ASEL & Sport...

[murphey]

Been looking (and searching) thru this forum and can't seem to find the answer...

Reading the FAA 8031-30 - Sport Pilot PTS, I'm baffled. It appears that with a Private (or higher) that getting an additional Sport Pilot endorsement is really nothing more than some time with a Sport CFI:

1) receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor who trained you on the applicable aeronautical knowledge area

2) successfully complete a proficiency check from an authorized instructor other than the one who trained you on the aeronautical knowledge areas

and some paperwork.

No $150 computer exam, no required minimum hours, no $$$ to a DE, etc.

True?

 

[roncachamp]

Been looking (and searching) thru this forum and can't seem to find the answer...

Reading the FAA 8031-30 - Sport Pilot PTS, I'm baffled. It appears that with a Private (or higher) that getting an additional Sport Pilot endorsement is really nothing more than some time with a Sport CFI:

1) receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor who trained you on the applicable aeronautical knowledge area

2) successfully complete a proficiency check from an authorized instructor other than the one who trained you on the aeronautical knowledge areas

and some paperwork.

No $150 computer exam, no required minimum hours, no $$$ to a DE, etc.

True?

Not true. With a private or more you're good to go.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

It appears that with a Private (or higher) that getting an additional Sport Pilot endorsement is really nothing more than some time with a Sport CFI:

In that a checkout in any new type is a good idea, that is true. LSA's tend to be a bit of a different animal, so I am told. Well, depends on the type, I guess.

1) receive a logbook endorsement from the authorized instructor who trained you on the applicable aeronautical knowledge area

2) successfully complete a proficiency check from an authorized instructor other than the one who trained you on the aeronautical knowledge areas

and some paperwork.

Well, given that the Private Pilot superscedes the Sport pilot, none of that is necessary. With a Private Pilot Cert, you have already demonstrated all of that.

No $150 computer exam, no required minimum hours, no $$$ to a DE, etc.

True?

That part is true.

 

[Dean]

What are you looking at flying? PPC, Weight shift or LSA fixed wing? Greg is right, just because someone has their PPL doesn't mean they can jump in one of those "little Airplanes" and go flying. If you are looking at a pusher, get some training, they fly a lot different than what you are use too. There was an older CFI from SW Missouri with thousands of hours that dang near killed himself and another gent in a Challenger. He had never flown one and thought it would fly just like any other plane. The really sad part, it was a test flight for the passenger who was looking to buy it. He ended up buying a pile of scrap.

 

[murphey]

Dean, et al:

I've already contacted a local school to take me thru the entire Remos flight program (probably many fewer than the 20 hours for the newbie). I'll be doing the same for the PiperSport and the Cessna SkyCatcher over the next few weeks. Why? So I can understand the differences/similarities among them and be able to recommend which we should purchase/lease and explain why to our board.

My original question was about the legalities involved with the FAA, not the practical issues.

Momma didn't raise no dumb child, nor a fool-hardy one.

 

[Clark1961]

I've flown a couple conventional LSs including the Remos. As a PP, no FAA hoops to jump through.

As I understand it, insurance rules are a little bit stricter now than a couple years ago but I'm sure you'll check that out as a normal part of an evaluation.

From a flying point of view, they are lightweight little things (duh!). The conventional ones I flew seemed to behave normal enough but of course control forces were "kinda" light (understatement, major understatement). I'm thinkin' that a stick grip made for your pinkie finger would be just about right but that's just me...

 

[TedR3]

I'm not sure if this is the question you're asking but doesn't FAR 61.303 say:

"If you hold . . .a medical certificate . . . and you hold . . . at least a recreational pilot certificate with a category and class rating . . . then you may fly . . . any light sport aircraft in that category and class . . . and . . . you do not have to hold any of the endorsements required by this subpart, nor do you have to comply with the limitations in Section 61.315."

 

[poadeleted20]

One thing not clear is whether you're looking to fly a LSA of cat/class you hold on your PP or one for which you do not already have the cat/class rating. IOW, if you hold ASEL on your PP, you can legally fly any single engine land airplane LSA (except a TW, unless you're already TW qualified, too) without any FAA paperwork, although as mentioned, LSA's have their own quirks and a proper checkout would be wise. However, if you want to fly a powered parachute LSA, you'd have to comply with the LSA training and certification you mentioned for that new cat/class IAW 61.321.

 

[murphey]

I've flown a couple conventional LSs including the Remos. As a PP, no FAA hoops to jump through.

As I understand it, insurance rules are a little bit stricter now than a couple years ago but I'm sure you'll check that out as a normal part of an evaluation.

From a flying point of view, they are lightweight little things (duh!). The conventional ones I flew seemed to behave normal enough but of course control forces were "kinda" light (understatement, major understatement). I'm thinkin' that a stick grip made for your pinkie finger would be just about right but that's just me...

Lightweight, sure, but you drive a tank disguised as an airplane!

 

[murphey]

I'm not sure if this is the question you're asking but doesn't FAR 61.303 say:

"If you hold . . .a medical certificate . . . and you hold . . . at least a recreational pilot certificate with a category and class rating . . . then you may fly . . . any light sport aircraft in that category and class . . . and . . . you do not have to hold any of the endorsements required by this subpart, nor do you have to comply with the limitations in Section 61.315."

Aha! I didn't get than far in the FARs...I was reading the Sport PTS.

I'm still gonna take lessons....

 

[murphey]

One thing not clear is whether you're looking to fly a LSA of cat/class you hold on your PP or one for which you do not already have the cat/class rating. IOW, if you hold ASEL on your PP, you can legally fly any single engine land airplane LSA (except a TW, unless you're already TW qualified, too) without any FAA paperwork, although as mentioned, LSA's have their own quirks and a proper checkout would be wise. However, if you want to fly a powered parachute LSA, you'd have to comply with the LSA training and certification you mentioned for that new cat/class IAW 61.321.

Nope - just the LSA. I've been asked to provide an evaluation for an education program consisting of a review/comparison of the sales literature and same after flying all three for a few hours. Besides, it's something different to do for a few weeks. Might even turn into a job...

 

[EppyGA]

Nope - just the LSA. I've been asked to provide an evaluation for an education program consisting of a review/comparison of the sales literature and same after flying all three for a few hours. Besides, it's something different to do for a few weeks. Might even turn into a job...

Be interesting to hear what you think about the three birds once you've flown them.

 

[murphey]

Be interesting to hear what you think about the three birds once you've flown them.

I'll post the comparison matrix when I get it finished, probably in a month or so. Just talking with folks at OSH was very enlightening....

I know there are other LSAs out there, but we've narrowed it down to the Cessna, Piper and Remos just to make it manageable.

+1 for Remos - foldable wings. The organization has a large hangar that already has 3 PCATDs, a Jepp sim, a small classroom/work tables, small office, floor-to-ceiling storage against the walls, and RCs hanging from the rafters. Those foldable wings means a second hangar won't be needed.

+1 Cessna - everyone knows them, they're not about to go out of business anytime soon. Frankly, they'll probably be the Last One Standing.

+1 Piper - really comfy to sit in.

 

[PilotAlan]

...LSA's have their own quirks and a proper checkout would be wise.

The information I saw from Avemco was that guys stepping down to LSAs get in trouble because the low inertia of LSAs. If you let the nose come up with low or now power you lose speed a LOT faster than a Skyhawk or Cherokee.
That leads to landing accidents because a typical flare make cause the plane to slow and smack down a lot quicker than you thought, plus wind issues and loss of directional control, plus stall/spin accidents from losing the speed buffer a lot quicker than expected.

That's why the insurance companies are increasing the dual requirements for PPLs flying LSAs. Once acclimated and past the initial danger zone, it's no problem.

 

[EppyGA]

I'll post the comparison matrix when I get it finished, probably in a month or so. Just talking with folks at OSH was very enlightening....

I know there are other LSAs out there, but we've narrowed it down to the Cessna, Piper and Remos just to make it manageable.

+1 for Remos - foldable wings. The organization has a large hangar that already has 3 PCATDs, a Jepp sim, a small classroom/work tables, small office, floor-to-ceiling storage against the walls, and RCs hanging from the rafters. Those foldable wings means a second hangar won't be needed.

+1 Cessna - everyone knows them, they're not about to go out of business anytime soon. Frankly, they'll probably be the Last One Standing.

+1 Piper - really comfy to sit in.

I would have left out the Cessna (poor useful load) and included the Tecnam Bravo or Sierra.

 

[Dean]

That's why the insurance companies are increasing the dual requirements for PPLs flying LSAs. Once acclimated and past the initial danger zone, it's no problem.

That depends on the Make and Model, Avemco only required 2 hrs dual before solo and no additional time before passengers in my Challenger E-LSA.

 

[murphey]

I never thought about the insurance...guess I should call the insurance company tomorrow.

 

[Clark1961]

Lightweight, sure, but you drive a tank disguised as an airplane!

Hey now! Piper is greatly affronted by that remark. Remember, truth hurts!

 

[PilotAlan]

That depends on the Make and Model, Avemco only required 2 hrs dual before solo and no additional time before passengers in my Challenger E-LSA.

A friend of mine is the chief instructor of a place here renting Remoses and Goboshes, and their insurance company requires 5hrs dual and 5hrs solo for PPLs with no prior LSA time.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

A friend of mine is the chief instructor of a place here renting Remoses and Goboshes, and their insurance company requires 5hrs dual and 5hrs solo for PPLs with no prior LSA time.

My insurance company asked for one hour dual when I picked up my homebuilt tailwheel LSA...

 

[Dr. O]

Let me add to the comment about no inertia with LSA... They stop flying and start descending the instant the power is pulled... One of the very experienced pilots on our field (korea, vietnam) decided it was time and let his medical lapse, sold his Mustang II and bought an LSA... Darn near wrecked it on every landing for the first 3 or 4 hours until he got it through his highly honed reflexes from thousands of hours in slippery airplanes that you cannot pull the power over the threshold, that you maintain a gradual decrease in throttle until it is finally rolling on the wheels (i.e. fly it until you are taxiing)... After that, he was the ace of the base...

denny-o

 

[poadeleted20]

Nope - just the LSA.

OK, I figured out from the later posts that we're talking LSA's of the ASEL cat/class, so the ASEL rating on your PP gives you privileges in the LSA's about which we're talking without further training, endorsement, or certification (issues of TW, safety, and insurance notwithstanding).

 

[poadeleted20]

The information I saw from Avemco was that guys stepping down to LSAs get in trouble because the low inertia of LSAs. If you let the nose come up with low or now power you lose speed a LOT faster than a Skyhawk or Cherokee.
That leads to landing accidents because a typical flare make cause the plane to slow and smack down a lot quicker than you thought, plus wind issues and loss of directional control, plus stall/spin accidents from losing the speed buffer a lot quicker than expected.

That is consistent with what I've been told by an instructor for an LSA flight operation with plenty of non-LSA airplane flight and instructing experience, and who has done a lot of LSA checkouts with "regular" airplane pilots.

 

[poadeleted20]

My insurance company asked for one hour dual when I picked up my homebuilt tailwheel LSA...

I would point out that the 61.31(i) TW additional training requirement applies to TW LSA's, not just "regular" TW airplanes, so if you have no TW qualification (endorsement or grandfathering), you're going to need some dual in a TW LSA for legal as well as safety/insurance reasons.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Let me add to the comment about no inertia with LSA... They stop flying and start descending the instant the power is pulled...

No kidding.

I would point out that the 61.31(i) TW additional training requirement applies to TW LSA's, not just "regular" TW airplanes, so if you have no TW qualification (endorsement or grandfathering), you're going to need some dual in a TW LSA for legal as well as safety/insurance reasons.

I did my primary training in a Cessna 120 so even though I don't have any grandchildren, I am grandfathered.

And I got more than the insurance company required 1 hour to help get me back on my toes.

But, yes, tailwheel is tailwheel LSA or not.

 

[poadeleted20]

But, yes, tailwheel is tailwheel LSA or not.

That's a point sometimes lost on folks regarding LSA and Experimental airplanes, and that's why I pointed it out. Even the 61.31(k)(2)(iii) exception to cat/class ratings for solo flight in Experimentals does not excuse you from the 61.31(i) TW requirements.