Rumor of Light Sport Weight Limit Change

[rwanttaja]

On the Pilots of America forum page, they're reporting a tweet from AOPA Editor-in-Chief Tom Haines that says the FAA will be issuing a NRPM in January to raise the Light Sport Airplane weight limit...to 3,600 pounds!

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/lsa-weight-limit-to-be-increased-to-3600-lb.114171/#post-2611186

The obvious reaction is that this is a typo; that the actual limit will be 1,600 pounds (which will get the Cessna 150, but not the 152, in play). However, someone says that Haines has confirmed the 3,600 pounds.

Obviously, OTHER light sport limits will still exist. Probably still required to be fixed gear, my guess is that they'll keep the two-seat limit (though may change it to just a occupant limit, rather than a seat count). The current light sport rules do not allow STC'ing a design to qualify, but we'll have to see if that changes as well.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

I like this picture that someone posted with the above thread....
https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/attachments/new-lsa-rules-jpg.67891/

Have to say I'm skeptical....

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

Looks like the FAA *is* looking at 3,600 pounds.

"Baker invited Jack Pelton, EAA chairman and CEO, onto the stage. On Jan. 19, 2019, Pelton said, the FAA will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking that seeks to raise the weight limit for light sport aircraft from the current 1,320 pounds to 3,600 pounds. “That will allow you to fly in a 172, have four seats in the airplane, and fly 150 mph,” said Pelton, who also anticipates a rule change that would allow professional builders to construct experimental amateur-built aircraft."

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2018/october/07/big-news-from-aopa-carbondale-fly-in

It's sounding like the speed limit is going up, and that more than two seats will be allowed.

This is an apparent upcoming Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), it wouldn't be going into effect for quite a while.

Ron Wanttaja

[Kim]

Thanks for the update and link. How long do you think 'quite a while' is? Several years?, five years? Just wondering.




This is an apparent upcoming Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), it wouldn't be going into effect for quite a while.

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

Thanks for the update and link. How long do you think 'quite a while' is? Several years?, five years? Just wondering.

The NRPM will include a comment period, generally about 90 days. They'll have to assemble the comments, de-conflict them, and come up with a modified version of the original proposal. Then the new rules will need to be coordinated within the government, etc.

I'm guessing the whole process will take a minimum of one year, possibly two.

Also, there's speculation that the "3,600 pounds" may have been a botched metric conversion. 1650 kilograms is about 3600 pounds; if the original value was 1650 POUNDS, someone may have assumed kilograms and run the conversion to 3,600 pounds.

1650 pounds makes far more sense, as it will allow both the 150 and 152 into the Sport Pilot limits.

AvWeb is saying 3,600 pounds....

https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/LSA-Weight-Limit-Increasing-To-3600-Pounds-231639-1.html

...and claims it's from a "high FAA source." But if their source is a same bad-at-math FAA guy AOPA is using, that would explain it.

Ron Wanttaja

[DaleB]

There has been quite a bit of talk over the past six months or so about possible rumored maybe someday LSA changes. If they're just talking about 152-class weights, then yeah, 1650 would do it and would also include a WHOLE LOT of airplanes that really don't make sense to not be included in LSA rules. Like Champs at 1450 GW, that sort of thing. It would still (inexplicably, IMHO) exclude others like Super Cubs and the like.

If you're aiming to include 172/PA28/AA5 class airplanes, then you'd have to up it to 2500 or so. 3600 would include a whole lot of airplanes not usually found within the envelope you'd expect for even an upgraded Sport Pilot type set of limitations.

Other changes would be needed to accommodate an awful lot of these planes, of course. Number of seats, probably stall speed, bump up cruise speed a little. There are planes that aren't LSA simply because of max gross weight, like upgraded Champ types, some later Ercoupes, etc. Lots of others -- even the 150/152 -- would require other changes to the limitations, like stall speed and cruise speed.

From what I hear, the NPRM will include a bunch of changes other than just gross weight. The big question is, will any of it actually happen during our lifetimes? NPRMs come and go and get mangled and watered down and buried in bureaucracy. I'm mildly hopeful, but I'll believe any of it when I see it actually published as a new change to the regulations.

[Kyle Boatright]

If they are gonna do it, they need to raise the weight far enough to include Tomahawks, C-152's, and Skippers.

[Kim]

While I agree that the 3600lbs sounds high, 1650lbs sounds low, since, I think, there are some 152's that exceed that.

Also, I think people may be stuck in the mindset of 'Light Sport Aircraft' vs more of a 'Personal Aircraft', especially in that pilotsofamerica thread. The FAA's thinking behind this change could be more of 'what do most private pilot fly' thought process.

Also, if this came from within the FAA itself or as a willing partner, hopefully there will be less bureaucratic fighting over it.

Time will tell, and right now we do not have much to go on, but I would bet on 3600lbs being more likely than anything close to 1650lbs.

Note, I base on opinions without any expertise whatsoever.

[L16 Pilot]

Common sense would say that 150, 152 even Cherokee 140's and the like should be included in light sport although the "Basic Med" covers them. Even my 11CC Chief is "slightly over" the light sport at 1350# although I fly under Basic Med for now. Something like 25-2600# would be a good starting point at least and cover a lot of light aircraft.

[Mike Switzer]

3600 lb gross weight would include most 4 seat aircraft. The 182P I used to fly had a 3100 GW with the Trolltune STC.

[Floatsflyer]

Whatever the gross weight change is, if adopted by the FAA, it will effectively and summarily place the nails in the coffin for factory new SLSA's and the myriad of North American companies that manufacture them. European companies will be much less effected. For years now the greatest threat to the category would be the inclusion of 150's and 152's. You can count on tremendous push back by LAMA.

[rwanttaja]

Whatever the gross weight change is, if adopted by the FAA, it will effectively and summarily place the nails in the coffin for factory new SLSA's and the myriad of North American companies that manufacture them. European companies will be much less effected. For years now the greatest threat to the category would be the inclusion of 150's and 152's. You can count on tremendous push back by LAMA.

Not sure, Floats. My good friend (and former co-defendant) Dave "Nauga" Hyde keeps saying to wait until there's something more official. We don't really know how the FAA is going to go, on this.

There are two aspects: The FAA definition of "Light Sport Airplane" which defines what Sport Pilots can fly, and the regulations the govern the simplified certification of Special Light Sport Airplanes and Experimental Light Sport Airplanes (14CFR 21.190, for those playing at home).

The FAA could conceivably split the two; allow Sport Pilots to fly aircraft up to 3,600 pounds, etc., while continuing to allow simplified certification for smaller aircraft.

After all, if brand-new Cessna 172s become Sport Pilot eligible, they're STILL twice as expensive as most of the current ready-to-fly SLSAs.

Yes, all those Cessna 150s and 152s are going to appeal to Sport Pilots But are the used 150s even in the same market? Are there people who rub their chins, trying to decide between a brand-new $150,000 CTLS or a $15,000 Cessna 150? People with the bucks will buy new; the rest of us will buy old and used, if we buy at all.

Aviat is touting the "152 Re-imagined," a ground-up restoration including a freshly-overhauled Lycoming. The price on that is estimated at $125,000...and will probably rise. In an even-price situation, it may not be all that competitive.

Again, we don't know what the FAA is actually going to do. With the changes in the Sport Pilot eligibility criteria, they may play with the Light Sport Airplane ones. It's quite possible the SLSA/ELSA limits will go upward (though not to the extent of the Sport Pilot criteria), and actually make it EASIER to make a marketable airplane under the simplified ASTM process. Icon found it easier to get a waiver than color within the lines; might as give its competitors a pass, too.

Ron Wanttaja

[DaleB]

Maybe, maybe not. I have a sneaking suspicion we'll find out just how much extra gross weight leeway was designed into some of them. They'll adapt.

Comparing a 150 or 152 to, say, an RV-12 - there's really no comparison. And it's not like we'll suddenly see anyone cranking out more modern versions of the 172, Cherokee, AA5, whatever. If I could legally fly a 172 instead of my ELSA, I wouldn't.

[Dick Knapinski]

Hi, all:
Here's the latest, which you may find helpful. The 3,600-pound limit is something we've presented to the FAA in the early discussions about the far-reaching MOSAIC plan for aircraft certification, but it's very early in the discussions. This is also the concept that would create additional possibilities for homebuilt aircraft while keeping the 51 percent rule. The FAA is not going to start any rulemaking process until at least January, so anything for public comment is a minimum of at least a year or more away. Here is the link:

https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/10-08-2018-eaa-led-reform-ideas-include-lsa-weight-and-homebuilt-regulations

[rwanttaja]

Thanks, Dick!

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

So the emperor has no clothes, eh?

3600 MTOW, max 45 knots stall speed, max level speed 120 knots, max 2 seats, fixed pitch prop. Does such a plane exist presently? Why would it be marketable? Whose the buyer- Winnebago owners who have always dreamed of flying them? Better talk to the Sherpa aircraft people and ask them first.

[rwanttaja]

So the emperor has no clothes, eh?

3600 MTOW, max 45 knots stall speed, max level speed 120 knots, max 2 seats, fixed pitch prop. Does such a plane exist presently? Why would it be marketable? Whose the buyer- Winnebago owners who have always dreamed of flying them? Better talk to the Sherpa aircraft people and ask them first.

Pelton used a 172 as an example of a plane that would meet the proposed limits, so the speeds and seat limits are obviously going to be reviewed. Other sources have mentioned a 150 knot speed limit, vice the current 120 kt.

We'll probably have to wait for the NPRM in January to see what's being proposed.

Ron Wanttaja

[Floatsflyer]

I don't get the raison d'être for any of this. Why is EAA trying to create a solution for which there is no problem. If I was a SLSA manufacturer I'd be apoplectic. The SLSA space is a failing market category. Just take a look at year over year sales. I don't see how this rule making proposal helps.

[DaleB]

I don't get the raison d'être for any of this. Why is EAA trying to create a solution for which there is no problem. I suspect maybe you don't get it simply because you're not flying with Sport Pilot privileges. I am, and I certainly do get it. The Sport Pilot program has proven to be successful in ways the FAA never intended or imagined, I think, and it would seem there is some thought that it can be expanded.

If I was a SLSA manufacturer I'd be apoplectic. The SLSA space is a failing market category. Just take a look at year over year sales. I don't see how this rule making proposal helps.Assuming no other changes, it lets SLSA manufacturers offer bigger, faster airplanes to a wider audience. Hypothetical example... how about an SLSA Bearhawk, withthe SP rules expanded to allow a Sport Pilot to fly it? Now you have something that's a good choice for a flying club, or for partnerships/co-owners without worrying about one not being able to renew their medical.

If I were an SLSA manufacturer, I'd be building the next prototype to have it ready to go next year - along with its ELSA counterpart kits.

[Mike Switzer]

I can certainly see a reason for a weight increase. I am large enough that unless I find a 110 lb instructor the only way I can fly in most aircraft that currently qualify is solo. My instructor & I together are over 500 lb, that doesn't leave much room for fuel.

[Terry M - 3CK (Chicago)]

https://www.bydanjohnson.com/wait-whats-all-this-about-a-weight-increase-for-light-sport-aircraft/

[kenryan]

I don't get the raison d'être for any of this. Why is EAA trying to create a solution for which there is no problem.

There is a HUGE problem with current LSA specs, and that is that the useful load at 1320 gross is not enough to make the airplane very usable.

[martymayes]

There is a HUGE problem with current LSA specs, and that is that the useful load at 1320 gross is not enough to make the airplane very usable.

A Flight Design CTLS, Tecnam P2008 and some of the other "egg" LSA's are pretty nice planes. Can fly faster and farther and in more comfort than a 152.

[Sam Buchanan]

A new egg: $150,000+

A decent 152: $25,000

The difference can buy a lot of omelets (or fuel, insurance, etc). :)

[DaleB]

A new egg: $150,000+

A decent 152: $25,000

The difference can buy a lot of omelets (or fuel, insurance, etc). :)

You certainly don't have to spend upwards of $100K to get a very nice newer LSA. A good used RV-12 ELSA with low hours and autopilot can be had for $60K if you shop around a little. The speed difference can get you to that fly-in breakfast before the pancakes are all gone. :) Our operating cost is about $35 per hour wet, including engine overhaul reserve.

[martymayes]

The argument was LSA specs and 1320# gross is too restrictive to build a usable airplane.

[Frank Giger]

There is a HUGE problem with current LSA specs, and that is that the useful load at 1320 gross is not enough to make the airplane very usable.

Depends on what use one wants to use an aircraft for. Lots of people love their Champs and Cubs even though they're not very "useful." :)

[S3flyer]

Depends on what use one wants to use an aircraft for. Lots of people love their Champs and Cubs even though they're not very "useful." :)
Yeah. Being able to haul myself, wife, 60 lbs of stuff and 3:45 of fuel with a 45 min reserve at 115kts in my S-LSA must not be considered 'useful'. ;)

[L16 Pilot]

Still I think it gets down to spending upwards of $100,000 for what is essentially an "adult toy" is unreasonable for most folks.

[1600vw]

IMHO the Sport Pilot Certificate was designed to get folks in the air for the fun of being in the air. Then those who get this certifiacte want to use it as a Private Pilot would use his certifiacte. That is to commute for one state to the bext hauling his wife and enough cloths for a few day stay somewhere. Now these people doing this want an airplane that is more like the GA aircraft to fly using their Sport Pilot Certificate. If the mission stayed at flying for the fun of it, there would be no need for higher weight limits, IMHO. If you want to fly a 172 get a PP ticket.

Let the beating begin.

[thisadviceisworthles]

Still I think it gets down to spending upwards of $100,000 for what is essentially an "adult toy" is unreasonable for most folks.


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.

[DaleB]

Still I think it gets down to spending upwards of $100,000 for what is essentially an "adult toy" is unreasonable for most folks.
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.

[robert l]

S3flyer, my bladder won't last that long !LOL
Bob

[Frank Giger]

IMHO the Sport Pilot Certificate was designed to get folks in the air for the fun of being in the air. Then those who get this certifiacte want to use it as a Private Pilot would use his certifiacte. That is to commute for one state to the bext hauling his wife and enough cloths for a few day stay somewhere. Now these people doing this want an airplane that is more like the GA aircraft to fly using their Sport Pilot Certificate. If the mission stayed at flying for the fun of it, there would be no need for higher weight limits, IMHO. If you want to fly a 172 get a PP ticket.

Let the beating begin.

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.

[robert l]

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

[L16 Pilot]

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.

[robert l]

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

[Bill Greenwood]

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.

[DaleB]

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.
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.

[Frank Giger]

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 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.

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.

[Bill Greenwood]

Frank, what I mean is that a restriction on a new Sport Pilot would be for 25 more hours before they could carry a passenger. Now a CFI or a licensed private pilot would not be a restricted passenger because they are qualified to fly the plane themselves, its just the same as dual for the sport pilot. But the sport pilot can't take a non pilot until they have the extra 25 hours. This is same as a new teenage driver, he can drive solo or with his licensed parent, but for 6 months he cant take another non licensed student.
A private pilot has done more training and passed a more extensive written and flight test than a sport pilot. Therefore a 25 hour, or some similar limit on the sport pilot makes more sense. The average person passing a private test may have over 60 hours, though I think that is high. If it would meaningfully add to safety to put a similar restriction on new private pilots it might be ok, but I think lees needed than a sport pilot. I don't know if sport pilots do the 3 cross country flights that private students do, if not then jumping into such flights with passengers is a big step. I don't think sport pilots do any instrument flight , nor night flight so once again less preparation for taking a passenger on trips. A sport pilot may be able to fly a Champ around the local area about as well as a private pilot but going to Sun N Fun is more involved.

[Frank Giger]

Bill, we're going to strenuously disagree here.

The statement that Private Pilots are fully qualified to take passengers the minute they pass their check ride and Sport Pilots aren't is a bit offensive, really.

The Sport Pilot syllabus matches the Private pilot all the way to the hood, where it stops. I don't know how being under the hood or flying at night improves daytime VFR flight skills. The cross country flights can be shorter than for the Private Pilot, but mine weren't.

A Sport Pilot is just as qualified to carry passengers when he gets his ticket as a Private Pilot. Full stop. There is no difference, and the stats bear it out.

The check ride, less the hood, is exactly the same for Sport Pilots as it is for Private Pilots.

[Bill Greenwood]

You are turning my post into something other than what I meant. if you are a sport pilot and well qualified, that's fine. But that's not my prime point, though how many hours on average does a new sport pilot have vs the 65 or so a private pilot has?

If you read my first post it is that the accident rate for new drivers who usually get their license at 16 is bad for the first 6 months to a year and improves markedly after the first year. And so some states restrict passenger carrying for new drivers for six months. That's what I am saying, that a similar restriction on new pilots for 25 hours of so may be a big help to safety.
How many cross country fligths did you do as a sport student and how far? If I recall I did at least 3 and a long one of 300 miles with 3 airports for private. Did you do vor tracking? Is the written test the same, with 100 or 200 questions?
If you find it "offensive" that's a shame, but my emphasis it to improve safe flying not to make a new pilot feel good. I want to encourage new pilots , ie the sport rating , but a small restriction for a few hours is not too much to ask.
What "stats" do you have on safety of sport vs private, I haven't seem them. I have seen Nall reports on higher accident rate for new pilots.

[Dana]

I have heard (don't have statistics to back it up, perhaps Ron W will chime in?) that a pilot with a brand new certificate is actually safer than one with 100-200 hours, due to the "now I know it all" syndrome.

Passenger restrictions for new young drivers makes sense. But we already have such restrictions on new pilots as they do their pre checkride solos... and unlike new drivers, minimum hours before the checkride.

[Frank Giger]

Bill, I have fine regard for you, so understand I'm disagreeing with your position, not you.

Aircraft are not cars, and new pilots are not new drivers. Equating the two is a false line of thought.

First, it's three cross country flights, the same as for Private Pilots. The required distances are shorter for Sport Pilots, as the aircraft are slower. All are done in daytime VFR. Distance itself is actually immaterial from the safety standpoint, as the critical tasks where the bulk of accidents happen - on takeoff and landing - are exactly the same. If one engine-outs five miles from an airport or fifty miles from the airport while in transit it's exactly the same problem. By the logic you're putting forward a short hop to close airfield is safer than a flight across the state, and we both know that it's not true. The only difference is the amount of time spent straight and level.

Second, the Sport Pilot already has limitations put on him that a newly minted automobile driver doesn't. There is no Daytime Only in Good Weather restriction for a driver's license. When a 16 year old gets a driver's license he's blessed off to drive at night, in rain, snow, on ice, etc., nor (at least in my state) is there any restriction on the number of passengers he can have in the vehicle. The Sport Pilot is always restricted to just one passenger.

The inherent restrictions on Sport Pilots are much more stringent than those of someone with a driver's license.

Navigation by VOR is not required for Sport Pilots, nor is it on the written test. It falls under instruments. Sport Pilots, flying in Daytime VFR below the clouds are expected to be able to navigate by compass and dead reckoning. This makes senese because, hey, it's daytime VFR below the clouds. The ground must be in view at all times. Use of aids such as the VOR (if the plane is equipped) or GPS is allowed on the cross country flights and the check ride, though.

As to the written test, yes, it's shorter. There are no questions about controlled airspace, night flying, instrument flight, etc., as there are no need for them for a Sport Pilot since he is not allowed to fly under those conditions in the first place. A Sport Pilot must get an additional rating for controlled airspace - why would it be on the written test?

I obtained my Sport Pilot certificate at 26 hours, six hours over the minimum. I had demonstrated to my instructor and an evaluator that I was proficient in all phases of flight in light, simple aircraft in daytime VFR conditions. There were already a pile of restrictions placed on my based on my type of certificate to begin with. If I wasn't safe to carry a single passenger then they shouldn't have given me the ticket in the first place.

[rwanttaja]

I have heard (don't have statistics to back it up, perhaps Ron W will chime in?) that a pilot with a brand new certificate is actually safer than one with 100-200 hours, due to the "now I know it all" syndrome.

I've heard that ~1,000 hours is the danger point. Right about where I'm at. :-)

Here's a plot of Pilot Total Time vs. percentage of accidents for Experimental Amateur-Built. This is 50-hour increments; I wouldn't read any significance into the individual "spikes":
http://www.bowersflybaby.com/total_time.jpg
0-500 hours is obviously more of a danger, though it doesn't seem to taper off until one gets to ~2,000 hours or so. This would be of more use if we had figures how many EAB pilots fell into the particular hour categories.


Passenger restrictions for new young drivers makes sense. But we already have such restrictions on new pilots as they do their pre checkride solos... and unlike new drivers, minimum hours before the checkride.

The problem I have with it is, if a new Sport Pilot (or Private Pilot) cannot carry passengers, then what's the point of getting the ticket at all? It's a milestone of no significance. There's usually financial sacrifice in getting one's license, and it's kind of traditional to reward family members who helped. Mind you, my parents seemed curiously reluctant to receive their reward......

Ron "Uhhh...thanks, but not today" Wanttaja

[Bill Greenwood]

I think cross country flight is a step up in possible difficulty, and may require a more competent pilot. Lets say you want to go to EAA, if you fly from Californina or Texas to Osh, you have to evaluate weather and alternatives, along the way, even having to stop overnight. And going into other airports, with possible approach or atc towers.And pilotage like dead reckoning is good, but to go xc and have no vor or other radio nav aids is to give a lot away. I use all three for my fights. Now if really are going to fly totally below the clouds, not even above a scattered layer or one with fair weather cumulus, for an entire day or even the 2nd day, you are likely to have a very bumpy ride, especially out over the desert in the summer heat. By the way my I A flies his Champ from Colo to Osh.
I don't know fully what sport pilot is, but I flew with one brand new sport pilot, just passed his test that morning and he wasn't very good , really I was surprised he passed. He didn't know how to find the wind at our non tower airport, he was trying to find it on a gps or technro gadget on the panel as we passed about 1/8 mile over the big bright orange wind sock. He was a nice guy to take me for a ride in the Gobosh, but I would not have let my kids fly with him, he needed another few hours to get fully there.

[Joda]

First, it's three cross country flights, the same as for Private Pilots.

Frank,

Just so we don't lead people down a wrong path, I want to make a correction to your above statement. The aeronautical experience required for a sport pilot certificate is found in 14 CFR 61.313. Regarding cross-country flights, the reg contains the following requirements:

"(i) 2 hours of cross-country flight training". Note that it doesn't mention the number of flights. It only says 2 hours of cross-country flight training (aka "dual instruction).

"(iii) One solo cross-country flight of at least 75 nautical miles total distance, with a full-stop landing at a minimum of two points and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of at least 25 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations."

The reg thus specifically states that ONE solo cross-country is all that is required. So there is no requirement for 3 cross-country flights. Per these regs, you could meet the requirement with just two cross-country flights, one dual and one solo. Of course most students will do more than just one dual and one solo cross-country, but it would be legal to do it with just two.

[rwanttaja]

I think cross country flight is a step up in possible difficulty, and may require a more competent pilot. Lets say you want to go to EAA, if you fly from Californina or Texas to Osh, you have to evaluate weather and alternatives, along the way, even having to stop overnight. And going into other airports, with possible approach or atc towers.And pilotage like dead reckoning is good, but to go xc and have no vor or other radio nav aids is to give a lot away. I use all three for my fights. Now if really are going to fly totally below the clouds, not even above a scattered layer or one with fair weather cumulus, for an entire day or even the 2nd day, you are likely to have a very bumpy ride, especially out over the desert in the summer heat. By the way my I A flies his Champ from Colo to Osh.
I don't know fully what sport pilot is, but I flew with one brand new sport pilot, just passed his test that morning and he wasn't very good , really I was surprised he passed. He didn't know how to find the wind at our non tower airport, he was trying to find it on a gps or technro gadget on the panel as we passed about 1/8 mile over the big bright orange wind sock. He was a nice guy to take me for a ride in the Gobosh, but I would not have let my kids fly with him, he needed another few hours to get fully there.
I don't really disagree with you, Bill, but the kind of problems you mention don't get cured with ten additional student hours, or even twenty. Our instructors had the right of it, back when we first got our tickets and they described it as "a license to learn." Most of us can look back at our student days, but realize that we really learned the MOST when we left the instructional phase, and were attempting to use an airplane like it was meant to be used.

At this point, motivation comes into play. The military has it easier; recently-graduated pilots can be assigned to deliver high explosive and small bits of lead to foreign lands, with the Articles of War or the UCMJ being used to motivate those who might balk.

It's different with civilian pilots. Few students are motivated by the prospect of receiving a small plastic card for their wallets...their motivation is based on what they would then get to DO with an airplane. It might be taking advantage of the cross-country capability, it might be the ego inflation of taking friends and family flying.

But they have to have SOMETHING to look forward to. Delaying the gratification hurts the completion rate, and the rate of student starts. Certainly, you can't send the fledglings out wearing nothing but pinfeathers and dreams, but you DO have to turn them loose at some point. Life in the air will teach them more lessons than we ever will.

The military does have one advantage: Instructors can wash out the hopeless. Doesn't happen much in the civilian world. Heck, remember, half the pilots out there are below average.... :-)

Ron "Spring chickens...takatakatakataka..." Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

Yep, thanks for correcting me on cross country flights! My instructor "gave" me three. If one is going to fly solo, might as well throw in a cross country or two in there.

Cross country flight planning is the same for Sport Pilots and Private Pilots, Bill....

And yes, Sport Pilots are always below the clouds. The ground must always be in sight. And yes, that makes for bumpy flights!

As to your experience with a Sport Pilot, Bill, remember - the guy that graduates last in his class at Medical School is still called Doctor. And I'd say that he's either enamored with gadgetry or had a poor instructor. I had one that routinely put a manila folder over the Garmin whizbang panel on the CTLS I trained in, saying "eyes up and out, eyes up and out."

On windsocks, I had a pilot friend (commercial, dual, helicopter rated, etc.) comment to me the last time I was at the airport that he never looked at the windsock until he got to know me (I live by it), but now he does.

[robert l]

One of the instructors I had for my tailwheel endorsement finally blacked out the airspeed indicator because I kept looking at it on down wind, cross wind and final ! I didn't like it !
Bob

[Bill Greenwood]

Robert, I think when the army used to train pilots in Stearmans, they would cover the panel before the pilot soloed. You can fly by attitude of the nose re the horizon, and knowing the manifold pressure and/or rpm setting for different parts of the pattern. Its a teaching drill, may be usefull, especially for some types of planes .However, airspeed control is important especially for some airplanes. I have landed once with no airspeed indicator, and I did it ok but, I had hundreds of hours of pilot time in that airplane, so I know what the power settings, boost and rpm should be, and I also had a pace plane fly next to me on long final as a check that I was at 90knots and I had a good runway ahead of me. What happened was I took off at Connie Edwards gravel strip on his ranch near Abilene and just as I lifted off the airspeed went to zero. All else was normal, no engine problems, so I flew on to Breckenridge. After landing Nelson came out with a compressed air hose and blew into the rear of the pilot head and a small white rock spit out the front onto the ground.
I wouldn't want to have to land a Mustang or jet without looking at the airspeed indicator, a good approach should be within 3 knots or so of ideal speed on short final,

[Frank Giger]

LOL, I flew my Nieuport without a pitot tube or static probe for six months and never missed having an ASI or an altimeter.

Indeed, the only reason I put both in was simply to make them work to justify the expense of purchasing the instruments in the first place.

The only thing I look at in the cockpit is the slip indicator, oil temp and oil pressure.

[rwanttaja]

Back when I was a young 'un, 16 years old and about 30 total hours, I rolled out the CAP Citabria for some touch-and-goes.

The first takeoff was a bit weird. The airspeed indicator showed rather slow acceleration, but the engine was roaring and the plane was handling crisply.

Things seemed normal on the downwind, though the speed was about 5-10 mph too slow.

I turned base, then final, cuttin the power and looking for my ususal 75 MPH approach speed. The needle dropped to 75 MPH.

Good.

It continued downward. I added forward stick. Speed kept dropping. I pushed forward more. No help. More. Nothing seemed to help; the airspeed indicator was heading towards a stall.

I finally gave up...didn't dare to push forward any more. Truth be told, I kind of froze on the stick, mesmerized as the the needle dropped towards stall speed.

It hit stall speed. Nothing happened, except the needle kept dropping.. It reached zero...and went THROUGH zero, like a clock running backward. It now was reading 220 MPH, and still dropping.

What the hey?

I skimmed the concrete, doing a touch-and-go with a bat outa hell speed. Power up, pitch up, and the airspeed began to rise.

Marvelling at the phenomenon, I went around a couple more times.

I landed, and when I taxied up to the tiedown spot, there was an older CAP senior member waiting.

"I'm going to talk to your instructor...you don't seem to be able to hold the airspeed indicator where it should be."

They found a bug in the pitot line, partially blocking it and turning it into a poor-man's altimeter.

A couple of days ago, I posted about the need for young pilots to fly, and to be allowed to make mistakes. I made several that day...the biggest one being not LANDING the plane when I realized something was wrong with it. But my instructor had given me a knowledge base sufficient to handle the basic emergency, and my flights without him on board had layered on sufficient skills to keep things under control.

Ron Wanttaja

[raytoews]

Ya'll sure know how to complicate things. See us Canucks do it a lot simpler. I am an ultralight instructor, easy to get and I can teach in anything. Long as it has some type of lifting surface and doesn't weigh more than 1280 lbs. Even something called a basic ultralight, kind of like what you call an ultralight but can weigh 1200 lbs and can go as fast as you can make it go. Simple.
Another is the Owner Maintenance Category, if an airplane is out of production, and what isn't, it can be "de certified" into what for all intents and purposes is a homebuilt. A few restrictions but who is watching. Only restriction on OM is fixed gear and fixed pitch prop. Simple.
It sounds like the new weight restriction if it ever gets thru the millions of borocrates in your FAA will be like our OM, except the devil will be in the details. Who will inspect and maintain the new heavy LSA? OM is signed off by the owner. Simple.
Our ultralight license is simple, 5 hrs dual, 5 hrs solo, have to do at least 10 solo ricochets to get signed off. You can immediately take off with a passenger, provided they are also a pilot. Wanna take your neighbours kid for a ride you need 25 hrs PIC and take another ride with an instructor. Simple. Fly anywhere in the country even class C if you can talk to the gov't guys in a way they understand. Wait,,,,our gov't guys aren't gov't guys. They work for a private not for profit company which costs me around forty bucks a yr for all the services they provide. Simple.
Canucks, a bit simple,,,,but what the heck.

[Bill Berson]

Ray, can you please come here and explain that to the leaders here in the so called "land of the free"?

Or, I think the FAA should just let U.S. pilots print out an "exemption card" to use Canadian rules.

[robert l]

Hey Ray, you said ya'll, cool. My first U/L, an 18 hp Nomad Honcho only had a CHT and that's it. I don't know why it had that, we never looked at it !

[Mayhemxpc]

Great thread, now WAY off the original topic, but...

When I used to teach at the CAP National Flight Academy, I would cover up all the instruments except the tach and have the student pilots fly vertical S's, turns to headings, etc. (It was Wisconsin, road grids are effective compasses.) The students were amazed that they could do it. They were all microsoft flight simulator aces, so the challenge was to get them to look outside rather than fixate on instruments -- which, after all, are indicators and not direct measurments (especially in pre-glass Cessnas).

[Bill Greenwood]

How did you do vertical s es . and what plane did you do them in? Unless my understanding is different this would be very hard to do in the typical CAP 182?

[Mayhemxpc]

Vertical S is an instrument training maneuver. Level flight follows by a 500 fpm climb for one minute, level off, then a 500 fpm decent, and return to level flight at the same airspeed, altitude and heading as start.

[Bill Greenwood]

Thanks I have never heard of that as in ifr exercise. The vertical s that I am familiar with is an acrobatic one, that is essentially a half loop with another on top of it, ie an imelman on top of an immelman. and to do that in a 182 the entry speed would have to be about 400 knot!!!!!!!!