Why do CFI's Discourage Sport Pilot

[ralarcon]

Well, rule of thumb

Horse power / 2 = PPH at 100%

From flying a bit, given enough hours you will end up needing to fly at night. And you will end up wishing you didn't have to duck airspace.

But if the medical is a issue for you, that's another story

Well, again no desire to fly at night. All patterns in all of the airports I go to are below 1200 ft AGL. No, Medical not an issue

Cheers

 

[jimson]

The reason I brought up the intent of the SP rules is because people are always complaining about this or that thing and why it's the way it is.

That's cool but if the FAA never intended sport pilots to fly XC then they could have disallowed it with the rec pilot 50 mile radius limit or less. They didn't.

 

[ralarcon]

Yep I agree. Why they call it Sport Pilot. Its for those who fly as a Sport. But many want to use this certificate for commuting around the country as one would if they held a PP certificate. Then we have those who want to sell 100 grand airplanes for a Sport Pilot. We call them LSA's. But really they are nothing but small commuter airplane. Nothing Sport about them. Sport flying is done on nice days in good weather. Nothing more nothing less. Those that fly SP in all weather conditions and from state to state regularly are really not Sport pilots but a PP operating under SP certificate.

Like you said the SP certificate was written for those who flew two seat ultralights. Those are go nowhere style of airplanes. But now we have LSA's with glass panels ect. and pilots who fly them who want to travel from state to state. All claiming to be a pilot who flies for the Sport of it.

Define the word SPORT. What does Sport Pilot mean to you. You will see all sorts of answers and most will have nothing to do with the Sport of flying.

Those of us who burn holes in the sky on nice days are flying for the sport of flying.

What does Sport mean to you?

Tony

This ;

http://www.flyingmag.com/training/learn-fly/sport-or-recreational-pilot-vs-private-pilot?page=0,1


Cheers

 

[Kritchlow]

Who really cares? If Sport Pilots are operating within the rules, why does anyone care?

 

[Henning]

That's cool but if the FAA never intended sport pilots to fly XC then they could have disallowed it with the rec pilot 50 mile radius limit or less. They didn't.

Exactly, I have no issues with SP flying XC, none at all. They did that on purpose because they really didn't want to have anything to do with it and didn't add anything that would increase their work load any more than could be avoided. Notice the LSAs are not FAA certified, just manufacturer certified to ATSM standards. All they wanted out of it was to make sure that people hauling a passenger in a craft that has nearly no ability to create any other casualty had some training. People were suing pilots against their homeowners policies and it was costing the insurance companies money to defend. The rules are what they are to be in compliance with ICAO.

That's why I was trying to clarify the intent of the SP rating. Traveling XC in a small plane is sport to me.

 

[jimson]

This ;

http://www.flyingmag.com/training/learn-fly/sport-or-recreational-pilot-vs-private-pilot?page=0,1


Cheers

Good article with a good argument for SP.

So many pilots begin training and never finish, and I believe that is due in large part to the financial and time commitments involved. The sport license creates a “checkpoint” and gives students the feeling of accomplishment that can only come from earning a pilot’s license. Instead of working toward the private, soloing and having to stop for financial or workload reasons, the student can earn a sport certificate in as little as 20 hours of flight time, and he can keep that certificate for life. It’s much more manageable when the license can be earned in as little as two weeks. Those interested in pursuing the private license can do so after earning the sport license, knowing they have a certificate that won’t expire like a student pilot certificate.
Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/training/l...al-pilot-vs-private-pilot#SBtPDfzfVs5KVVWw.99

 

[Henning]

However, in practice from what has become evident from the people who have gone SP posting here, the "less training time/less cost" factors are not realities in evidence. People are still taking 50-60 hrs to get an SP and are spending more because the rental costs are higher than a 152. So while a good argument, it doesn't seem to be an accurate one.

 

[ClimbnSink]

However, in practice from what has become evident from the people who have gone SP posting here, the "less training time/less cost" factors are not realities in evidence. People are still taking 50-60 hrs to get an SP and are spending more because the rental costs are higher than a 152. So while a good argument, it doesn't seem to be an accurate one.

Those people suck at flying. If meeting sp standards is taking them 50-60 hours how long is it going g to take for them to meet pp standards?

 

[Henning]

Those people suck at flying. If meeting sp standards is taking them 50-60 hours how long is it going g to take for them to meet pp standards?

I say the same about people who take 70-80 hrs getting a PP and I get banned for a week.

 

[jimson]

However, in practice from what has become evident from the people who have gone SP posting here, the "less training time/less cost" factors are not realities in evidence. People are still taking 50-60 hrs to get an SP and are spending more because the rental costs are higher than a 152. So while a good argument, it doesn't seem to be an accurate one.

I heard somewhere that the average was more like 30 to 35.

Rental costs are not necessarily higher everywhere.

Here are some prices in my area:

I'll assume wet
School A PPL
Cessna 150: $90/hour or $86/hour if 10 hours are purchased in advance
Cessna 172: $122/hour or $117/hour at the 10 hour block rate
Instruction is $50/hour in addition to this.



School B SPL

This is where I am going and flight rental is a 2009 Aerotrek 240.

Dual instruction per hour wet, including aircraft and instructor $120

That's $80 wet and 40 for instructor.

 

[Henning]

I heard somewhere that the average was more like 30 to 35.

Rental costs are not necessarily higher everywhere.

Here are some prices in my area:

I'll assume wet
School A PPL
Cessna 150: $90/hour or $86/hour if 10 hours are purchased in advance
Cessna 172: $122/hour or $117/hour at the 10 hour block rate
Instruction is $50/hour in addition to this.



School B SPL

This is where I am going and flight rental is a 2009 Aerotrek 240.

Dual instruction per hour wet, including aircraft and instructor $120

That's $80 wet and 40 for instructor.

Good to know, what area are you in?

 

[James331]

Those people suck at flying. If meeting sp standards is taking them 50-60 hours how long is it going g to take for them to meet pp standards?

In my experience about the same amount of time.

The sport guys I've dealt with requested a bit of night training and instrument stuff too, spin training when able, add the normal above and beyond stuff and it's like the same national average time frame ether way you go.

 

[Bonchie]

Your first instructor was Charles Walls? Lol, he used to be my Father in Law.

This is him:

https://research.archives.gov/id/6482015

 

[jimson]

Good to know, what area are you in?

I'm in Southern AZ.

I just read this and it seems to line up with several other sources:


Just as the average student takes 55 hours to complete their Private Pilot Certification, the average student would take 35 hours to complete the Sport Pilot Certification.

http://www.pinnacleacademy.com/learntofly/sp.htm

So in my situation where rental and training costs are lower for SPL (I didn't check everywhere so some Cessna's in the area could be cheaper) If I hit the 35 hour mark, then it will be significantly less expensive.

I'll let everyone know.

Also the other thing I have been reading is that the SPL drop out rate is lower. I'd say that counts for something.

 

[Bonchie]

I'm in Southern AZ.

I just read this and it seems to line up with several other sources:


Just as the average student takes 55 hours to complete their Private Pilot Certification, the average student would take 35 hours to complete the Sport Pilot Certification.

http://www.pinnacleacademy.com/learntofly/sp.htm

So in my situation where rental and training costs are lower for SPL (I didn't check everywhere so some Cessna's in the area out could be cheaper) If I hit the 35 hour mark, then it will be significantly less expensive.

I'll let everyone know.

Enough talk about it. Go do it.

 

[jimson]

Enough talk about it. Go do it.

I am my friend, I have started.

 

[James331]

I'm in Southern AZ.

I just read this and it seems to line up with several other sources:


Just as the average student takes 55 hours to complete their Private Pilot Certification, the average student would take 35 hours to complete the Sport Pilot Certification.

http://www.pinnacleacademy.com/learntofly/sp.htm

So in my situation where rental and training costs are lower for SPL (I didn't check everywhere so some Cessna's in the area could be cheaper) If I hit the 35 hour mark, then it will be significantly less expensive.

I'll let everyone know.

Also the other thing I have been reading is that the SPL drop out rate is lower. I'd say that counts for something.

NEVER, EVER trust estimated times or expenses from a flight schools website.

Honestly it's a red flag for me when schools use that stuff in their site and marketing materials.

 

[jimson]

NEVER, EVER trust estimated times or expenses from a flight schools website.

Honestly it's a red flag for me when schools use that stuff in their site and marketing materials.

I've seen that estimate several places. 15 hours or so more than the minimum seems more or less reasonable to me.

I seriously doubt that the average hours for SPL is the same as the average for PPL.

I'll let everyone know what I do it in.

 

[Henning]

This is him:

https://research.archives.gov/id/6482015

Ah, he wasn't the C-17 test pilot for Douglas, he picked up the first one for the Air Force.

 

[Bonchie]

Ah, he wasn't the C-17 test pilot for Douglas, he picked up the first one for the Air Force.

There was no test pilot before that flight. This flight (September 1991) was it's first flight and the Air Force did the full flight testing at Edwards. Five other planes were flown out of CA to Edwards as part of the program later. They mandated the takeoff runway heading so they could ditch in the Pacific if needed on that first flight.

Douglas did flight test the YC-15, which the C-17 production model is loosely derived from. It had straight wings and different engines, among other differences.

The AF didn't actually get squadrons of them until 1995.

George wasn't the commander on the plane. I think he was the co-pilot. There were four total aboard for the flight.

 

[Henning]

There was no test pilot before that flight. This flight (September 1991) was it's first flight and the Air Force did the full flight testing at Edwards. Five other planes were flown out of CA to Edwards as part of the program later. They mandated the takeoff runway heading so they could ditch in the Pacific if needed on that first flight.

Douglas did flight test the YC-15, which the C-17 production model is loosely derived from. It had straight wings and different engines, among other differences.

The AF didn't actually get squadrons of them until 1995.

George wasn't the commander on the plane. I think he was the co-pilot. There were four total aboard for the flight.

Charles N (Chuck) Walls, Maj USAF (Ret) was on that handover flight as the company pilot. It had flown before, I watched it taxi out from its engine test position on the other side of 25L at LGB and make its first flight for Douglas. The funniest thing was, I met him at LGB 5 years before I met his daughter in Key West. He was a C-130 pilot in Vietnam.

 

[Bonchie]

Charles N (Chuck) Walls, Maj USAF (Ret) was on that handover flight as the company pilot. It had flown before, I watched it taxi out from its engine test position on the other side of 25L at LGB and make its first flight for Douglas. The funniest thing was, I met him at LGB 5 years before I met his daughter in Key West. He was a C-130 pilot in Vietnam.

Chuck Walls flew P-1's inagural flight. There was a P-1 through P-5 that went to Edwards for the testing program.

T-1 was the first C-17 to actually fly. (I'm assuming T stands for test and P stands for production but I don't know). Chuck may of been on that flight as well, but I can't find reference to it.

You can find reference to Walls being the chief pilot for P-1 in this article:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/C-17S+SET+WEEKLY+RECORD;+PILOTS+PRAISE+PERFORMANCE-a012227298

Bill Casey was the commander on that first C-17 flight (Walls took his place in 1994 as Chief Pilot for the program). London was the co-pilot. I'm not sure if Casey was piloting on that flight or maybe Walls was on board as a pilot. I know four total were aboard.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-chief-pilot-for-yc-15-and-c-17-75937587.html

I can find zero reference to any C-17 flight before T-1 flew in September 1991 and every source I can find says that was the first time it flew.

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/b...res-first-Boeing-C-17-Globemaster-3513345.php

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/17/us/c-17-s-first-flight-smoother-than-debate.html

All these guys knew each other. I'll have to ask George about Walls next time I'm in there.

 

[Henning]

91 would have been the year for sure. The first flight was a big deal on the airport.

 

[SkyDog58]

There should be no discouraging of any sort in regards to what type of aircraft or what certificate a student pilot wants to go for first. Yes, there might be some personal preferences or biases possessed by some of us but whatever gets warm bodies into aviation should be embraced. If someone has a LSA available to them and that is what they want to learn in, they should go for it and we all should support it. It is likely the sport pilot might later want to "upgrade" to a PPL but then again maybe not. The thing is, the personal gratification or feeling of success might come quicker in the LSA and result in a person sticking with it. That is a good thing.

 

[rtk11]

There should be no discouraging of any sort in regards to what type of aircraft or what certificate a student pilot wants to go for first. Yes, there might be some personal preferences or biases possessed by some of us but whatever gets warm bodies into aviation should be embraced. If someone has a LSA available to them and that is what they want to learn in, they should go for it and we all should support it. It is likely the sport pilot might later want to "upgrade" to a PPL but then again maybe not. The thing is, the personal gratification or feeling of success might come quicker in the LSA and result in a person sticking with it. That is a good thing.

This. And thank you for posting. I agree that, given the small (and getting smaller) population of pilots, helping encourage anyone who wants to get into aviation is a good thing.

My only additional thoughts are, if you're going the SP route and are SURE you don't want to progress further, then a CFI-S is fine. But if you have doubts, find a CFI that will train in a LSA so that those hours will count toward the PP certificate.

 

[Ghery]

You did 10 takeoffs and landings and a night XC in 3 hours?

You are quick.

I think my night flying was 4.2 hours when I was done. We did most of the takeoffs and landings one lesson and a then went to Ocean City and back for the XC.

Naw, we had a nice night and the airports in the Puget Sound area are nicely spaced for this. We started out at KOLM, did 3 stop and goes, then flew up to KPAE. Three more stop and goes and we were off to KAWO. Three stop and goes and then back to KOLM. Hobbs ticked over to 3.0 hours and I pulled the mixture.

3.0 hours and the night requirements were finished. Need to do that in the winter half of the year around here. Summers have LONG days. I don't even think about staying night current this time of year.

Side story. I was up getting night current on Sept 10, 2001. Didn't realize that it would be a while before I could fly again when I put the plane away that evening.

 

[SbestCFII]

Money. More instructional hours to private and higher rental rates for larger trainers equates to more money for flight schools and instructors. Sure the private allows you to fly a greater variety of aircraft, carry more passengers, and add ratings (IFR), but if you just want to pleasure fly in day-VFR conditions, the Sport pilot is just fine.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In the US there's about 175,000 private pilots, 250,000 Commercial and ATP pilots.... there are 5,000 sport pilots.

Which tells us nothing. The PP, CP, and ATP have been around effectively forever. SP has only been around since right about when the economy tanked... And we also don't know how many of the PP's got their SP first.

I learned how to fly in a plane built in the late 40s, flew like a champ.

In that case, I hope it WAS a Champ.

 

[jesse]

Money. More instructional hours to private and higher rental rates for larger trainers equates to more money for flight schools and instructors. Sure the private allows you to fly a greater variety of aircraft, carry more passengers, and add ratings (IFR), but if you just want to pleasure fly in day-VFR conditions, the Sport pilot is just fine.

As a flight instructor and aircraft rental operator I assure you neither is true.

I don't encourage sport pilot because I do not have an airplane to do it with.

I'm not going to buy a LSA aircraft because I will lose money on it. It's not going to cost me less to operate, therefore, the rental price will be as much or more than my 172 fleet.

Why would I buy a less capable aircraft, that won't save my customer's money, and most of my customers will have no interest in?

I would much rather save people money and give them a more capable certificate while I'm doing it.

Our competition has a LSA. I can pretty much guarantee I can get someone through a private certificate in a 172 for less money than they can make a sport pilot in their LSA.

Yes, my method isn't perfect, if someone can't get a medical then we're not a good fit for them. The number of people I've encountered that couldn't get a medical and chose to use the competitors more expensive options to get their light sport certificate is zero.

 

[ralarcon]

"I don't encourage sport pilot because I do not have an airplane to do it with."

It is clear to me this is what motivates your point of view.

Cheers

 

[Greg Bockelman]

"I don't encourage sport pilot because I do not have an airplane to do it with."

It is clear to me this is what motivates your point of view.

Cheers

He does have valid points.

 

[jesse]

"I don't encourage sport pilot because I do not have an airplane to do it with."

It is clear to me this is what motivates your point of view.

Cheers

Clearly you didn't read the rest of my post.

 

[exncsurfer]

... if someone can't get a medical then we're not a good fit for them. The number of people I've encountered that couldn't get a medical and chose to use the competitors more expensive options to get their light sport certificate is zero.

I'm curious, if 'zero' of them went to the competitors and couldn't train with you due to medical, what did they choose? We can only assume they chose not to fly. How could a Champ or some other LSA not be inexpensive as a 172? Shouldn't you have at least one so as not to turn any customers away?

I guess if your business is booming why bother.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I'm curious, if 'zero' of them went to the competitors and couldn't train with you due to medical, what did they choose? We can only assume they chose not to fly. How could a Champ or some other LSA not be inexpensive as a 172? Shouldn't you have at least one so as not to turn any customers away?

I guess if your business is booming why bother.

If the demand isn't there it is a waste of capital to have an under used asset on the ramp. It can be better used where it does the most good.

It takes what? 5? 10? Students to support a plane?

 

[exncsurfer]

If the demand isn't there it is a waste of capital to have an under used asset on the ramp. It can be better used where it does the most good.

It takes what? 5? 10? Students to support a plane?

I can see that. I'm not sure why the interest wouldn't be there. Even PP students might want another choice of plane, I mean if you have 5 planes, why not 4 standard, one LSA. LSA can be used for PP, SP, tailwheel(perhaps). But I'm not in the rental/cfi business, so just wondering out loud basically.

Seems Jesse likes flying the flybaby, wouldn't students potentially have interest in a smaller plane as well? (Jesse, get a hammer and knock a hole out for a back seat in that thing!)

 

[jesse]

I'm curious, if 'zero' of them went to the competitors and couldn't train with you due to medical, what did they choose? We can only assume they chose not to fly. How could a Champ or some other LSA not be inexpensive as a 172? Shouldn't you have at least one so as not to turn any customers away?

I guess if your business is booming why bother.

Well for starters a rental airplane is a very expensive thing to have just sitting around.

A rental airplane, completely paid for, costs $700 a month to just sit (hangar, insurance, annual inspection)...that number doesn't include maintenance labor other than inspection or parts. That's money I have to make up or I'd be better off not renting it at all. Given the thin margins it takes quite a bit of flying to make that up when you factor in the money you spend for each hour it flies (wear and tear mx, engine reserve, fuel, oil, 100 hr inspections).

Because of how expensive it is for these airplanes to not fly I want airplanes that EVERYONE can fly. That pretty much rules out taildraggers, sure I love them, sure I could teach them how, but the reality is few would go through that training. Perhaps someday our business will be built up enough to where it would make sense but as it stands today a nosewheel plane is going to fly more. I have more customers capable of flying such a thing.

I have *no* idea what it would cost to ensure a tailwheel for instruction and public rental but I would expect it would cost more than a 172 would. An increase or decrease in hull value hardly swings your rental insurance cost. The expensive part is just the liability side.

So that means we need a nosewheel LSA that two full sized adults can fit in, has a proper electrical system, works well for instruction (not tandem), and has a good radio and transponder (we operate out of class C).

Pretty much any LSA I've seen that can do the above mission will cost me more than a 172 while being less capable. That's not a wise use of the money available for this business.

You have to spend a lot of money in this business and you can certainly make that money back and more...but only if you're smart..and no matter how much I love the classic taildraggers they just don't seem like a smart use of funds (hard to recover the money) and the newer LSA(s) with real capability are expensive for limited utility.

I am very engaged with our customers and I listen to what they tell me they want. None of them are asking for a tailwheel or a LSA. They're asking for a cross country airplane with fold up wheels and some speed. Problem with that is, there isn't enough asking for that yet to possibly not lose our ass trying to deliver something like that. That will change in time.

An interesting fact, there are 508 pilots within 25 miles of our airport, we're throwing a party with free food and beer for a little marketing. I'll be curious to see how many show up. Postcards have been sent to all.

 

[exncsurfer]

Jesse, thanks for taking the time to explain that. It definitely helps shed some light on why it is how it is at a lot of places I bet.

 

[jimson]

He does have valid points.

Yep, I think there are plenty of legitimate reasons why some CFI's won't do sport.

The few places I have checked couldn't match the wet LSA rental and instructor fee I'm paying. Guess I just got lucky.

If the economy recovers, we may just see the demand in sport that some expected, just delayed.

 

[jesse]

Yep, I think there are plenty of legitimate reasons why some CFI's won't do sport.

I'd have no problems at all getting someone their LSA if they brought their own airplane to do it with. I just can't justify providing such an airplane.

 

[kayoh190]

An interesting fact, there are 508 pilots within 25 miles of our airport, we're throwing a party with free food and beer for a little marketing. I'll be curious to see how many show up. Postcards have been sent to all.

Free food and beer? Hell, I'll come out from Socal!