Why do CFI's Discourage Sport Pilot

bartmc said:
How many of those certifieds have been in production in the last 60 years?
Click to expand...

Does this even matter? With diamond shutting down, beech coming out of bankruptcy and diminishing shipments of piston in general, this metric could weigh on ga in general..
 
supernovae said:
Does this even matter? With diamond shutting down, beech coming out of bankruptcy and diminishing shipments of piston in general, this metric could weigh on ga in general..
Click to expand...


Just pointing out that nobody bothered to build LSAs until you could suddenly fly them without a medical.
 
supernovae said:
Medical isn't the problem for me, lsa is intriguing because of operating costs. Airplanes that sip 5gph, fly 120kn and come in all sorts of configurations are intriguing. Put an lsa into a club and your fixed costs are meager and your operating costs..
Click to expand...

Grab your PPL and fly both.
 
I'm a PPL and I would counsel anyone to start with SP. If you then find it limiting, you can move on to PPL. Make sure your CFI is rated to instruct the PPL curriculum. Train to PPL standards, but you'll prolly be ready to take the exam much earlier, so you won't get those extra steps, but it can always be added.

I think there is still a stigma, or pecking order in aviation. The ATP looks down on the comm, the comm looks down on the PPL, and the PPL looks down on the miserable pudknockers who are SP. It's the nature of humans that we rank people. The stigma also has a financial aspect to it that might, or usually would encourage a potential student to spend more money on their rating. In aggregate, over time this is going to bring in more money because students of either program are 'discrete'(one rating per student).

I completed my PPL at 47.8 hours. I did it in my own personal plane, with a private instructor that I was paying by the hour, and the goal was to get my cert in the shortest possible time, and maintain suitable safety. I think if one wanted to minimize cost overall, they would buy a Luscombe, or T-craft, or Aeronca(LSA compliant), find a PPL instructor, and have him teach the SP program. The pilot would get the benefits of taildragger landings, and be able to schedule more flights provided the CFI was flexible.

I have never, and will never denigrate a SP pilot, and if I meet one in a shiny new LSA will beg like a dog for a bone to have him take me for a ride.
 
bartmc said:
Just pointing out that nobody bothered to build LSAs until you could suddenly fly them without a medical.
Click to expand...

I always thought nobody built LSA's because there was no Certification class for LSA's prior to the LSA creation. As far as I can tell, LSA's are a lot easier to bring to market and thusly they come with all the new bells and whistles and doodads. This didn't happen because of medicals, it happened because a new class of aircraft were authorized within limits by the FAA to be built and sold without the hefty certification of PPL rated aircraft.

FAA:

315. Airworthiness Certification of Very Light Aircraft (VLA).
a. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]A VLA is considered a special class of aircraft under 14 CFR § 21.17(b). A VLA is defined as an airplane with a single engine (spark or compression-ignition), not more than two seats, a maximum certified takeoff weight of not more than 750 kilograms (approximately 1654 pounds), and a stall speed of not more than 45 knots calibrated airspeed in the landing configuration. The operation of these airplanes is limited to normal category maneuvers and to Visual Flight Rules (VFR), day only, under 14 CFR part 91.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]8/31/2010 8130.2G 3-8
[/FONT][/FONT]b. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]All VLA are eligible to receive FAA Form 8100-2 under 14 CFR § 21.183(a) or (b) if the airplane has a TC and is manufactured under an FAA TC or PC. Because the VLA is type certificated as a special class of aircraft under 14 CFR § 21.17(b), the category in block No. 4 on FAA Form 8100-2 must be identified as VLA-Special Class.
[/FONT][/FONT]c. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The import airworthiness certification requirements of 14 CFR § 21.183(c) are applicable to VLA designed to meet the criteria of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) CS-VLA (formerly Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) for VLA). The FAA type certification basis for import VLA with EASA CS-22 (formerly JAR 22) engines and propellers installed will be shown on the TCDS. The category in block No. 4 on FAA Form 8100-2 will be identified as VLA-Special Class for Imported VLA.
[/FONT][/FONT]
 
bartmc said:
Just pointing out that nobody bothered to build LSAs until you could suddenly fly them without a medical.
Click to expand...

You are correct in the US manufacturers are a day late and a dollar short, unfortunately that has been the norm lately.

However, several manufacturers have been building " fat ultra lights" kits here, and light sport aircraft by the dozens in other countries. The US was actually one of the last countries to adopt the SP rating and LSA classification for aircraft. Europe has been building LSA aircraft for decades. We have been asleep at the switch, mired in bureaucracy.

The US manufacturers failed to see the future and foreign competition has gotten a strong foothold here first. When Cessna has their LSA built in China that speaks volumes to the real problem, but no one is listening.

Van's is now offering a ready to fly RV-12. :D
 
Last edited:
supernovae said:
I always thought nobody built LSA's because there was no Certification class for LSA's prior to the LSA creation. As far as I can tell, LSA's are a lot easier to bring to market and thusly they come with all the new bells and whistles and doodads. This didn't happen because of medicals, it happened because a new class of aircraft were authorized within limits by the FAA to be built and sold without the hefty certification of PPL rated aircraft.
Click to expand...

I think you are correct, supported by the fact there are far more LSA manufacturers than any other type. Whether most survive remains to be seen, but I think it was more than just the medical that sparked this activity.
 
The same reason the new car salesman points you toward that extended warranty, more money in his pocket.
 
supernovae said:
I always thought nobody built LSA's because there was no Certification class for LSA's prior to the LSA creation. As far as I can tell, LSA's are a lot easier to bring to market and thusly they come with all the new bells and whistles and doodads. This didn't happen because of medicals, it happened because a new class of aircraft were authorized within limits by the FAA to be built and sold without the hefty certification of PPL rated aircraft.

FAA:

315. Airworthiness Certification of Very Light Aircraft (VLA).
a. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]A VLA is considered a special class of aircraft under 14 CFR § 21.17(b). A VLA is defined as an airplane with a single engine (spark or compression-ignition), not more than two seats, a maximum certified takeoff weight of not more than 750 kilograms (approximately 1654 pounds), and a stall speed of not more than 45 knots calibrated airspeed in the landing configuration. The operation of these airplanes is limited to normal category maneuvers and to Visual Flight Rules (VFR), day only, under 14 CFR part 91.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]8/31/2010 8130.2G 3-8
[/FONT][/FONT]b. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]All VLA are eligible to receive FAA Form 8100-2 under 14 CFR § 21.183(a) or (b) if the airplane has a TC and is manufactured under an FAA TC or PC. Because the VLA is type certificated as a special class of aircraft under 14 CFR § 21.17(b), the category in block No. 4 on FAA Form 8100-2 must be identified as VLA-Special Class.
[/FONT][/FONT]c. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The import airworthiness certification requirements of 14 CFR § 21.183(c) are applicable to VLA designed to meet the criteria of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) CS-VLA (formerly Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) for VLA). The FAA type certification basis for import VLA with EASA CS-22 (formerly JAR 22) engines and propellers installed will be shown on the TCDS. The category in block No. 4 on FAA Form 8100-2 will be identified as VLA-Special Class for Imported VLA.
[/FONT][/FONT]
Click to expand...

$149,000 for a chinese built successor to the 152... yeah right.
 
While I've never discouraged anyone from becoming a sport pilot, these are the reasons why I would not become one:
1. No LSA available. You can't fly one, if they aren't at the local airports. Of the two airports in my area, neither has any flight school or rental.
2. I can't fit in one, or I couldn't take a passenger with me. Most LSA and even non-LSA aircraft have poor cabin size and/or useful loads. It's also nice to put my family of four in a plane and go somewhere.
3. Cost. Why pay more to fly a smaller plane? I don't care if it is new or 10-20 years old. I'm not paying $110/hr for a C162 when I could pay $90 for a Piper Cadet or something similair.

Medical: I don't care. I have a first class. Could be the main reason to fly LSA if you can't get one.
Restrictions: day and under 10,000' cover the majority of all GA flying. So this shouldn't worry people. I make sure I tell students or anyone interested the limitations of the sport/rec/private certificates. I let them decide.
 
Otto the pilot said:
While I've never discouraged anyone from becoming a sport pilot, these are the reasons why I would not become one:
1. No LSA available. You can't fly one, if they aren't at the local airports. Of the two airports in my area, neither has any flight school or rental.
2. I can't fit in one, or I couldn't take a passenger with me. Most LSA and even non-LSA aircraft have poor cabin size and/or useful loads. It's also nice to put my family of four in a plane and go somewhere.
3. Cost. Why pay more to fly a smaller plane? I don't care if it is new or 10-20 years old. I'm not paying $110/hr for a C162 when I could pay $90 for a Piper Cadet or something similair.
Click to expand...

#1, There are lots of LSA's flying in PA

#2, True.. if you can't fit, you can't fit. This also changes your available aircraft regardless..

#3 - meh.. you can fix this with the tinniest bit of effort, lots of affordable LSA clubs and rentals and if you like comparing apples to oranges and all you need is a two seater the LSA with glass for the same price as a 40+ year old basic panel still sweetens the LSA deal.

Get whatever fits the mission though!
 
supernovae said:
Again, you're so fixated on that weak Cessna :)

How about that Pipistrel Virus..or those Flight Designs, Remos, Tecnams, AMD, Kitfoxes.. so on and so forth.

and why so focused on new markets? Lots of used LSAs are really affordable in price.

http://www.controller.com/listingsd...SIGN-CTSW/2006-FLIGHT-DESIGN-CTSW/1248039.htm
Click to expand...

Because you said that relaxed aircraft certification requirements NOT medical issues were the driver for manufacturers starting to build NEW LSAs. I'm not aware of any manufacturers building used planes.


If anyone should be able to build an "affordable plane" because of relaxed regulations, Cessna is who we're going to look at to lead the way. They have the industry knowledge and tools to build em. They can't seem to do it. Which makes me think that the "relaxed certification" argument is BS.

I'm just fixated on why anyone who could easily obtain a medical would limit themselves to SPL. Makes no sense.
 
bartmc said:
Because you said that relaxed aircraft certification requirements NOT medical issues were the driver for manufacturers starting to build NEW LSAs. I'm not aware of any manufacturers building used planes.


If anyone should be able to build an "affordable plane" because of relaxed regulations, Cessna is who we're going to look at to lead the way. They have the industry knowledge and tools to build em. They can't seem to do it. Which makes me think that the "relaxed certification" argument is BS.

I'm just fixated on why anyone who could easily obtain a medical would limit themselves to SPL. Makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Define affordable.. Define your mission.. Define your budget.. Define your monthly / yearly funds..

Last I checked a new 172 costs 300k.. if I can get a new 2 seater for half that cost with a full glass cockpit, isn't that affordable?

Outside of Cessna, which I would never buy a 162 new.. choose another LSA where you have an aircraft that can fly on Mogas with a fuel burn of 4.8gph

The reason Cessna's will never be affordable is the company is servicing billions in debts..
 
supernovae said:
Define affordable.. Define your mission.. Define your budget.. Define your monthly / yearly funds..

Last I checked a new 172 costs 300k.. if I can get a new 2 seater for half that cost with a full glass cockpit, isn't that affordable?

Outside of Cessna, which I would never buy a 162 new.. choose another LSA where you have an aircraft that can fly on Mogas with a fuel burn of 4.8gph

The reason Cessna's will never be affordable is the company is servicing billions in debts..
Click to expand...

Sure, that would be affordable. For that money in a 2 seater, I want at least 180HP, an interior, some leg room, 700lbs useful load, cargo space and 160 knots. Easily doable if you don't artificially limit yourself to the LSA regulations.

Why do you need all that glass for day VFR?
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
Sure, that would be affordable. For that money in a 2 seater, I want at least 180HP, an interior, some leg room, 700lbs useful load, cargo space and 160 knots. Easily doable if you don't artificially limit yourself to the LSA regulations.
Click to expand...

OK, so you have a mission that isn't LSA.. why are you even here discussing this then?

Just because you have that mission, everyone else should too?

I think a lot of this bickering could be mitigated if Sport was just a tier of your PPL rating.. I said it earlier in this thread, if you qualify for sport / recreational flying in the same training as you would PPL (no sport CFI's being in the mix) then you could just increase your ratings as needed. Obviously you CAN do this is you fly your sport with a CFI PPL and use PPL limits for your checkrides/training.. but it would be nice if this was the defacto to be honest.
 
supernovae said:
OK, so you have a mission that isn't LSA.. why are you even here discussing this then?

Just because you have that mission, everyone else should too?

I think a lot of this bickering could be mitigated if Sport was just a tier of your PPL rating.. I said it earlier in this thread, if you qualify for sport / recreational flying in the same training as you would PPL (no sport CFI's being in the mix) then you could just increase your ratings as needed. Obviously you CAN do this is you fly your sport with a CFI PPL and use PPL limits for your checkrides/training.. but it would be nice if this was the defacto to be honest.
Click to expand...

Nope, my argument is, that a lot less people would have the SPL/LSA mission if it required a 3rd class medical. Which leads me to my opinion that a healthy person should pursue PPL and not dink around with SPL. I think we should be beating down the doors down in OKC demanding that they drop the 3rd class requirement for PPL privileges in the CONUS. That would be 2nd to $1/gal AvGas in rejuvenating GA. While some may feel SPL/LSA regulations are GREAT. I don't. I think they were a disservice to GA. Now it's going to be even harder to pry the 3rd class requirement out of PPL because a "no medical" industry has popped up around the SPL regulations and if you drop the 3rd class requirment for PPL privileges, those $150,000 planes lose a lot of value.
 
bartmc said:
Why do you need all that glass for day VFR?
Click to expand...

There are LSA's without glass..

But to be honest.. We don't need any of it, its just cool as hell, convenient and fairly well priced. If you're blowing gobs of money, may as well be with something you want. :D
 
bartmc said:
Nope, my argument is, that a lot less people would have the SPL/LSA mission if it required a 3rd class medical. Which leads me to my opinion that a healthy person should pursue PPL and not dink around with SPL. I think we should be beating down the doors down in OKC demanding that they drop the 3rd class requirement for PPL privileges in the CONUS. That would be 2nd to $1/gal AvGas in rejuvenating GA. While some may feel SPL/LSA regulations are GREAT. I don't. I think they were a disservice to GA. Now it's going to be even harder to pry the 3rd class requirement out of PPL because a "no medical" industry has popped up around the SPL regulations and if you drop the 3rd class requirment for PPL privileges, those $150,000 planes lose a lot of value.
Click to expand...

Again, I have no problem with my medical. I walk in, I pay 80 bucks or so, they poke and prod and I walk out. Also, The medical doesn't change the reality of my mission, and if it DOES change the reality of your mission, i'd imagine you would change your mission so you didn't need everything you claim you need right?

What changes my mission is my income, my time, my desires and my skills and currency..

Also, How could they be a disservice to GA at all? You're benefiting by having a new certificated aircraft that can test out all the latest technologies from carbon fiber builds to glass panels to safety/BRS systems and new modern materials that would take EONS to get into typical "ppl" aircraft. You can also choose to checkout in a LSA rated aircraft and not be restricted to LSA requirements - the Flight Design flies great and can support instrument approaches (all though i'd never want to fly real in the cloud instrument in lsa.. it could make a decent training platform..)

Aircraft are expensive regardless of your medical.. There just isn't any economy of scale.. But then again, are you really implying you ONLY fly around in new aircraft and new aircraft pricing has to be amazingly affordable for something to be a success?
 
bartmc said:
I think they were a disservice to GA.

Now it's going to be even harder to pry the 3rd class requirement out of PPL because a "no medical" industry has popped up around the SPL regulations and if you drop the 3rd class requirment for PPL privileges, those $150,000 planes lose a lot of value.
Click to expand...

It's kinda strange, cause the FAA had an option of dealing with the fat ultralight crowd. They could have just regulated it out of existence. But, they didn't. They found a set of compromises that seem to be working pretty well. You can go part 103, and fly low and slow without any paperwork at all. http://www.culverprops.com/back-yard-ul.php

You can step up to SP, and carry one person go a bit faster.

Or go all the way to PPL, then comm, ATP, etc.

I don't know that the 3rd class requirement being dropped for the PPL was ever on the table to begin with. I know there was a lot of talk in the GA community, but as far as the FAA, I never heard any discussion from them. Possibly I missed it, but if the SP stepped on those plans, the FAA will see that there is either no, or limited results from removing the 3rd class requirement and maybe adopt it for PPL.
 
supernovae said:
Again, I have no problem with my medical. I walk in, I pay 80 bucks or so, they poke and prod and I walk out. Also, The medical doesn't change the reality of my mission, and if it DOES change the reality of your mission, i'd imagine you would change your mission so you didn't need everything you claim you need right?

What changes my mission is my income, my time, my desires and my skills and currency..

Also, How could they be a disservice to GA at all? You're benefiting by having a new certificated aircraft that can test out all the latest technologies from carbon fiber builds to glass panels to safety/BRS systems and new modern materials that would take EONS to get into typical "ppl" aircraft. You can also choose to checkout in a LSA rated aircraft and not be restricted to LSA requirements - the Flight Design flies great and can support instrument approaches (all though i'd never want to fly real in the cloud instrument in lsa.. it could make a decent training platform..)

Aircraft are expensive regardless of your medical.. There just isn't any economy of scale.. But then again, are you really implying you ONLY fly around in new aircraft and new aircraft pricing has to be amazingly affordable for something to be a success?
Click to expand...

You can do that in the experimental world too, with even less restrictions. But why restrict all that to 1320lbs? I'm fine with extending the LSA certification process to bigger planes. I don't really have an issue with the LSA planes themselves. I don't think there's a ton of healthy folks that the small slice of aviation called SPL is all they're ever going to need or want. Perhaps a few, but I've never met one. Not knocking anyone who buys or flies them, I just think if you can get the PPL, you should. IMHO, SPL is extremely limiting and the extra training to get a PPL isn't very much for what it buys you in usefulness.
 
docmirror said:
It's kinda strange, cause the FAA had an option of dealing with the fat ultralight crowd. They could have just regulated it out of existence. But, they didn't. They found a set of compromises that seem to be working pretty well. You can go part 103, and fly low and slow without any paperwork at all. http://www.culverprops.com/back-yard-ul.php

You can step up to SP, and carry one person go a bit faster.

Or go all the way to PPL, then comm, ATP, etc.

I don't know that the 3rd class requirement being dropped for the PPL was ever on the table to begin with. I know there was a lot of talk in the GA community, but as far as the FAA, I never heard any discussion from them. Possibly I missed it, but if the SP stepped on those plans, the FAA will see that there is either no, or limited results from removing the 3rd class requirement and maybe adopt it for PPL.
Click to expand...

I think AOPA (and maybe EAA) gave it some lip service for planes 180HP or less.

EDIT, here it is: http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/medical-certification-petition.html
 
bartmc said:
You can do that in the experimental world too, with even less restrictions. But why restrict all that to 1320lbs? I'm fine with extending the LSA certification process to bigger planes. I don't really have an issue with the LSA planes themselves. I don't think there's a ton of healthy folks that the small slice of aviation called SPL is all they're ever going to need or want. Perhaps a few, but I've never met one. Not knocking anyone who buys or flies them, I just think if you can get the PPL, you should. IMHO, SPL is extremely limiting and the extra training to get a PPL isn't very much for what it buys you in usefulness.
Click to expand...

You can go experimental regardless if you have the time and knowledge to do so and you have the mission and aircraft that fulfills that mission. If you're mission is you and a buddy doing fishing trips, an LSA experimental could fulfill that for 60k but if your mission is 500 nm trips with a family of four or a bunch of golfing buddies, obviously you need the rating & aircraft to support that.

I too would recommend the PPL rating, but we wouldn't be talking about "should if you could" if SPL was simply the foundation for PPL (as I mentioned earlier..)

Aviation is one of those in your face realities. We all have dreams of doing what we want and those dreams may be doing more harm than good. Am I better off committing to a PPL and buying a 4 seat aircraft that I can barely afford and will barely fly and my experience will reflect that or am I better off getting into an aircraft where my dreams may be brought down to earth a bit, but I can afford to fly and use with more frequency because of exponentially lower operating costs?

For me.. PPL it is, but i'll probably spend 99% time flying LSA type aircraft.. but even then, i'm probably lying to myself i'll actually rent or buy for that 1% because when it comes down to me doing my risk assessment, do I really feel capable, current and trained enough to spend so much of my flying career either supporting or ignoring that 1% requirement and would I be better off just having fun and falling back to alternatives for that 1%?

I say embrace SPL..
 
Rusty has a point that if there were no third class medical there would be less reason for me to go SP and I'd probably opt for PPL. However, if it were a tier or rating progression as supernovae suggested, with one starting out as a SP and progressing through to PPL, then there would be no reason for me to just jump straight into PPL. Best of both worlds. It wouldn't matter if a medical was or wasn't required. I'd start with SP and see how things went first. Maybe I would find out that I don't have the time, resources or desire to continue on to other ratings.

As it is now, if I were to start SP training and get my SP cert. with a CFI-SP, it stops there. Since no training time logged with a CFI-SP counts toward PPL, progressing to PPL would mean starting your training from scratch, although with some experience, and logging all the required hours and re-accomplishing many of the same tasks to PPL standards.

But, as was stated in some earlier posts, if one were to start out in SP with a CFI rather than a CFI-SP and complete the requirements of the PPL rather than SP standards, then it effectively does become a tiered system. Whether it's in a 162 or 172, hours spent flying with a CFI count toward PPL. It's just that the first tier doesn't require a medical.

If the FAA were to do away with the CFI-SP, and change the curriculum so that the required portions of the SP match the standards for PPL, then we would have a tiered system. But you don't have to wait for the FAA, just tailor your training to make it work for you. Best of both worlds.
 
QuiQuog said:
Rusty has a point that if there were no third class medical there would be less reason for me to go SP and I'd probably opt for PPL. However, if it were a tier or rating progression as supernovae suggested, with one starting out as a SP and progressing through to PPL, then there would be no reason for me to just jump straight into PPL. Best of both worlds. It wouldn't matter if a medical was or wasn't required. I'd start with SP and see how things went first. Maybe I would find out that I don't have the time, resources or desire to continue on to other ratings.

As it is now, if I were to start SP training and get my SP cert. with a CFI-SP, it stops there. Since no training time logged with a CFI-SP counts toward PPL, progressing to PPL would mean starting your training from scratch, although with some experience, and logging all the required hours and re-accomplishing many of the same tasks to PPL standards.

But, as was stated in some earlier posts, if one were to start out in SP with a CFI rather than a CFI-SP and complete the requirements of the PPL rather than SP standards, then it effectively does become a tiered system. Whether it's in a 162 or 172, hours spent flying with a CFI count toward PPL. It's just that the first tier doesn't require a medical.

If the FAA were to do away with the CFI-SP, and change the curriculum so that the required portions of the SP match the standards for PPL, then we would have a tiered system. But you don't have to wait for the FAA, just tailor your training to make it work for you. Best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

I guess my view is a little different. Before I knew anything about aviation. I thought you either had to go into the military or have a quarter million dollars + pass a hyperbaric chamber test + some G-Force testing + present yourself to a board and be selected. (I'm not really exaggerating, I thought all pilots were either going through Top Gun or NASA). When I happened on an advertisement for pilot training on a convenience store cork board. I thought "That's it? Sign me up.". I've never really felt that the PPL standards were "too much" and I've never regretted one second of dual instruction.
 
bartmc said:
If anyone should be able to build an "affordable plane" because of relaxed regulations, Cessna is who we're going to look at to lead the way. They have the industry knowledge and tools to build em. They can't seem to do it. Which makes me think that the "relaxed certification" argument is BS.
Click to expand...

The 162 costs HALF of what a new 172 costs. If they'd have needed to certify it under Part 23, it'd be $250K. Nobody would buy that, and they knew it, which is why they didn't build it before SP/LSA rules came about.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
The 162 costs HALF of what a new 172 costs. If they'd have needed to certify it under Part 23, it'd be $250K. Nobody would buy that, and they knew it, which is why they didn't build it before SP/LSA rules came about.
Click to expand...

The Liberty XL and Diamond DA20, Alarus etc.. don't approach that price, they're certified, comparable price to a 162 and are more capable planes. A new 172 is $275K, I'm not seeing a ton of cost savings and seriously doubt it would demand a $250K price tag to certify a 162. Some cost savings, no doubt. But not enough to bring it to market without a fresh pool of potential buyers.
 
I don't think that they're too much either. But imagine a kid just out of high school or is starting college. He's a healthy young kid, interested in flying, has a job but not a lot of money and would have no trouble passing a medical.

He sees an ad on a corkboard like you did and wishes he could fly, but the prospect of investing $10-15k is something that he's not ever done or is willing to do right now. He passes it by but then stops and sees the next ad. It's also pilot training and is just a few thousand dollars. He has that muched saved up for his next car already. He doesn't know a 162 from a 172. He doesn't even care, he could actually become a pilot. He just has to decide between getting a different car or keeping his wreck and flying. We already know the outcome of this one.

So yes, the prospect of a failing a medical has brought a lot of people into sport. But to some it never has even crossed thier mind when they got into sport. It never crossed mine when I learned of SP and called the airport. If marketed correctly and supported enthusiastically, SP could be a huge boon to GA, maybe even lead to the next heyday, especially when these new LSA's depreciate and are being sold for half the price of a depreciated larger plane. But not if a sport pilot is poo poo'd and made out to be less than a "real" pilot.

Me? I can't wait to give my boy his first ride with his new sport pilot dad. I know he won't know the difference. Heck, maybe he'll even learn to fly before he learns to drive.
 
QuiQuog said:
I don't think that they're too much either. But imagine a kid just out of high school or is starting college. He's a healthy young kid, interested in flying, has a job but not a lot of money and would have no trouble passing a medical.

He sees an ad on a corkboard like you did and wishes he could fly, but the prospect of investing $10-15k is something that he's not ever done or is willing to do right now. He passes it by but then stops and sees the next ad. It's also pilot training and is just a few thousand dollars. He has that muched saved up for his next car already. He doesn't know a 162 from a 172. He doesn't even care, he could actually become a pilot. He just has to decide between getting a different car or keeping his wreck and flying. We already know the outcome of this one.

So yes, the prospect of a failing a medical has brought a lot of people into sport. But to some it never has even crossed thier mind when they got into sport. It never crossed mine when I learned of SP and called the airport. If marketed correctly and supported enthusiastically, SP could be a huge boon to GA, maybe even lead to the next heyday, especially when these new LSA's depreciate and are being sold for half the price of a depreciated larger plane. But not if a sport pilot is poo poo'd and made out to be less than a "real" pilot.

Me? I can't wait to give my boy his first ride with his new sport pilot dad. I know he won't know the difference. Heck, maybe he'll even learn to fly before he learns to drive.
Click to expand...

I completed my PPL Checkride on 12/31/2008 my total cash outlay was approx $4,000.00 (maybe closer $4,500 after I paid the DPE) when the DPE inked my temporary certificate. It would cost you approx $500 more today.I went to FL 2 weeks ago they were offering a deal on SPL for $8,000.00 in a Tecnam.....
 
bartmc said:
I completed my PPL Checkride on 12/31/2008 my total cash outlay was approx $4,000.00 (maybe closer $4,500 after I paid the DPE) when the DPE inked my temporary certificate. It would cost you approx $500 more today.I went to FL 2 weeks ago they were offering a deal on SPL for $8,000.00 in a Tecnam.....
Click to expand...
Congratulations. That doesn't sound like the norm, and it doesn't discount what I said. I haven't seen everything, but I've never seen a place that advertised sport next to private and charged more for sport. If they did, then they just spent a buttload on a plane that nobody will use. And for a young person who wants to get into flying for less money up front, SP is a viable and really great option. And yes, I know you don't regret a minute of dual time, nobody is going to say less training is better, but how much time do you have in a twin, or acro, or jet? I imagine that you don't need any of that for most of your mission profiles. Yet you seem to think that less than what you did isn't worth anyone's time.

Jet jockey Jim thinks you're less of a pilot because you didn't train in a Hornet, so be quiet while the adults are talking. You just putt around the low altitudes at subsonic speeds and leave the serious flying to the "real" pilots.
 
bartmc said:
Why do you need all that glass for day VFR?
Click to expand...

This makes little sense to me as well.

I think some of the LSA's are pretty slick aircraft. I like the Flight Design models. They are efficient, inexpensive to maintain, have surprisingly large cockpits - most well laid out with glass displays. But despite all of that expensive technology, I can't do anything I wouldn't be able to do in a piper cub.
 
QuiQuog said:
Congratulations. That doesn't sound like the norm, and it doesn't discount what I said. I haven't seen everything, but I've never seen a place that advertised sport next to private and charged more for sport. If they did, then they just spent a buttload on a plane that nobody will use. And for a young person who wants to get into flying for less money up front, SP is a viable and really great option. And yes, I know you don't regret a minute of dual time, nobody is going to say less training is better, but how much time do you have in a twin, or acro, or jet? I imagine that you don't need any of that for most of your mission profiles. Yet you seem to think that less than what you did isn't worth anyone's time.

Jet jockey Jim thinks you're less of a pilot because you didn't train in a Hornet, so be quiet while the adults are talking. You just putt around the low altitudes at subsonic speeds and leave the serious flying to the "real" pilots.
Click to expand...

I have G650 time, but that's another story. :D I was in Flight Safety the other day inquiring on getting the type rating, when the odometer in my log book rolls around to where they'll take me, I might pursue it... The $70K price tag might be cost prohibitive though and they want some twin turbine time, which also might prove to be a bit of a financial challenge. If I could get it today, I would. Damn right I want to fly a Hornet, if you can take my bank account and figure out a way, let's do it. I'm not trying to pretend PPL puts me in the same league as those guys, it doesn't but it's all I can afford right now. I'm not trying to be condescending to SPL, I really do not see the point in the license if you can pass a medical.

I think the number of people who fall into the crack where PPL is cost prohibitive and SPL is not and/or LSA meets their mission requirements and have no use for anything else but can pass a medical are so ridiculously small that I'd never recommend SPL, I'm not a CFI, no interest in being one and money in my bank account has nothing to do with it.
 
dell30rb said:
This makes little sense to me as well.

I think some of the LSA's are pretty slick aircraft. I like the Flight Design models. They are efficient, inexpensive to maintain, have surprisingly large cockpits - most well laid out with glass displays. But despite all of that expensive technology, I can't do anything I wouldn't be able to do in a piper cub.
Click to expand...

I think they go with glass for at least 2 reasons. One is bling factor, people like shiny things. Two is weight savings. One glass panel can replace 6 or more steam guages. Also, a private pilot may want to use an LSA as well. He may find a use for that expensive technology. So there's 3 reasons, there may be more.
 
bartmc said:
I completed my PPL Checkride on 12/31/2008 my total cash outlay was approx $4,000.00 (maybe closer $4,500 after I paid the DPE) when the DPE inked my temporary certificate. It would cost you approx $500 more today.I went to FL 2 weeks ago they were offering a deal on SPL for $8,000.00 in a Tecnam.....
Click to expand...

$4500 for a PPL is completely atypical and you know it. What facility exactly did you use? I figure the school would love for that price to be advertised because they would have more business than they could handle.

Did that $8000 in Florida include room rent for the 2 weeks? Did they offer a similar PPL package?
 
maddog52 said:
$4500 for a PPL is completely atypical and you know it. What facility exactly did you use? I figure the school would love for that price to be advertised because they would have more business than they could handle.

Did that $8000 in Florida include room rent for the 2 weeks? Did they offer a similar PPL package?
Click to expand...

I honestly didn't know it until I started seeing price tags other people paid on here long after I had my PPL in hand.

I saw his info on a corkboard in a convenience store in Philipsburg MT and that was all I knew.

PPL was 10,000 in the tecnam or 12,000 in the G1000 172. It was just a sign on the FBO counter, caught my attention because it was ridiculously high priced. But that's the only place I've ever seen an LSA for rent and I noted that the SPL was nearly double what my PPL was.

http://www.bitterrootaviation.com/ call him. The last time I spoke with him he was planning on setting up a seasonal flight school in Las Vegas for winter. I know he went down there this winter and knocked out a couple of students and scouted the area. He has a 1966 Cessna 150 that he's owned for 30 years (or a /G C172RG if you want to do comm or IR), is an A&P/IA and owns the FBO. it (was 6 months ago) $85 (maybe $90) for the Cessna 150 WET with Instructor or $55 (maybe $60) wet rate solo. I was signing checks for $80/hr for plane + instructor in 2008. Took me approx 50 hrs to get my PPL. He only charges HOBBS time for instruction, i.e. he won't keep you for a 1hr post flight briefing and charge for it. Leather sofas, G1000s and crew cars cost money, guess who's paying for it?
 
dell30rb said:
This makes little sense to me as well.

I think some of the LSA's are pretty slick aircraft. I like the Flight Design models. They are efficient, inexpensive to maintain, have surprisingly large cockpits - most well laid out with glass displays. But despite all of that expensive technology, I can't do anything I wouldn't be able to do in a piper cub.
Click to expand...

I love cubs, but that CTLS has a 1000 mile range, 550lb useful load, BRS parachute and I believe you can get the Dynon package with 2 axis auto pilot, XM weather and all the electronic flightbag goodness..

The CTLS is very capable for cross country.. a slightly different market than your typical Cub jaunt.
 
maddog52 said:
$4500 for a PPL is completely atypical and you know it. What facility exactly did you use? I figure the school would love for that price to be advertised because they would have more business than they could handle.

Did that $8000 in Florida include room rent for the 2 weeks? Did they offer a similar PPL package?
Click to expand...

I'm paying 100/hr for a traumahawk and 37/hr for instructor, averaging about $160/lesson with about 1.3 hours flight time.

Industry average 60 hours + fees sums right up to about 10k.. if you can finish sooner you're still looking at about 7-8k.. not including ground school, headset, books, materials..
 
bartmc said:
I think the number of people who fall into the crack where PPL is cost prohibitive and SPL is not and/or LSA meets their mission requirements and have no use for anything else but can pass a medical are so ridiculously small that I'd never recommend SPL, I'm not a CFI, no interest in being one and money in my bank account has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
I think that your opinion on the medical may be true for people in the flying community who know what a medical is and how much power it has over whether or not you get to fly any more, but not for the young kids. I think most of them who are looking towards the sky aren't even aware of any medical requirements beyond good vision, and they wouldn't care because most of them could pass it without taking their thumbs off their cell phone.

A bigger factor for them is cost, where the difference between $5k and $10k may be 1% of your annual budget, it may be 50% to a poor college student. And would they care much that they can't go cross country with their wife and kids along? More likely they would like to get sweet Sally along for a ride, and worry about the wife and kids a few years down the road. Think about SP as a starter ticket that will grow with the student. After all, if Johnny and Sally just got married, they wouldn't start out in a 4 bedroom 3 1/2 bath 2 story on 2 acres. They'd get an apartment.

Think of it as a starter home for the young people, not a bail-out efficiency apartment for the fat old divorcee with a bad ticker.
 
supernovae said:
I'm paying 100/hr for a traumahawk and 37/hr for instructor, averaging about $160/lesson with about 1.3 hours flight time.

Industry average 60 hours + fees sums right up to about 10k.. if you can finish sooner you're still looking at about 7-8k.. not including ground school, headset, books, materials..
Click to expand...

Ya'll need to move to the sticks.
 
bartmc said:
Ya'll need to move to the sticks.
Click to expand...

What are the current rates where you are? 10 years ago when I had my frist attempted I paid 57/hr for a 152 wet and 27/hr for an instructor. (2001-2002)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top