Recreational Pilot Flop

[Kritchlow]

Am I correct in assuming the RP cert was a complete failure? I think I read only about 500 in the entire U.S..?? Why do you think that is? I understand the restrictions, but it still seems as though there are more aircraft available without the Light Sport restrictions.
It seems like an obsolete certificate grade that gets zero attention. Probably with good reason. Did the Feds realize an error then move to LS?? It's almost mysterious.

 

[DMD3.]

If they made it so that a flight medical wasn't needed, it'd be MUCH more popular. No controlled airspace work required, a few hours of flight to airports 25 nm or further (no xc's), but other than that it's about the same as getting a ppl. Written and practical exam still required.

 

[Anymouse]

I always thought of the RP ticket as a glorified student certificate more than anything else.

 

[flyingron]

There were a few issues, but the biggest one is that it wasn't really that much of a cost savings over the Private. While some people get their tickets in the minimum required hours, the variance is high. The things that people have trouble with and cause them to go over is landing (which you have to do for the recreational as well). The stuff you get to omit for recreational is largely the cross country training which people don't tend to have issues with.

Most people have the illusion of actually going somewhere with their ticket which makes the RP restrictions discouraging.

 

[JeffDG]

However, it seems to be the basis of the latest round of DL medical proposals: 180HP, 4 seats, one passenger.

 

[poadeleted20]

Not a complete flop, but with about 600 of them out of 600,000 pilots, I'd say it's a 99.9% flop. I think the folks at FAA HQ are hoping they all either die, quit flying, or upgrade so they can eliminate that Subpart from Part 61.

 

[petrolero]

Not a complete flop, but with about 600 of them out of 600,000 pilots, I'd say it's a 99.9% flop. I think the folks at FAA HQ are hoping they all either die, quit flying, or upgrade so they can eliminate that Subpart from Part 61.

The FAA could (maybe should) do that anyway and let the RP certificate population dwindle through attrition.

It's just not a useful certificate. Then again I don't sport pilot is that useful either but it's more so than RP.

 

[VanDy]

The FAA could (maybe should) do that anyway and let the RP certificate population dwindle through attrition.

It's just not a useful certificate. Then again I don't sport pilot is that useful either but it's more so than RP.

Why is it not useful? I had mine for 6 years until I upgraded to private and on up. I did all the training in my taylorcraft, and it also allowed me access to grandpa's 172 and other airplanes. There are one time sign offs for almost everything in it.

 

[frfly172]

Once the sport pilot came out ,it made the recreational rating,sort of useless,in my opinion. You have many more freedoms with the sport rating.

 

[1600vw]

Once the sport pilot came out ,it made the recreational rating,sort of useless,in my opinion. You have many more freedoms with the sport rating.

If they do away with the 3rd class medical the same will happen to SP. One of the reasons why the 3rd class medical will never be dropped.

Tony

 

[RussR]

Why is it not useful? I had mine for 6 years until I upgraded to private and on up. I did all the training in my taylorcraft, and it also allowed me access to grandpa's 172 and other airplanes. There are one time sign offs for almost everything in it.

Matt, didn't you have some kind of unusual situation where it made sense to get your RP certificate though? GI Bill or tuition reimbursement or something like that seems to ring a bell. I know I asked you about it a few years ago and you had some reason (or at least I think so, could have been someone else).

I will say, though, for most people SP or PP are likely better options.

 

[JeffDG]

If they do away with the 3rd class medical the same will happen to SP. One of the reasons why the 3rd class medical will never be dropped.

Tony

LSA also has the easier certification for aircraft as part of it as well, so it's not just the 3rd Class.

 

[VanDy]

Matt, didn't you have some kind of unusual situation where it made sense to get your RP certificate though? GI Bill or tuition reimbursement or something like that seems to ring a bell. I know I asked you about it a few years ago and you had some reason (or at least I think so, could have been someone else).



I will say, though, for most people SP or PP are likely better options.

I had a taylorcraft at my disposal, and a couple others. But it was right before sport pilot came out, 2000, paid for it by working in the hangar at waynesville. Mainly, I wanted to take my checkride in a taildragger. Took my recreational and commercial rides in the same airplane 15 years apart


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JHW]

I don't know that it's a complete flop, I think one of the guys with a RP certificate thinks it's good. I don't know about the other guy.

 

[petrolero]

Why is it not useful? I had mine for 6 years until I upgraded to private and on up. I did all the training in my taylorcraft, and it also allowed me access to grandpa's 172 and other airplanes. There are one time sign offs for almost everything in it.

Well a PPL would have done all the same stuff and more.

By literal definition a RPL is "useful," but it restricts pilots from using airplanes for the one thing they're really good for: cross country flying.

So maybe the better description is that it is not a practical license except in a few niche use cases. Most people want to take the plane someplace.

 

[poadeleted20]

Once the sport pilot came out ,it made the recreational rating,sort of useless,in my opinion. You have many more freedoms with the sport rating.

You're also limited to smaller, less capable, less sturdy aircraft -- a Rec Pilot can fly a 180 Cherokee as long as nobody's in the back seats.

 

[poadeleted20]

If they do away with the 3rd class medical the same will happen to SP. One of the reasons why the 3rd class medical will never be dropped.

If I were a LSA manufacturer, I'd probably be strongly opposed to the Third Class medical reform proposals -- it would too likely put me out of business.

 

[petrolero]

You're also limited to smaller, less capable, less sturdy aircraft -- a Rec Pilot can fly a 180 Cherokee as long as nobody's in the back seats.

They can't fly it very far.

I don't think either license is worth forgoing the full PPL unless perhaps one can't get a Class 3 medical in which case I guess Sport pilot would be better than nothing.

 

[poadeleted20]

They can't fly it very far.

They certainly can, although there's some extra training and a one-time endorsement required, and the pilot has to carry the logbook with that endorsement. See 61.101.

(c) A person who holds a recreational pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft on a flight that exceeds 50 nautical miles from the departure airport, provided that person has--
(1) Received ground and flight training from an authorized instructor on the cross-country training requirements of subpart E of this part that apply to the aircraft rating held;
(2) Been found proficient in cross-country flying; and
(3) Received from an authorized instructor a logbook endorsement, which is carried on the person's possession in the aircraft, that certifies the person has received and been found proficient in the cross-country training requirements of subpart E of this part that apply to the aircraft rating held.

 

[petrolero]

They certainly can, although there's some extra training and a one-time endorsement required, and the pilot has to carry the logbook with that endorsement. See 61.101.

Yes but nearly the same is required for a PPL so why not just finish a real pilots license? (oh I'm in for a flaming now!! )

I'd argue that doing all that stuff to get an endorsement on a RPL would be nearly as much work as just getting a PPL in the first place. Same with flying in B, C and D airspace. And obviously the vast majority of pilots felt the same way.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Yes but nearly the same is required for a PPL so why not just finish a real pilots license? (oh I'm in for a flaming now!! )

Yeah, you are.

I'd argue that doing all that stuff to get an endorsement on a RPL would be nearly as much work as just getting a PPL in the first place. Same with flying in B, C and D airspace. And obviously the vast majority of pilots felt the same way.

But there are a lot of people who don't care about all that. For them, SP would be a good deal. This argument has been going on for a long time.

Thing is, most of the people arguing against SP are those that are already are beyond that. Why don't all you PPs and above just shut up about it and lets hear from the SPs and Student pilots about it?

 

[VanDy]

Ron beat me to it. (edit)

FAR 61.101 (c)

I guess that doesnt mean much??? I got plenty of xc time while i held a recreational certificate. no night time is the biggest difference.

Well a PPL would have done all the same stuff and more.

By literal definition a RPL is "useful," but it restricts pilots from using airplanes for the one thing they're really good for: cross country flying.

So maybe the better description is that it is not a practical license except in a few niche use cases. Most people want to take the plane someplace.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes but nearly the same is required for a PPL so why not just finish a real pilots license? (oh I'm in for a flaming now!! )

Saves doing the night training and a few other events. But your point is apparently well taken by most pilots given that only 1/10 of 1% of them have gone that route. But the real truth is that Sport Pilot is what the FAA was really trying to do when they invented Rec Pilot; they just didn't get it right the first time.