Originally Posted by L16 Pilot
When you compare that cost to a new Cirrus, then it appears to have moved the needle in the direction the FAA was hoping for. Having said that, (adjusted for inflation, 1959-2018) it is not quite the $76,000 average delivered price of 1959 C150s.
For most, probably, yeah. I spent a WHOLE lot less than that and can outrun a 172, hauling 450# of people and bags with full fuel. If I could fly something faster, I would. If I could fly something bigger, I would. But I can't, so I fly what I can. It's useful. That said, enlarging the spectrum of what qualifies as light sport is a good thing.
Pretending there is nothing between a Champ and a $150K brand new S-LSA seems to happen a lot, but it's either uninformed or disingenuous.
Measure twice, cut once...
scratch head, shrug, shim to fit.
Flying an RV-12. I am building a Fisher Celebrity, slowly.
S3flyer, my bladder won't last that long !LOL
Bob
While I agree with you completely - I viewed the Sport Pilot ticket as one for "fun" flying rather than to use an aircraft for transportation, this is part of the whole Many Faces of Aviation. More cynically, I look at it as a way to get "fat ultralights" and ultralight pilots (regardless of how fat they are) on the books.
Before Basic Med, a lot of Private Pilots used Sport Pilot rules to fly without a current medical, and I can see how they would chafe at the limitations of LSA compliant aircraft.
And I can certainly see some Sport Pilots not fully appreciating what they wanted out of aviation from the start and wanting something different. We see this all the time with selection of aircraft folks decide to build, after all. From too expensive to wrong fit for the mission they want to too complex a build, it's the alphabet of miscues that puts a lot of started aircraft on the market.
And yes, not all LSA's are created equal. The FlightDesign CTLS is a hot little aircraft that is a great "getaway" aircraft for those who want to travel and know how to pack light, for example. The picture perfect max gross weight, cruise speeds numbers, etc., are a testament to amazing engineering in that they all hit the max allowable with not one digit over.
My little single seat biplane with no luggage capacity that cruises at 60 mph is also LSA compliant. I spent about 13K building it, prop to rudder. Is it an "adult toy?" Yeah, except it involves a lot of attention to detail to use and could kill me if I mistreat it or don't respect it.
Now, let's talk about a radical approach to LSA compliant aircraft, in that we keep all the current restrictions except for gross weight. Just throw it out.
Our new LSA:
Max. Stall Speed: 51 mph / 45 knots CAS
Max. Speed in Level Flight (at sea level In the US Standard Atmosphere):138 mph / 120 knots CAS
Max. Seats: Two
Max. Engines / Motors: One (if powered)
Propeller: Fixed-pitch or ground adjustable
Cabin: Unpressurized
Fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system, if a gyroplane.
Landing Gear: Fixed (except for seaplanes and gliders)
For the Sport Pilot, nothing else changes - still Daytime VFR only, etc.
Remove the gross weight line entirely and a bunch of non-LSA aircraft (such as the Cessna 150) are suddenly open, and the spirit of the rule is maintained. It's a light, single engine, simple aircraft meant for daytime VFR.
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
That would suit me just fine Frank, I have been flying a Champ for a couple of years because I haven't had a medical in many, many years. Just yesterday I got my letter from the FAA saying I am authorized to take my Medical Flight Test. SODA. I am totally satisfied flying S/P except..... There are only two S/P category aircraft for rent within 200 miles and they are booked constantly. It's an 80 mile round trip for me to fly one of them. Cessna's, 150's, 172's and Piper 140's, well between all of them, there are at least 20 within a 50 mile radius. That's my only beef with S/P rules. But hopefully, I won't have to worry about in the near future.
That's all I got to say about that !
Bob
It seems for many folks "basic med" rules would give them the option needed to fly larger/heavier aircraft (or) does it get down to not being able to pass the medical or possibly being denied? Having said that it only seems to make sense opening up Cessna 150-172, Cherokees, etc. as they are a lot more "forgiving" than some of the "skittish tail draggers" in windy conditions.
If God had intended man to fly He would have given us more money!
L 16, Basic Med was not an option for me because I have not had a medical in over 20 years so I had to jump through all the hoops, because of my lack of vision in one eye. Depending on what the examiner says when I take my flight test, I will go with Basic Med if it's an option for me. My AME said I had a good chance of passing before we sent any info to the FAA, he said he had seen way worse cases than mine so I felt pretty confident. That doesn't mean I wasn't worried ! Lol ! Now to get back in the left seat and knock the rust off.
Bob
There are at least 2 ways to look at safety of a novice pilot, one is his own, and the other, even more important is safety of a potential passenger. There's a parallel with drivers licenses for teenagers in some states, not sure if it is all states. You can take and pass the basic drivers license test, and drive solo, but for the first 6 months you cant take a passenger or at least only one passenger. The known accident rate for new drivers is very high at first and gets a lot safer in the first year.
A similar rule for new pilots might make sense, that is if you are a student pilot and pass the sport license test, you can fly solo but not carry passengers, unless it is a private or above licensed pilot for another 25 hours or so. Im referring to new pilots, not someone who has flying experience but may have a vision or other issue. This would not discourage students from learning to fly but might add to safety as it does with drivers.
When I was a low time pilot, been flying for 4 1/2 years with about 450 hours, private, commercial and instrument ratings, I began dual training in a very high performance fighter, which then required an LOA and now a type rating. My instructor for my checkout was a Navy A6 attack pilot in Vietnam and experienced in a half dozen similar planes as well as Reno race winner , P-51, and a corporate pilot, Falcon jet. He was a great guy loved to fly and was positive and encouraging and a good instructor, Afet 20 hours of dual I soloed and then took my fight test with the FAA check pilot to receive my LOA. Earl, my CFI ask me not to take any passengers for the next 50 hours of flight time and I kept that rule. I was a better pilot after 50 more hours and a lot better after I had 100 more hours. I remember asking how many hours it would take before hands didn't sweat before a flight and the answer was about 100 hours. I did have other basic trainging, Piper Cub, Stearman, and T-6 including T-6 solo and rating, and my plane was easy to fly with no real vices. My first airshow at Oshkosh, 1984 they said you needed a min of 25 hours in type to fly in the show and I had 26! Fun days, a whole new and fantastic world.
Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 10-16-2018 at 07:30 PM.
For some of us, there is a significant risk of having a medical denied if we apply for it. IN my case, no one can really tell me whether I'd get an SI or a denial letter. Since the thought of being limited to gliders, balloons, and ultralights does not particularly appeal to me, I'm flying under SP rules. Were it not for the "aviation death penalty" for even attempting to get a medical, I'd give it a try.
Measure twice, cut once...
scratch head, shrug, shim to fit.
Flying an RV-12. I am building a Fisher Celebrity, slowly.
I think that got garbled a bit....I don't think you meant that Sport Pilots not be allowed to carry passengers after obtaining their permit but Private Pilots would be able to. Because that would be ridiculous.A similar rule for new pilots might make sense, that is if you are a student pilot and pass the sport license test, you can fly solo but not carry passengers, unless it is a private or above licensed pilot for another 25 hours or so.
I've shared this story before, but since it's one of my favorites I'll hare it again.
My wife has always supported my aviation bug to the hilt. This does not mean she has any interest in aviation - it's the opposite. After getting my Sport Pilot ticket and then extending it into the Champ, I was keen to show off my skills to her.
She was not eager.
One day I came back from a day of touch and goes in the yellow 7AC and instead of smiling and dancing about, I put on a scowl. I grumbled. I paced a bit, refusing to tell her what was wrong until she demanded I spill the beans.
"All this work, getting my Pilot's certificate, then tail wheel, spin training, the whole mess, and I can't get my passenger endorsement signed off on."
"Why not?"
"Because I have to take a non-pilot with me on a flight, and everyone at the airport is a pilot. Stupid rules say if it's a pilot it doesn't count because they can assume Pilot In Command duties and so aren't a true passenger."
"Well," she says, the sweet and supportive wife she is, "I could go up with you, I guess."
"Really? Wow, I know you don't really want to, but it would really help me out."
So I found a nice day and up and around we went in the Champ for a short hop around the airfield. A little bouncy towards the end, but I really greased the landing.
"I can see why you like this so much," she said, "but it's not really for me."
We go into the FBO so I can pay the rent on the Champ, and she's gathered the interest of the local folks (stunning redheaded women tend to do that), and they ask her how she liked it.
"It's okay," she admitted, "but if Frank didn't need his passenger endorsement I probably wouldn't have done it."
Silence for a full fifteen seconds until the grins broke out and they walked away, chuckling.
Fortunately she is as forgiving as she is naive at times, and we remained married, and do so to this day.
The opinions and statements of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
