Why do sport pilots get lumped in with builders?

S

spilot50

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
1
Location
Maine
Display Name
Display name:
sp
I don't understand why sport pilots always get lumped in with builders. Granted, most of the (affordable) aircraft that meet light sport specs are homebuilts, so many sport pilots have had to take an interest in them. Nonetheless, many (most?) of us have no interest whatsoever in building an aircraft. I recently heard a quote: "If you want to build, build. If you want to fly, buy." That about sums it up for me. So, I think sport pilots should have their own forum, a place to talk about flying aircraft, not constructing them.

My 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
There are plenty of light sport blogs,a lot are aircraft specific. One of the bigger ones is ct fliers,also don Johnson has a site. Google light sport flying.
 
spilot50 said:
I don't understand why sport pilots always get lumped in with builders. Granted, most of the (affordable) aircraft that meet light sport specs are homebuilts, so many sport pilots have had to take an interest in them. Nonetheless, many (most?) of us have no interest whatsoever in building an aircraft. I recently heard a quote: "If you want to build, build. If you want to fly, buy." That about sums it up for me. So, I think sport pilots should have their own forum, a place to talk about flying aircraft, not constructing them.

My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

There is such a forum, its called Sport Pilot Talk as noted above. EAB crosses the spectrum of aircraft... There are a dozen SLSA makers. Probably more than make larger GA aircraft. The leader is Flight Design of Germany.
 
I think they are lumped together because both experimental and light sport are not "certified aircraft". I suggest starting threads that talk about flying sport aircraft.
 
spilot50 said:
I don't understand why sport pilots always get lumped in with builders. Granted, most of the (affordable) aircraft that meet light sport specs are homebuilts, so many sport pilots have had to take an interest in them. Nonetheless, many (most?) of us have no interest whatsoever in building an aircraft. I recently heard a quote: "If you want to build, build. If you want to fly, buy." That about sums it up for me. So, I think sport pilots should have their own forum, a place to talk about flying aircraft, not constructing them.

My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

I think they're lumped together because a significant percentage of the Pilot community doesn't believe that a Sport Pilot is a "real" Pilot nor do they believe that a home built plane is a "real" plane. I haven't seen it as much with reference to home built airplanes, thanks to the contributions of companies like Van's RV that have, in a lot of instances, exceeded the standards of a certificated airplane, but I've witnessed a range of reactions on POA to Sport Pilot licensing, from utter disdain to indifference to flat out denial that it's even added to the Pilot's population.

While the suggestions in this thread to go somewhere else for Sports Pilot dialogue may be just good advice, there is a Private Pilot "arrogance" on POA that you'll eventually get over. I did.
 
spilot50 said:
I don't understand why sport pilots always get lumped in with builders. Granted, most of the (affordable) aircraft that meet light sport specs are homebuilts, so many sport pilots have had to take an interest in them. Nonetheless, many (most?) of us have no interest whatsoever in building an aircraft. I recently heard a quote: "If you want to build, build. If you want to fly, buy." That about sums it up for me. So, I think sport pilots should have their own forum, a place to talk about flying aircraft, not constructing them.

My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

Because 80% of the human race is stupid.

That said, you are welcome to start your own Sport Pilot forum and declare "No Builders Allowed".
 
Todd Copeland said:
I think they are lumped together because both experimental and light sport are not "certified aircraft". I suggest starting threads that talk about flying sport aircraft.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's not 100% true
 
Actually why do the homebuilders have to get lumped in with the sport pilots. Don
 
Todd Copeland said:
I think they are lumped together because both experimental and light sport are not "certified aircraft". I suggest starting threads that talk about flying sport aircraft.
Click to expand...

SLSA is a new category. It is not 'uncertified' and it is not 'certified.' Certified aircraft are controlled by the FAA, SLSA are controlled by the manufacturer with the FAA watching them.

SLSA can have certified avionics installed, but the cost savings of using 'experimental' class avionics like Dynon gear is a big reason why SLSA costs much less than the 'certified' GA aircraft out there.

Are they less safe? No. In fact, SLSA is the hotbed of innovation and cost reduction, maybe not as much as some would like, but the elements are unarguably there.
 
CTLSi said:
SLSA is a new category. It is not 'uncertified' and it is not 'certified.' Certified aircraft are controlled by the FAA, SLSA are controlled by the manufacturer with the FAA watching them.

SLSA can have certified avionics installed, but the cost savings of using 'experimental' class avionics like Dynon gear is a big reason why SLSA costs much less than the 'certified' GA aircraft out there.

Are they less safe? No. In fact, SLSA is the hotbed of innovation and cost reduction, maybe not as much as some would like, but the elements are unarguably there.
Click to expand...

I don't see any major cost reduction in the field and I don't really see it that possible. From my observation they are built about as cheaply as possible. Your only avionics savings is on the PFD display as you're still going to end up with a certified level box driving it. The product liability costs don't come down due to less stringent (and elusive, it costs thousands of dollars to access ATSM standards last I tried) certification. I doubt development costs of an LSA design are significantly less than for a PT.23 design of comparable capacity and capability. Piper and Cessna both gave up their bids in the LSA market.
 
valittu said:
I think they're lumped together because a significant percentage of the Pilot community doesn't believe that a Sport Pilot is a "real" Pilot nor do they believe that a home built plane is a "real" plane.
While the suggestions in this thread to go somewhere else for Sports Pilot dialogue may be just good advice, there is a Private Pilot "arrogance" on POA that you'll eventually get over. I did.
Click to expand...

I would change "arrogance" to "ignorance"

The most technically advanced non-commercial aircraft I have ever ridden in was Tim's RV10. That thing IMHO is far superior to any certified plane in which I have ridden.

Prior to riding in it, I thought to some extent that these were more dangerous and sort of the toys of aviation.

It was eye opening to ride in that and immediately have my thinking change.
If I win the lottery, I am buying one.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I would change "arrogance" to "ignorance"

The most technically advanced non-commercial aircraft I have ever ridden in was Tim's RV10. That thing IMHO is far superior to any certified plane in which I have ridden.

Prior to riding in it, I thought to some extent that these were more dangerous and sort of the toys of aviation.

It was eye opening to ride in that and immediately have my thinking change.
If I win the lottery, I am buying one.
Click to expand...

You need way more knowledge than can be gained by riding in a plane as to whether it actually is a dangerous toy or a hand crafted work of functional mechanical art. That is even when picking two builds of the same design.
What I see causing most problems with experimentals is in the details, especially poorly installed fuel lines. Poorly faired rigging is also an issue to watch for. Some tasks are just a blood drawing ***** to do, and some people find a way to do it 'easy' if they just make this a bit different.... If you buy an Ex/AB aircraft, these are the issues you have to deal with. I'm not saying they are insurmountable issues, just ones you need to consider rather than judging the whole fleet by one example and realize they are not all the same (or even similar) quality as with a factory built aircraft. That is why most people won't buy an Ex/AB too many unknowns.
 
Henning said:
You need way more knowledge than can be gained by riding in a plane as to whether it actually is a dangerous toy or a hand crafted work of functional mechanical art. That is even when picking two builds of the same design.
What I see causing most problems with experimentals is in the details, especially poorly installed fuel lines. Poorly faired rigging is also an issue to watch for. Some tasks are just a blood drawing ***** to do, and some people find a way to do it 'easy' if they just make this a bit different.... If you buy an Ex/AB aircraft, these are the issues you have to deal with. I'm not saying they are insurmountable issues, just ones you need to consider rather than judging the whole fleet by one example and realize they are not all the same (or even similar) quality as with a factory built aircraft. That is why most people won't buy an Ex/AB too many unknowns.
Click to expand...

No i understand that completely. I had just always seen these as not quite real planes.

However, After getting in one, I realize I was lumping them into a category which was incorrect based on my own mental picture of what home built meant to me.

This homebuilt plane is far more complex and advance than my certified.
 
Anything that takes you off the ground is a real plane lol, whether real safe or real dangerous is the question.:D
 
Henning said:
I don't see any major cost reduction in the field and I don't really see it that possible. From my observation they are built about as cheaply as possible. Your only avionics savings is on the PFD display as you're still going to end up with a certified level box driving it. The product liability costs don't come down due to less stringent (and elusive, it costs thousands of dollars to access ATSM standards last I tried) certification. I doubt development costs of an LSA design are significantly less than for a PT.23 design of comparable capacity and capability. Piper and Cessna both gave up their bids in the LSA market.
Click to expand...


The Flight Design CT is a superior aircraft design and has higher manufacturing quality compared to Cessna and Piper. The reason Cessna couldn't cut it in LSA is due to their lumbering mismanagement, union labor costs, and poor designs.

Soon you will see Flight Design destroy Cessna's four-seater 172 and 182 dominance with their all carbon fiber C4 for the same reasons.

Dynon Skyview is not certified. Yet it offers superior capability to Garmins certified G1000 at a fraction of the cost. The Garmin 796 GPS/WAAS is not certified, yet at a fraction of the cost it has the same or higher capability to Garmin's GNS 430 & 530 certified gear.

SLSA from Technam, Evektor, Pipistrel, Flight Design, Cirrus, Icon, and Vans Aircraft are high quality, innovative, and cost low as compared to anything Cessna and Piper make...
 
CTLSi said:
The Flight Design CT is a superior aircraft design and has higher manufacturing quality compared to Cessna and Piper. The reason Cessna couldn't cut it in LSA is due to their lumbering mismanagement, union labor costs, and poor designs.

Soon you will see Flight Design destroy Cessna's four-seater 172 and 182 dominance with their all carbon fiber C4 for the same reasons.

Dynon Skyview is not certified. Yet it offers superior capability to Garmins certified G1000 at a fraction of the cost. The Garmin 796 GPS/WAAS is not certified, yet at a fraction of the cost it has the same or higher capability to Garmin's GNS 430 & 530 certified gear.

SLSA from Technam, Evektor, Pipistrel, Flight Design, Cirrus, Icon, and Vans Aircraft are high quality, innovative, and cost low as compared to anything Cessna and Piper make...
Click to expand...

Well, the C4 will also be built to the same certification standards as the 172 & 182 and will not be able to take advantage of any of the LSA cost savings measures, so it will be interesting to see the delivered price when they hit the market and what they will be equipped with, hopefully a Diesel for the engine and likely a G-500 and 750 for the panel.

When you can show me a 796 that has Nav/Com capabilities or can track an ILS, or be used for IFR at all, then we can use them comparatively. There is so much built into the TSO WAAS GPS receiver than the 796, even that part isn't really comparable. The 796 doesn't have to let you know when it isn't accurate, that is just one point to it.
 
Henning said:
Well, the C4 will also be built to the same certification standards as the 172 & 182 and will not be able to take advantage of any of the LSA cost savings measures, so it will be interesting to see the delivered price when they hit the market and what they will be equipped with, hopefully a Diesel for the engine and likely a G-500 and 750 for the panel.

When you can show me a 796 that has Nav/Com capabilities or can track an ILS, or be used for IFR at all, then we can use them comparatively. There is so much built into the TSO WAAS GPS receiver than the 796, even that part isn't really comparable. The 796 doesn't have to let you know when it isn't accurate, that is just one point to it.
Click to expand...

The 796 is GPS/WAAS, it is not a radio. To put navcom into my aircraft my GTR 225 gets swapped with the GNC 255 (same form factor), the HSI on the Dynon becomes the CDI and the ILS instrument.

I could have had the GNC 255 on delivery, but I didn't want to fly IFR in this plane, I plan to do that in the C4. Btw. The C4 will be built under Part 23 rewrite, and will have Garmin G3x for a PFD, non certified. That's how they plan to keep the cost down.
 
CTLSi said:
The 796 is GPS/WAAS, it is not a radio. To put navcom into my aircraft my GTR 225 gets swapped with the GNC 255 (same form factor), the HSI on the Dynon becomes the CDI and the ILS instrument.

I could have had the GNC 255 on delivery, but I didn't want to fly IFR in this plane, I plan to do that in the C4. Btw. The C4 will be built under Part 23 rewrite, and will have Garmin G3x for a PFD, non certified. That's how they plan to keep the cost down.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you are talking about a vapor ware plane in the C4, ok, because the Pt 23 recited doesn't exist yet. In the mean time, they will not be using a G3x with 4 seats in the plane. Let us know when there is a final price tag on this bird.
 
I believe OP is referring to the fact that this area of POA is titled "Homebuilders and Sport Pilots" and he would like the forum admins to split it into 2 places.

Doesn't really matter to me, I use the "New Posts" button and rarely am aware of what forum it's technically in.
 
Many many champs, t crafts, cubs, Luscombes fly as light sport. They are certified. The rans courier is far superior to the aforementioned and is a light sport homebuilt. Rans has an excellent reputation and has been around a long time.
 
Henning said:
Oh, so you are talking about a vapor ware plane in the C4, ok, because the Pt 23 recited doesn't exist yet. In the mean time, they will not be using a G3x with 4 seats in the plane. Let us know when there is a final price tag on this bird.
Click to expand...

You are behind the news. The C4 prototype is flying next week. Pictures of the fully equipped plane were presented at Airventure.

FD says they are not gonna wait for the FAA. The FAA and the EASA are rewriting Part 23 together and will have recip on the final outcome. FD has been named the 'guinea pig' or test manufacturer for cert via the rewrite. EASA says they will cert FD first, then FD has agreed they will make the needed tweeks for the final Part 23 the FAA gets done when it gets done.

Meantime they will be building and delivering product. And oh yea, once the prototype flys delivery dates start to go out and new payments get made.

If ya wanna indulge in vapor-craft, you should put your order in for the Cessna JT-A 182...that's just an engine change and they still don't have it out after 3 years. But ya gotta be ready to sit in a 45 inch wide cockpit and a carry a lot of extra weight. It's still an all metal beast and still has old Garmin G1000 in it. And oh yea, it still costs $540k new.

The C4 is 54 inches wide. The Continentals will be offered, the AF (alternative fuels) and the 180hp diesel. The price? Still $250k.
 
Last edited:
CTLSi said:
You are behind the news. The C4 prototype is flying next week. Pictures of the fully equipped plane were presented at Airventure.

FD says they are not gonna wait for the FAA. The FAA and the EASA are rewriting Part 23 together and will have recip on the final outcome. FD has been named the 'guinea pig' or test manufacturer for cert via the rewrite. EASA says they will cert FD first, then FD has agreed they will make the needed tweeks for the final Part 23 the FAA gets done when it gets done.

Meantime they will be building and delivering product. And oh yea, once the prototype flys delivery dates start to go out and new payments get made.

If ya wanna indulge in vapor-craft, you should put your order in for the Cessna JT-A 182...that's just an engine change and they still don't have it out after 3 years. But ya gotta be ready to sit in a 45 inch wide cockpit and a carry a lot of extra weight. It's still an all metal beast and still has old Garmin G1000 in it. And oh yea, it still costs $540k new.

The C4 is 54 inches wide. The Continentals will be offered, the AF (alternative fuels) and the 180hp diesel. The price? Still $250k.
Click to expand...


Let us know the price when it delivers, my bet is $350k. Are you going to Europe to buy yours before it certifies in the US? EASA certification will allow you to operate in the US with an EASA group tail number. Outside of that, the only ones that will operate in the US will be under the manufacturer's Ex/R&D or whatever Experimental certificate. Maybe you can get one in 49% kit form....

I'll be amazed if you have one within 3 years.
 
Just to kind of put a bow on this for someone who reads this in the future and might be confused about LSAs:

Any aircraft that meets the definition of a light-sport aircraft as called out in 14 CFR Part 1.1 is eligible to be operated by a sport pilot. These aircraft can be certificated in any category, such as standard, experimental amateur-built, experimental exhibition, experimental light sport aircraft (E-LSA), or special light sport aircraft (S-LSA).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top