do this under Sports Pilot (probably not)? What happened to my skills when I stopped taking my medical? What is the fine line between the PPL and the SPL with regards to medical for experienced pilots? The problem here is that they defined a Sports Pilot category from a no experience level and failed to differentiate a Sports Pilot from a transisional reasonable to extensive Private Pilot experience.

A better suggestion is to make Sport Pilots have an annual physical from their family physician and define disqualifying conditions. If such conditions are violated, then make insurance dependent and non-payable under same. The fact that one can take a low dose of Xanax or Excedrin PM and drive a car and then also fly under the Sport Pilot rule, but be denied privileges under the PPL rule seems disingenous and dangerous.

My last suggestion is that any PPL be grandfathered in to Sports Pilot with the same priviledges as a PPL as exercised prior. The inherent restrictions would be imposed by the aircraft that could be flown with limitations on speed, service ceiling, stall speed, etc. as currently defined for Sports Pilot aircraft. Certainly, these aircraft restrictions would give old geezers with a PPL the right to have fun and not be too dangerous, but practice their recreational trade as they have for years.

Final observations...I have flown many Light Sport Category planes and I have found them to be highly responsive and often erratic sometimes to the point of not being forgiving. Many of them are not entry level airplanes. The Cessna 150/152 is probably the safest airplane ever built (much more forgiving than most Light Sport aircraft) and should have been included in this category. The reason it was not was the probablility that Cessna would like nothing more than to send all 30,000 150/152's to the big aluminum shredder. I know this is cynical, but probably true. If you want to create a group of safe Sport Pilots, my choice would be to train them in a 150, but that will never happen.

Beyond that, the Sports Pilot New vs. the PPL to Sports Pilot needs a review.

 

[Capjac]

I have been following this thread, and now I wish I had not! Now I must go back and get my money back from my college, they sure did not help the landings I had last night

Ray and Henning, not the planes you asked for, but:

http://www.aircombat.com/

They will be in Houston in October

Tim

 

[TMetzinger]

Some observations and comments:


To fly this plane, my new insurance says I must have 3 hours dual with a CFI and 2 hours solo before taking passengers. That seems reasonable, but a new Sport Pilot with zero previous time needs only 20 hours minimum, which pales to my experience. My insurance also says that any pilot I give the keys to must have 15 in type (there are no such specimens at my fbo).

Wait, what you MEANT to say was that a new sport pilot, with 20 hours of time, including 15 hours in type, would be acceptable to your insurance, right?

Seems reasonable to me. For the type of flying a sport pilot is legally allowed to do, time in type and recency of experience is probably more important than total time, in my opinion.

 

[2256Q]

I have been following this thread, and now I wish I had not! Now I must go back and get my money back from my college, they sure did not help the landings I had last night

Ray and Henning, not the planes you asked for, but:

http://www.aircombat.com/

They will be in Houston in October

Tim

Did you check out those prices? Lordy, I live in Fleetwood, not River Oaks! Correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks like something on the order of 15,000 each. Maybe I didn't look a the right part of the site, but goodness! I just want rent the plane, not buy it.

 

[Capjac]

Did you check out those prices?

I hear you! I looked at this a couple of years ago when they were in KC, and realized it is one dream that will have to wait until I win the lottery!

Tim

 

[etsisk]

I think the medical qualifications need to be more stringent, not less but you probably don't want to hear that. I think the consideration for a wide margin of safety trumps the possible heartbreak of someone having to sell their plane. It's better to mourn the loss of your plane than to have your family mourn the loss of you.

And that would be based on what exactly??? Certainly not the statistics that show that the numbers of medically caused accidents are infinitesimally small and rare, to boot. So, what do you base your opinion on, here?

The rest of that post sounded patronizing and arrogant, though I'm sure you are neither of those things. Sigh.

 

[RogerT]

<<<Personally I think the "sport pilot" idea ("Let's let people fly with LESS training!") and all that went along with it is one of the worse things to happen to general aviation along the continued tolerance of homebuilt aircraft and ultralights. Suffice to say I believe in increasing standards, not skirting the bare minimum.>>>

Personally .. I think you're one of two things .. arrogant as heck or
a troll just posting flame bait.

So going on the assumption you're for real .. how long have you been flying now to gain all this wisdom? I think you're just jealous because you paid
for your training and heaven forbid anyone else would get to fly without
paying the same dues. I doubt it has anything to do with skill level. I know
enough pilots that have pretty high qualifications that like flying LSAs. And
I know pilots with only SP certificates that are good pilots.

I have a few ratings I earned, but I welcome the Sport Pilots with 20 hours
to the pilot community. I see no issue with the SP qualifications given the
simplicity of the aircraft and the restrictions on flying under SP.

I fly an EXP/AB that I built. It qualifies as an LSA. So I didn't bother paying
to renew my medical and just fly it under SP rules. I've owned 5 type certificated aircraft prior to this one. It's expensive. Now the only thing
I pay someone else to do is the transponder check. If I somehow feel like
spending lots of money again fly .. I'll renew my medical and jump back into
that arena. But the LSA arena gives me what I want .. cheap, fun flying.

So you just do the kind of flying you like .. and everyone else can do what
they like.

Are you really Bertie the Bunyip?????

 

[jhausch]

And this is the real issue that has to be addressed. If we want aviation to expand, we need to get out of the airport model. We need 300' neighborhood launch/recovery sites as well as building tops. With LSA rules, we have the ability to develope these craft with minimal involvement from the FAA. Now in order to function in an urban environment HITS and the rest of the next gen ATC system will have to be in place. That's really what is limiting GA more than everything else combined, functionality and practicality. Most of us live in urban/suburban metropolitan centers and spend 90% of our time there. Just getting to an airport is often an ordeal in and of itself. When intra-urban flying becomes really practical, then aviation will expand. We're close, probably 20 years developement at the current pace, but it's going there.

This simultaneously reminded me that Piper imagined small airparks across the nation for his AC to easily fly in and out of; and that Bell has decided to not move ahead with the civilain version of the Osprey because of post-9/11 discomfort of AC in city centers.

I like you thinking, but the deck seems to be stacked against us.