Sport Aviation Magazine

[Bill]

So what you're saying, is that a commercial certificate automatically precludes you from sport aviation. Ah, I get it now, maybe that's why I feel like this forum is so backwards these days.

I don't see how one can reach such an interpretation from the post referred to. This interpretation is orthogonal to the original post, which just opined that a specific subset of the overall pilot population might have a different distribution of instrument rated and non-instrument rated pilots that the full set. This seems possible to me and it would be nice if we could get the raw data to apply a rational statistical analysis to see if this is accurate or not.

[steveinindy]

This seems possible to me and it would be nice if we could get the raw data to apply a rational statistical analysis to see if this is accurate or not.

SOURCE FOR FOLLOWING DATA: http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics/2010/
Total number of pilots (including students, recreational and sport): 627,588
Total number of instrument rated pilots: 318,001 (63%)
Total number of commercial pilots: 123,705
Total number of ATPs: 142,198
Total number of Private pilots: 202,020
Private pilots with instrument ratings: 55,979 (so roughly a quarter of them)
Sport pilots: 3,682 (a very, very distinct minority of all pilots at 0.59% of the total pilot population)

Just for the sake of comparison and thoroughness, even if every single sport pilot in the US was an EAA member, that still makes them only 2% of the membership (assuming 160,000 members as stated on the EAA Wikipedia page).

[Bill]

SOURCE FOR FOLLOWING DATA: http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics/2010/
Total number of pilots (including students, recreational and sport): 627,588
Total number of instrument rated pilots: 318,001 (63%)
Total number of commercial pilots: 123,705
Total number of ATPs: 142,198
Total number of Private pilots: 202,020
Private pilots with instrument ratings: 55,979 (so roughly a quarter of them)
Sport pilots: 3,682 (a very, very distinct minority of all pilots at 0.59% of the total pilot population)

Just for the sake of comparison and thoroughness, even if every single sport pilot in the US was an EAA member, that still makes them only 2% of the membership (assuming 160,000 members as stated on the EAA Wikipedia page).

Which shows that to a first approximation, the original poster was correct when he said, "Maybe with all pilots - but when just those not holding a commercial license (Sport, Recreational, Private) are taken into account the number will surely plunge." As show above (taken with a dose of salt since all of the tables include the word "Estimated" in their titles), it does, from 63 percent of the total pilot population holding instrument ratings to private pilots with instrument ratings (we can ignore Sport pilots and the few Recreational pilots since they, as such, don't hold instrument ratings) who only make up 8.9 percent of the total pilot population.

[steveinindy]

But the bigger point is that those in the "I only want LSA discussions!" are still in the minority just like the people at the opposite end of the spectrum. I don't see why this has to be an "either/or" decision. There's room enough for everyone that makes up the EAA constituency and quite frankly, I'm as fed up about the few whining about things that don't interest them as they are about people talking or writing about those things. We're a big family and sure, we at this point are kind of like a family on COPS, but we need to stop bickering. Maybe we don't like the girl that our cousin is married too, maybe we think that Uncle Bob is compensating for something with that sup'ed up vehicle of his, but when it comes down to it we have to work together otherwise the "family" as a whole suffers.

I just find it funny that it's OK to ignore 8.9% of the pilot population over the wishes of a group that is estimated to be smaller in size.

[Frank Giger]

My point wasn't that every pilot should fly under Sport Pilot rules; it was that most pilots (and from the EAA standpoint the focus has always been on PPL's, not Commercial pilots) fly for sport. As in recreation.

Which is primarily VFR.

I just don't believe that when Joe Average Pilot (who is a PPL) decides that he and the family are going to fly down to Panama City for a weekend at the beach that his first inclination is to fly IFR. Nope, he's going to watch the weather and if it's not VFR he's going to scratch the trip by air.

Indeed, the NTSB files are full of folks flying into IFR weather when they should have turned back.

To posit your theory it shouldn't happen, as they should just climb out of the soup, contact ATC, and go IFR (if that's a normal skill set).

Nor do I think IFR stuff should be banished from Sport Aviation. In the last issue it got a couple pages, which is fine by me; I'm not opposed to talking everything aviation! Where the gripes came from was when those things only tangentally related to General Aviation were the "tent pole" of the issue.

Similarly, I'd get annoyed if everything was LSA, and I'm a Sport Pilot! It's too small a subset of aircraft and NOT what the bulk of EAA members are flying. The four seat RV build or Cessna restoration interests me, as does the warbird stuff.

But the focus of the magazine - and the organization - should be on General Aviation in general and Experimental aircraft in particular if one were to take the original intent of the EAA to heart.

[edit]

Though I do think they should make Mac fly a short cross country from uncontrolled airfield to uncontrolled airfield and return with some touch and goes under daytime VFR conditions in a single piston driven reciprical engine aircraft with fixed landing gear using a sectional map.

To ease the shock, a C172 would be acceptable (since it's a non-LSA spam can).

Baby steps, as they say.

[steveinindy]

I just don't believe that when Joe Average Pilot (who is a PPL) decides that he and the family are going to fly down to Panama City for a weekend at the beach that his first inclination is to fly IFR. Nope, he's going to watch the weather and if it's not VFR he's going to scratch the trip by air.

Indeed, the NTSB files are full of folks flying into IFR weather when they should have turned back.

To posit your theory it shouldn't happen, as they should just climb out of the soup, contact ATC, and go IFR (if that's a normal skill set).

I would tend to agree with you.

Still, if I have a flight of more than 50 miles or so, I'm going to go IFR and I honestly and sincerely believe that the instrument rating should be part and parcel of the PPL standard. This is the case simply because- whether we like to admit it or not- as private pilots, a lot of us fly in what should be viewed as instrument conditions (not in the sense of traffic separation but otherwise) on a regular basis. It's called flying at night over rural areas. I don't think it's an absolute magic bullet for the VFR into IMC problem (I'm more or less building a career out of the questionable judgment of a subset of the aviation community) but it could be beneficial to give people more than a couple of hours under the hood before kicking them out on their own.

Though I do think they should make Mac fly a short cross country from uncontrolled airfield to uncontrolled airfield and return with some touch and goes under daytime VFR conditions in a single piston driven reciprical engine aircraft with fixed landing gear using a sectional map.

To ease the shock, a C172 would be acceptable (since it's a non-LSA spam can).

Why not just waterboard him? It would probably be more fun for all involved. Once I progress beyond the point of being limited to lower end fixies, I'd almost rather dip my backside in brown gravy and then lock myself in a broom closet with a rabid wolverine high on PCP. Just not my thing and I can understand if it isn't Mac's either. To each and to their own. That said, the design after the one I am working on now is going to be an LSA. Not because I particularly want to build or fly one, but it's a good engineering challenge given the priorities I have in mind.

[martymayes]

Really? I'm 22, and I can say that the few people my age I know involved with aviation generally want nothing to do with low & slow, when it comes to aircraft. They want something that is new, with new technology and can squeeze every ounce of speed out of the engine. The younger crowd wants nothing to do with aviation these days, due to cost (primarily). Secondly, its because quite frankly, there is very little new innovation in aviation. Planes today are vastly similar to what they were when my parents were my age (25 or so years ago). Look what cars have done in 25 years.

Lessee, we want high tech airplanes but flying is too expensive, no contradiction there. FWIW, airplanes have made a number of improvements in safety and reliability over the past 50 yrs and evolution will continue. There won't be many revolutionary changes because aviation doesn't work that way. A computer chip is not going to produce a magical speed increase. Future aviation performance advances will be takeoff and landing distances, ROC, cruising miles per gallon, min/max speed ratios. When someone can match Steve Wittman's 1930's homebuilt Buttercup in those categories, we will call that high-tech progress....lol.

Driving a car in no way compares to flying an airplane. If someone is convinced otherwise, they won't find much appeal in aviation.

You're post makes no sense to me. First you start of by saying that GA is in a period of contraction, with the number of pilots down. But then you go on to say that sport aviation isn't dying, which is a contradiction. If GA is dying, then sport aviation has to be as well, no?

There is a difference between shrinking and dying. I'm not concerned with the fact that aviation is shrinking but then my income doesn't depend on "the numbers." Contrary to the alarmist claims, the sky is not falling just because there are not as many active pilots.

Regardless, the smaller EAA gets, the less pull it has in DC. So all it's going to take is one experimental crash that takes out some people on the ground, and congress will just decide to close the experimental game down, or structure it like Europe.

Do you have any evidence that such action will happen or is this just more alarmist claims? Certainly if that is true, there would be historical examples.

And who are you to say what is and isn't boring? A TBM-850 is a hell of a lot more exciting to me than something like a VP-1 Volksplane is.

Well, when I joined 30 yrs ago, it was called the EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION, not the production aircraft association. I still fail to see where a TBM fits in.

[martymayes]

I've always thought that given how light and inexpensive portable radios have become that there is no good excuse for not using one. Being stubborn is not a valid excuse.

Take your handheld radio flying in an airplane with an unshielded ignition and let me know how that works out for ya.

[Bill Berson]

Steve,
EAA (Experimental AIRCRAFT Association) was formed to promote aircraft building and restoration. It was not formed as a pilot organization that primarily discusses flying. Flying and pilot stories is best left to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Hence the typical AOPA member is expected to be an aircraft OWNER or PILOT but not a builder or restorer or aircraft mechanic.

But EAA was formed for the builder, restorer and aircraft mechanic. EAA was not about the pilot and that is why it is called Experimental Aircraft Association and not Experimental Pilots Association. So in my opinion, this invasion of articles about piloting, IFR trips etc., are not appropriate for the main magazine. It should placed in another special interest EAA magazine if EAA needs to expand.

The main magazine from EAA should be about building and restoring aircraft. The focus of EAA should be affordability, and building and restoration is the best option for affordability. But an occasional article about a rich mans jet restoration would be appropriate because it is still a restoration.
Bill

[Barnstorm]

Take your handheld radio flying in an airplane with an unshielded ignition and let me know how that works out for ya.

Been there, done that.It is not so bad so long as you get a NEW, high quality hand held. ESP. With remote ant.