Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 78

Thread: How is EAA Actively promoting the Sport Pilot program

  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by DaleB View Post
    Correct, other than the PP being able to carry more than one passenger if his medical situation and aircraft allow it. I believe, however, that his point was that there is benefit to the added training received for the Private Pilot ticket. Night takeoffs and landings, flight by reference to instruments, unusual attitude recovery, etc. I don't know if the last two are required for Sport Pilot training or not, but it would be very difficult to argue against them being a good idea - especially if carrying a passenger.
    The night and instrument training is is of no value if the aircraft you fly has no lights or instruments.

    I am searching for a new owner for a $12,000 certified LSA equivalent, side by side two seater with tailwheel and not having much luck.

    Major problems in addition to expense is where to keep it (wood and fabric) (no electric). I would like to train pilots with it but can not fly it from the modern airfields due to Class B and Class C airspace restrictions. All the little old airports are now private or restricted and the county where I live has passed an ordinance that prohibits any new airports. My favorite former airport is now a landfill and compost recycle facility.

    The alternate private airport requires a million dollars of insurance to fly my $3,000 aircraft there where it would be difficult to crash and wipe out a cactus.

    I would like to work with you wana bee pilots but as you can see the FAA has many regulations preventing you from flying. I am sincerely sorry for your loss.
    Last edited by jedi; 12-30-2017 at 04:20 PM.

  2. #32
    DaleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    KMLE
    Posts
    654
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Berson View Post
    I think the vast majority of RV-12 are E-LSA kits and not eligible for commercial rental or instruction.
    This is the problem.
    Only factory completed SLSA RV-12 are eligible for instruction and the cost is not affordable.
    Correct. Last time I looked, a fully optioned new SLSA RV-12 was about $123K, but the new RV-12IS will likely be higher still. The few used examples I've seen seem to sell for around $95-110K.

    Hence my suggestion for shared ownership. It's the only way several of us locally could make it work. We have three RV-12s on field. One was built by a former RV-6 pilot; one has two owners (I'm one) and we may add a third. The other was bought by a group of four guys. Oh, and one is being built now by high school students as part of the Aviation Nation project.
    Measure twice, cut once...
    scratch head, shrug, shim to fit.

    Flying an RV-12. I am building a Fisher Celebrity, slowly.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,205
    Shared ownership is certainly an option.
    But for Sport Pilot to grow, I think the majority of pilots need an easy way to get some instruction (through solo) before committing to ownership.
    And that requires a business model that allows an instructor to afford a certified trainer and base it at the local airport.
    I thought of getting a trainer myself. But it doesn't make sense so far.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    30
    the FAA rules in the USA for experimental aircraft is that I may buy one I may even take flight instruction in one, I may give flight instruction in one, but i may not rent one out for flight instruction or even private use rental. To do that the airplane must have a standard airworthiness certificate. So that leaves the high dollar new LSA like a CT, or an older design like the ercoupe, champ, or taylorcraft.

    I didn't make the rules just have to follow them. If I had been the CEO of Cessna when they came out with the Light Sport Rule I would have begged bribed, whatever the FAA to make the Cessna 150/152 named or somehow able to operate under the Light Sport Rule, In my opinion those are the perfect light sport airplanes.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,205
    The Cessna 162 qualifies as Light Sport. But apparently was not economically viable with the limited ability to compete with existing low cost C-150 or 172 that can do large pilots and charter rides also. So of course, the operator at my airport has one airplane, a C-172. And doesn't mention Sport Pilot to new students.

    And the 162 was later discontinued by Cessna.
    I think Jack Pelton was the CEO at Cessna that launched the C-162.
    Last edited by Bill Berson; 12-30-2017 at 08:43 PM.

  6. #36
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,948
    Quote Originally Posted by cdlwingnut View Post
    the FAA rules in the USA for experimental aircraft is that I may buy one I may even take flight instruction in one, I may give flight instruction in one, but i may not rent one out for flight instruction or even private use rental. To do that the airplane must have a standard airworthiness certificate. So that leaves the high dollar new LSA like a CT, or an older design like the ercoupe, champ, or taylorcraft.
    Permit me to correct some semantics. A Standard airworthiness certificate is not required. The CT, like all SLSA aircraft, has a Special airworthiness certificate.

    Quote Originally Posted by cdlwingnut View Post
    I didn't make the rules just have to follow them. If I had been the CEO of Cessna when they came out with the Light Sport Rule I would have begged bribed, whatever the FAA to make the Cessna 150/152 named or somehow able to operate under the Light Sport Rule....
    And what would the CEO of Cessna had done, if they had?

    Where is the tooling? Manufacturers often sell it for scrap. And do they still have the molds for the fiberglass parts?

    Are all key components (from fuel valves to turnbuckles) still in production...or would Cessna be forced to re-run aspects of the certification? If an outside company had built, for instance, the landing gear legs, is that company still in business?

    30 years after the last plane rolled off the production line, who knows the specific manufacturing process?

    All the drawings (assuming they were kept....) are hard-copy...no modern CAD-CAM for the 150.

    The fact is, Cessna probably was better off completely re-engineering a new design rather than trying to resurrect a design from the '50s. Possibly giving Cessna another ~300 pounds to work with (e.g, Cessna 150/152 gross weight) could have made the Skycatcher a more realistic aircraft.

    Ron Wanttaja

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    And what would the CEO of Cessna had done, if they had?

    Where is the tooling? Manufacturers often sell it for scrap. And do they still have the molds for the fiberglass parts?

    Are all key components (from fuel valves to turnbuckles) still in production...or would Cessna be forced to re-run aspects of the certification? If an outside company had built, for instance, the landing gear legs, is that company still in business?

    30 years after the last plane rolled off the production line, who knows the specific manufacturing process?

    All the drawings (assuming they were kept....) are hard-copy...no modern CAD-CAM for the 150.

    Ron Wanttaja
    Thanks to AOPA, there is no need to care about any of this. AOPA in partnership with Aviat Aircraft and Yingling Aircraft have produced for sale, completely refurbished, like brand new condition, totally updated 150's, 152's and 172's they call "Reimagined" airplanes. For $130K and $160K respectively. Who needs SLSA's that cost much, much more and come with category specific restrictions with respect to weight and speed. Much more insentive, if you can pass a medical, to get the PPL.

    I saw them at Oshkosh and they are beautiful aircraft.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,205
    So those "reimagined" Cessna 150‘s were manufactured in the 70’s and now exempt from product liability.*
    Interesting idea to get around the cost of liability which still shackles light aviation.


    *18 year limit of manufacturer liability, General Aviation Revitalization Act

  9. #39
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Berson View Post
    So those "reimagined" Cessna 150‘s were manufactured in the 70’s and now exempt from product liability.*
    Interesting idea to get around the cost of liability which still shackles light aviation.
    GARA exempts Cessna from liability...but probably not whoever did the "reimagining" of the Cessnas.

    Guess it'd cut down on the class-action suits, though.

    Ron Wanttaja

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,718
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    GARA exempts Cessna from liability...but probably not whoever did the "reimagining" of the Cessnas.

    Guess it'd cut down on the class-action suits, though.

    Ron Wanttaja
    From a logical POV that makes sense. From a legal POV it also makes sense but I don't know how case law has addressed this.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •