Sport vs. PPL

Z06_Mir said:
I'd only so sport if I wasn't medically ale to get a ppl. Remember you're very limited in aircraft with the sport.
Click to expand...

....and altitude.
....and airspace.
....and speed.

Basically sport pilot is for those who really love to fly but would be otherwise medically grounded and are too fat for ultralights. :lol:
 
If you go sport the later upgrade to pp(if you find you want it) should be about the same money difference as doing the pp first. You save money and time to license up front going sport.
 
Aviatrix - so long as you use the instructor who is a regular CFI you can decide later on which route to take regardless of what airplane you train in. If you train with a Sport Pilot instructor you won't be able to use those dual hours towards a PPL if that's your choice in the end. It's very likely that you may never do any sort of flying that falls outside of the Sport rules but it will limit you as to what aircraft will be available to you. The whole thing is kind of wonky because you aren't ultimately going to be any safer in a Tecnam than a Cherokee 140 or Cessna 172.
 
bartmc said:
+1 I fly for fun too. Folding myself into an LSA isn't fun. Unless you have a great reason not to, go for the PPL.
Click to expand...

i'm a light sport student and i've been in a 172 and a flight design and i find the flight design more comfortable. i'm 6' 210 lbs.
 
Aviatrix said:
Figuring that I'd not pass at 40 exactly it'd probably be closer to $10,000 to finish a PPL.
Click to expand...
I'd say that's a pretty accurate estimate. I plan on $10k for mine when I finally save up the funds. I'll be training out at Republic (FRG) when the time comes
 
Aviatrix said:
Well, living without a car nothing it really easily accessible. I take a subway to a regional rail and then walk 1 mile to get to the airport. But that airport has a lot of schools and the school/club I've picked has two LSA and then a variety of others.

As for the medical, I believe I could pass it. I'm perfectly healthy with no glasses or any other issues.

A lot of it is the cost factor. I wish I lived in rural Montana with that cost! I figured at the school I'm with and joining the club for their lower rate a PPL with just 40 hours would be higher end of $8,000. That also doesn't count the $24.50 I spend getting to and from the airport. Figuring that I'd not pass at 40 exactly it'd probably be closer to $10,000 to finish a PPL.
Click to expand...

You can camp at the airport, head out there for a couple of weeks, come home a pilot with $6,000 to spare. A guy from Pennsylvania was doing that the last time I was there.
 
Aviatrix said:
As for the medical, I believe I could pass it. I'm perfectly healthy with no glasses or any other issues.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought until the FAA decided I was color deficient. The USAF did not back when I got my PPL and Class III but when I went back to flying a couple of years ago after a long layoff, the FAA said different. :rolleyes:

Good luck in whatever you decide.

Cheers
 
I have a PPL with almost 200 hours. I rarely take passengers; maybe twice a year I have a passenger. I rarely fly more than 60nm away from my home base. I'm sorry I didn't just go for Sport Pilot instead of Private.
I would say go for the SP with this instructor you like. Since she's a "regular" CFI all your hours will count should you later go for PPL. Enjoy flying for a couple of years, then upgrade to PPL. Meanwhile on the occasions where you'll have more than one passenger, let boyfiend take all of you in his bigger plane. He can be pilot in command from the left seat while letting you actually do the flying from the right seat. By doing this you can fly anything/anywhere/anytime HE is endorsed to fly.
 
bartmc said:
Fun to me is packing bicycles, camping gear, my dogs and my wife into the plane and heading to the mountains or the lake for the weekend.
Click to expand...

It seems you view your aircraft strictly as transportation or a tool for a job.

Given that, I can understand your lack of enthusiasm for a slow two seater.

Responsive, cheap to operate and great visibility mean nothing if it will not meet your current needs.
 
SteveinIndy said:
....and altitude.
Click to expand...

How often do you fly above 10,000 feet?

....and airspace.
Click to expand...

You can get endorsements for all the same airspace as a Private Pilot.

....and speed.
Click to expand...

A lot of light sport airplanes fly at the maximum allowed 120 knots. That is faster than a 172 and Piper Warrior.

Those really aren't good arguments
 
bartmc said:
Fun to me is packing bicycles, camping gear, my dogs and my wife into the plane and heading to the mountains or the lake for the weekend.
Click to expand...
+1. (in my case, a friend and a couple of bicycles)

And also, it's nice to still be able to do it if conditions are below VFR minimums.
 
:rofl:
Greg Bockelman said:
How often do you fly above 10,000 feet?
Click to expand...

Somewhere around 85% of every flight I've ever taken.

You can get endorsements for all the same airspace as a Private Pilot.
Click to expand...

Yep, and by the time you get all endorsed up, you're in it for about the same amount of training as a PPL and don't have to take 2 check rides to fly a cessna 150..

A lot of light sport airplanes fly at the maximum allowed 120 knots. That is faster than a 172 and Piper Warrior.

Those really aren't good arguments
Click to expand...

I file 160 knots. Why compare LSA to the just barely not LSA aircraft? Why not compare them to an A36, Extra 300, cessna 210, sr22, Harmon rocket, Lancair IV-P, Corvallis, Ovation etc...
 
bartmc said:
:rofl:

Somewhere around 85% of every flight I've ever taken.



Yep, and by the time you get all endorsed up, you're in it for about the same amount of training as a PPL and don't have to take 2 check rides to fly a cessna 150..



I file 160 knots. Why compare LSA to the just barely not LSA aircraft? Why not compare them to an A36, Extra 300, cessna 210, sr22, Harmon rocket, Lancair IV-P, Corvallis, Ovation etc...
Click to expand...

Because student pilots and renters are likely to end up in a 172/warrior. As for hauling all that stuff the OP lives in Manhattan her apartment is likely smaller then your baggage compartment, chances are she doesn't have any recreational toys to haul around. Flying in the NY area the airspace endorsements will get done during training and not require any extra time. The extra checkride IF she decided to upgrade in the future is the only downside to starting out as a sport pilot.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Because student pilots and renters are likely to end up in a 172/warrior. As for hauling all that stuff the OP lives in Manhattan her apartment is likely smaller then your baggage compartment, chances are she doesn't have any recreational toys to haul around. Flying in the NY area the airspace endorsements will get done during training and not require any extra time. The extra checkride IF she decided to upgrade in the future is the only downside to starting out as a sport pilot.
Click to expand...

Why wasn't the recreational pilot cert a smashing success if reduced training is what people seek?
 
bartmc said:
Why wasn't the recreational pilot cert a smashing success if reduced training is what people seek?
Click to expand...

You ever read that thing? Perpetual students, need an XC endorsements after license and no cool new little airplanes to fly. Sport has less training, no medical, autonomy after licensing. Cool new airplanes. As useful for traveling as a bonanza is they are 1950's vintage. Sure you can put satellite radio and a tomtom in your 1957 chevy it is still old. Besides most of those old airplanes smell like old people inside. F'n gross.:lol:
 
ClimbnSink said:
You ever read that thing? Perpetual students, need an XC endorsements after license and no cool new little airplanes to fly. Sport has less training, no medical, autonomy after licensing. Cool new airplanes. As useful for traveling as a bonanza is they are 1950's vintage. Sure you can put satellite radio and a tomtom in your 1957 chevy it is still old. Besides most of those old airplanes smell like old people inside. F'n gross.:lol:
Click to expand...

SPL did two things, it put some regulations on the two seat heavy pt 103 rigs and threw a bone to the older crowd wjlho still wanted to BS about their plane and the airport and make hamburger runs.put a third class medical requirement on SPL and it goes away. If you can pass a medical, get your PPL.

Why aren't you suggesting she go part 103?

I'll take my old bonanza anyday over any new Plastic, aluminum or dish rag built LSA. I have a feeling the old Bos will be flying long after the flash in the pan 75K new LSAs are recycled dish rags. You'd think after 68 years Beech would have just given up on the Bonanza and switched efforts to sporty new LSAs
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
I fly for fun, if LSA was my only option, I'd not fly, they're just not that much fun.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion, but there are thousands of other pilots that disagree, I being one of them. I have owned 4 airplanes, 2 Cessna and 2 LSA's, the LSA's were much more fun to fly than the Cessna models. Not everyone is in a hurry to get somewhere and take everything but the kitchen sink with them. There are many capable cross county LSA's on the market and some nice old classics for that weekend fly-in.
 
Do you hate old people or love rules?
bartmc said:
SPL did two things, it put some regulations on the two seat heavy pt 103 rigs and threw a bone to the older crowd wjlho still wanted to BS about their plane and the airport and make hamburger runs.put a third class medical requirement on SPL and it goes away. If you can pass a medical, get your PPL.

Why aren't you suggesting she go part 103?

I'll take my old bonanza anyday over any new Plastic, aluminum or dish rag built LSA. I have a feeling the old Bos will be flying long after the flash in the pan 75K new LSAs are recycled dish rags. You'd think after 68 years Beech would have just given up on the Bonanza and switched efforts to sporty new LSAs
Click to expand...
 
Dean said:
That's your opinion, but there are thousands of other pilots that disagree, I being one of them. I have owned 4 airplanes, 2 Cessna and 2 LSA's, the LSA's were much more fun to fly than the Cessna models. Not everyone is in a hurry to get somewhere and take everything but the kitchen sink with them. There are many capable cross county LSA's on the market and some nice old classics for that weekend fly-in.
Click to expand...

Why not slow it down even more,carry even less, subject yourself to less regulation, limit you flying options even more and save tons of money by flying part 103?
 
ClimbnSink said:
Do you hate old people or love rules?
Click to expand...

Certainly not, I'd have no friends at the airport if I hated old people. and no I'm not very fond of regulations that restrict me to 120 knots, daytime VFR and one passenger.
 
bartmc said:
:rofl:




Why not compare them to an A36, Extra 300, cessna 210, sr22, Harmon rocket, Lancair IV-P, Corvallis, Ovation etc...
Click to expand...

Cost of ownership.

bartmc said:
Why not slow it down even more,carry even less, subject yourself to less regulation, limit you flying options even more and save tons of money by flying part 103?
Click to expand...

Plenty of people have lots of fun doing exactly this.
 
Last edited:
If I lived in New York I'd want an instrument rating. Oh wait, I live in Phoenix and I have one.

What's the training difference? 3 hours of night and 3 hours under the hood? We're talking 6 hours. Yes I know that the sport pilot requires less hours, but you're only probably going to get done 6 hours sooner. At least that's how I look at it. You still need to learn how to fly the airplane and know all the rules. And you'll need that bravo endorsement too. I never looked into sport pilot much so let me know if I'm off here p,ease.
 
bartmc said:
Why compare LSA to the just barely not LSA aircraft? Why not compare them to an A36, Extra 300, cessna 210, sr22, Harmon rocket, Lancair IV-P, Corvallis, Ovation etc...
Click to expand...

They're entirely different beasts. I don't have the money to go buy a Bonanza. I don't really have the money to rent the $138/hr 172 at the flight school next door. I do have the money to go for the $80/hr - $90/hr light sports. Granted, I could be spending $96/hr on an old ratted out 152 with 10,000+ hours on it, or I could be flying new light sports, some with less than 1000, for less money...plus, they're much more fun to fly. And if I can't afford to shell out $138/hr for anything bigger than a two seater anyway, why go private at first?

Personally, I got my sport first, and then last summer I upgraded that to private. I don't have time time right now to tell you about my experience (two exams this week...woop woop), but I'll try to at some point. In short, though, I'm very glad that I went sport first.
 
bartmc said:
Why not slow it down even more,carry even less, subject yourself to less regulation, limit you flying options even more and save tons of money by flying part 103?
Click to expand...
You are missing the point, flying is not just about getting there fast with all your stuff. That maybe what you are looking to get out of flying, but not everyone is. The plane in my picture is a PC12, nice airplane and it can take 8 plus all the stuff you can shove in it, but its not as much fun to fly as my LSA's.
 
I would let your affinity for the instructor be the determining factor. That is very important, IMHO. It should not take much for her to get checked out in the LSA. See if the school is willing to accommodate you there.

That said, if you have no medical concerns, I recommend the PPL. If you are not planning on owning your own LSA, the PPL gives you more options in renting. I was flying a CTLS out of KTMB and made a bunch of friends that were also renting from the LSA dealer. When he quit renting, they found themselves without an airplane to fly because they were sport pilot or no medical and I, with a PPL and medical, just carried on with my other options.

Aviatrix said:
I just started my flight training. I've been thinking about it for months but wanted to do research on schools and prices, find the time in my schedule and convince my regional airline pilot boyfriend it's not a complete waste of money. He convinced me that I should do my Sport instead of PPL because less time and that extra 10% of flying that I'd get with PPL I'd probably rarely use. I only really want to fly just for fun, not as a career option or anything of that sort. But I guess because for months I planned for a PPL it makes me uncertain of my choice.

Also, on my first lesson (it was rescheduled due to weather, so this may be where the error came up) they didn't put me with an instructor who was checked out in their sport plane so I went up in a Cessna 172. I ended up loving her and scheduled a second lesson with her and went home to think about it. Of course, boyfriend at home convinced me back to Sport, I called to change instructors and plane and they told me she was getting checked out in the plane so I get to keep her no matter what!

I have my second lesson tomorrow finally (so frustrated with the weather!) And I still have to change planes, they didn't know at the desk if she was done being checked out in the Tecnam yet. I just wanted to hear other people's opinions of Sport vs. PPL.

Another thing (sorry for the novel of a post) I don't want to really waste time and money, so I've already been on top of my reading the AFM and PHAK, doing my boyfriend's ground school lessons from when he was an instructor but I fear I may be getting too far ahead in them because my lessons always get rescheduled. Are there any suggestions as well what else to do? I downloaded some podcasts (UND Aerocast), I'll get the checklist and the POH to study as well. I'll also be buying the FAR/AIM shortly as well.
Click to expand...
 
bartmc said:
Let me put it this way. If it weren't for the no-medical clause of the SPL, nobody would have one. You won't find a PPL who wishes they only had an SPL. If a person actually intends to fly an aircraft enough to stay proficient in it, the minuscule amount of training required for a PPL over an SPL is less than insignificant. Take the recreational pilot cert, it requires a medical, has almost no takers.
Click to expand...

Again BS. :mad2:

There are a lot of PILOTS that fly ultra lights because they can. Not because they don't have a pilot's license, but because they love flying light planes. Powered parachutes, ultra lights, what ever, it is about flight and piloting an aircraft. Why are you so obsessed with putting other pilots down for flying something other than what you fly? It's getting old man. Lighten up!
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
For just a little more training, you can fly any LSA and something as ridiculously large as a Cessna 150.
Click to expand...

I have my PPL, own an RV-10 and an LSA RV-12. I would rather fly the -12 on trips under 200 miles, and the -10 for longer trips.

You have a fixation about size, it's abut the sport and fun of it. Maneuverability, viability, and economy. There are days I go flying for 3 hours and have to pull up and climb to get into the pattern to land. I love low and slow. :dunno:

I think your ego is getting the best of you. A little less chest pounding and maybe you enjoying flight sometime. ;)
 
Geico266 said:
Again BS. :mad2:

There are a lot of PILOTS that fly ultra lights because they could, not because they don't have a pilot's license, but because they love flying light planes. :mad2:
Click to expand...

I thoroughly enjoyed flying the CTLS when I had acess to it. I fly the Luscombe every weekend in preference to my other options (it qualifies as LSA). Got a ride in a trike last year and would love to be able to put more time in one. :yes:
 
alfadog said:
I thoroughly enjoyed flying the CTLS when I had acess to it. I fly the Luscombe every weekend in preference to my other options (it qualifies as LSA). Got a ride in a trike last year and would love to be able to put more time in one. :yes:
Click to expand...

You will be a much better pilot having flown many different types and models of aircraft.

Luscombes are fine birds. I would love to own one or an Interstate Cadet:confused:

What happened to just enjoying flying? Funny how people will buy a plane and defend that decision to the death. I have owned and flown many different planes. I can't think of one I would not own and fly again. :dunno:

I learned to fly in a Rans S-12 . They are a good trainer for light aircraft, I was an instructor also. I owned and sold 3 of them before moving to another LSA, then getting my PPL.
http://rans.com/aircraft/kits/s-12xl-airaile.html

Pilots Of America should embrace all airplanes and all pilots, from RC to jets.
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
Certainly not, I'd have no friends at the airport if I hated old people. and no I'm not very fond of regulations that restrict me to 120 knots, daytime VFR and one passenger.
Click to expand...

If that is not your cup of tea, that is fine. But it suits many others just fine. Just because you don't think much of it doesn't mean others don't/won't embrace it.

What you are spouting is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Just don't project it on to others.
 
You can get endorsements for all the same airspace as a Private Pilot.
Click to expand...

Oh? Well thank G-d. There goes one of the major reasons why I had abstained from going sport pilot.

How often do you fly above 10,000 feet?
Click to expand...

When I was training in Michigan, the approach I was taught was if you're going more than 100 miles, there's no point at puttering around a couple of a thousand feet off the ground. Too many birds and, at least close to airports, too many inattentive GA pilots down low.

A lot of light sport airplanes fly at the maximum allowed 120 knots. That is faster than a 172 and Piper Warrior.
Click to expand...

Those really aren't good arguments
I file 160 knots. Why compare LSA to the just barely not LSA aircraft? Why not compare them to an A36, Extra 300, cessna 210, sr22, Harmon rocket, Lancair IV-P, Corvallis, Ovation etc...
Click to expand...

That was going to be my rebuttal. I see an airplane as a way to get from Point A to Point B. A fast cruise speed limits the amount of time I am bored while flying (cruise flight) and the lack of speed was why I stopped flying ultralights.
 
bartmc said:
Then why aren't we suggesting she go part 103? I know G650 rated pilots who fly pt 103 for fun.
Click to expand...

I'm only arguing the aircraft side of the house. I think she should get a PPL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top