If you were writing Part 61 anew...

[SkyHog]

The other thread got me thinking, and what the hell, I want to see what others think about rewriting part 61 to be more intelligent. Here's my ideas:

Remove the PTS as a separate document, and solidify it as a FAR instead.

The NEW 61.9, as written by Nick Brennan

61.9 Practical Test Standards
(a) Private Pilot. Before being granted a private pilot certificate, an applicant must display to an authorized examiner proficiency in --
(1) short and soft field takeoffs and landings
(2) stalls and slow flight
(3) spins and spin recovery
(4) holding a rectangular course with a crosswind
(5) Navigation by dead reckoning and pilotage
(6) Slips
(7) Navigation by reference to instrument only for a duration of at least 10 minutes

Of course, there would be some more for seaplanes and whatnot, but you'll notice the missing stuff: S-turns, steep turns, turns around a point and a bunch of other useless tools to a new private pilot. They can be taught, but not required.

 

[jesse]

Of course, there would be some more for seaplanes and whatnot, but you'll notice the missing stuff: S-turns, steep turns, turns around a point and a bunch of other useless tools to a new private pilot. They can be taught, but not required.

Woah. Easy now. I can see where you are coming from with the S-turns and turns around a point. Yeah--it might be a pain in the ass to learn. But it's one more thing that helps to develop control of the aircraft. Just because something isn't directly applicable to you does not mean it isn't useful.

When it comes to steep turns. I wouldn't mind the removal of the entire steep turn phrase. You should turn as steep as you need to turn to make the airplane go where it needs to go. Way too many pilots blow fast final because they go to what their instructor said was the bank and that bank takes them right on by. People need to be taught how to fly the extended centerline and how to watch it. Put your eyes where you want to go and adjust your bank to get you there. Guess what--You won't ever go through final.

If you are driving around a corner in your car. Do you watch where you want the car to go or do you try to use some predetermined steering wheel angle you learned in drivers ed? Of course you don't--You watch the road and turn as needed. Why? Because if you go off your course you die. The sky may not have ditches but someday it might just get you. Plus--Don't you want to be the best pilot you can be?

I don't care how steep I turn in the pattern. My eyes are on where the airplane needs to go which is the extended centerline. My bank changes to get the airplane there. I don't care what the angle is. I'm comfortable with any and am familiar with doing them in the airplane that I am flying. If I'm landing I want to go down. It's entirely possible that I wouldn't be able to hold altitude with the turn and low airspeed but if that's the case--I don't care-- I don't hold altitude. I want to come down.

More effort needs to be put into the visuals of flying. Less effort put into the numbers of flying. When I start instructing it will be very clear. I'm going to teach you how to fly a small plane in a safe controlled manner. I am not teaching you how to fly a jet. If you want to learn how to fly a jet you can get a different instructor. Small airplanes make crappy jet simulators since you know--You can die and all.

 

[Tristar]

I definitely agree with you jesse. Although I think the reason CFIs are wanting to teach numbers and specific indications on the instruments is because you'll be relying on that when it comes to instruments. I believe there is a totally different mind set in comparison to VFR and IFR flying but in order to get to IFR you do need to understand how to actualy fly VFR, then, once that is grasped, more numbers can be enforced. Not to mention I believe that most students get so frustrated about searching for a number while flying the basics, they forget what their senses are telling them. Just remember, and this goes for everybody, flying is not really a science....its an art.

 

[gprellwitz]

I definitely agree with you jesse. Although I think the reason CFIs are wanting to teach numbers and specific indications on the instruments is because you'll be relying on that when it comes to instruments. I believe there is a totally different mind set in comparison to VFR and IFR flying but in order to get to IFR you do need to understand how to actualy fly VFR, then, once that is grasped, more numbers can be enforced. Not to mention I believe that most students get so frustrated about searching for a number while flying the basics, they forget what their senses are telling them. Just remember, and this goes for everybody, flying is not really a science....its an art.

The other reason that numbers are so prevalent, IMHO, is that the FAA prescribes them in the form of the PTS. And, in order to ensure consistency in testing, I think they have to do so. Also, they prescribe them in terms of operating regulations (altitude and speed). That said, I agree that when you're flying VFR you want to be controlling the plane.

BTW, what's with Jesse's new avatar? Did you give him permission? I mean, it's a great picture of you, but who wants to see him!

 

[jesse]

The other reason that numbers are so prevalent, IMHO, is that the FAA prescribes them in the form of the PTS. And, in order to ensure consistency in testing, I think they have to do so. Also, they prescribe them in terms of operating regulations (altitude and speed). That said, I agree that when you're flying VFR you want to be controlling the plane.

That makes no sense.

I'm talking about numbers being used, for example, you must always land at this airspeed with no bank angle steeper than this with a pattern of this size. Most pilots do not know how to fly by feel all.

Plug their pitot tube, stick a piece of tape over the stall warning, and you'd have way too many pilots bend metal. Which is sad---but the reality.

Something to add to your new regulations:

Demonstrate all phases of flight including takeoff and landing without the use of the airspeed indicator

 

[Tristar]

HAHA yea I gave him permission.

Yea I was thinking the same thing as far as the FAA and PTS. Some numbers are honestly good for students to know. Its good for students to understand what the indications/numbers on the airspeed indicator means among other things and in a sense, it gives students a solid number to shoot for when landing. The trouble is, those numbers can very so much depending on the situation. I wish in my flight training my CFI didn't emphasise numbers so much but rather what things "Feel like." Because when you start flying on you're own, your physical feelings are what will show the first indication of something not being right, I believe this can be for both "mushiness" on the controls in a stall or even what the engine should sound like. Whats great about flying too is when you get you're private, it is a license to learn. And most of what you do learn, you taught yourself. Each pilot has their own unique way of piloting their craft, sometimes good, sometimes not so good.

 

[Tristar]

I really agree with that too Jess. No one enforced flying without that airspeed indicator in my primary training. They tried to knock flying specific numbers on take off and landings into me that I became reliant on it. I'm still trying to learn feel as far as that goes because of too much number enforcement. I could probably land safely but I think I'd be nervous about it if I lost my airspeed.

 

[jesse]

I really agree with that too Jess. No one enforced flying without that airspeed indicator in my primary training. They tried to knock flying specific numbers on take off and landings into me that I became reliant on it. I'm still trying to learn feel as far as that goes because of too much number enforcement. I could probably land safely but I think I'd be nervous about it if I lost my airspeed.

Honestly I think many instructors are afraid of it. I can tell pretty quick how good an instructor is. If I'm doing a checkout in the airplane and their eyes are concentrating on my airspeed indicator throughout takeoff and throughout the landing phase--I won't be using them again after the checkout.

The truth of the matter is--you can lose your airspeed indicator...and you can't hit the pause button. Just like how we lost it in the Diamond. Except that situation was a little different since I could rely on feel because there was an unknown amount of ice on the airplane as well as no airspeed indicator.

 

[Tristar]

Yea you're probably right, but thats probably how their instructor taught them.

Was the diamond's pitot tube hole really completly covered when we landed? I remember looking at the airspeed indicator and it was still reading but dropping slightly and a little steadily. Its hard for me to determine if we were loosing airspeed because it was iced over or if the wings were creating more drag. I haven't learned how to tell the difference but I guess it doesnt matter as long as you know you need to do something about it.

 

[jesse]

Was the diamond's pitot tube hole really completly covered when we landed? I remember looking at the airspeed indicator and it was still reading but dropping slightly and a little steadily. Its hard for me to determine if we were loosing airspeed because it was iced over or if the wings were creating more drag. I haven't learned how to tell the difference but I guess it doesnt matter as long as you know you need to do something about it.

It was pretty well iced over. We had an indicated airspeed of about 25 knots on final and a ground speed on the 430 of 100 knots. I busted the ice off the pitot tube after we landed.

The ground speed on the GPS is a pretty good way to determine airspeed loss. But considering how we were picking up ice and we had no pitot heat the most likely cause of the airspeed dropping is the pitot tube getting froze over. There is pretty much no way to avoid that without pitot heat. If you hit ice--it will freeze over and drop at a pretty fast rate.

I think the real threat in the icing situation is more of a raised stall speed and decreasing lift due to the ice interfering with smooth airflow over the wing. With enough ice the airplane will not be flying anymore. It will also become increasingly difficult to maintain altitude and impossible to go around or go missed on the approach. I think a lot of pilots that have been killed by ice ended up trying to force the airplane to maintain altitude with an ever increasing stall speed. Unfortunately it seems that a pilot's willpower just cannot be stronger than physics. Eventually gravity wins.

 

[EdFred]

I would raise the age requirements for CFI, Commercial, and ATP. I would also get rid of the ability to log PIC time while acting as a CFI. And also raise the age limit of forced retirement by the same number of years the ATP rating was raised. 5 sounds like a good number.

 

[SkyHog]

Woah. Easy now. I can see where you are coming from with the S-turns and turns around a point. Yeah--it might be a pain in the ass to learn. But it's one more thing that helps to develop control of the aircraft. Just because something isn't directly applicable to you does not mean it isn't useful.

Its not the pain in the ass part that infuriates me, its the fact that a PRIVATE pilot, in my mind, equivalent to a Class D Driver License, requires that a pilot do maneuvers that would almost never be used anyways... No ATCer is ever going to ask you do to an S-Turn for spacing (there's a reason why). Turns around a point? Good for aerial photography and commercial applications, but they should not be a required manever for a private pilot.

What does a private pilot NEED to know?? How to turn, climb, descend, land, how to fly a rectangular course, how to recover from inadvertant stalls (and spins, IMHO), and how to navigate.

That's it. Save the rest for commercial applications.

If you are driving around a corner in your car. Do you watch where you want the car to go or do you try to use some predetermined steering wheel angle you learned in drivers ed? Of course you don't--You watch the road and turn as needed. Why? Because if you go off your course you die. The sky may not have ditches but someday it might just get you. Plus--Don't you want to be the best pilot you can be?

Exactly my point. Flying isn't rocket science. Its actually easier than driving a car, because if you do overshoot a turn, you can fix it, whereas in a car, you hit a curb.

 

[Michael]

Its actually easier than driving a car, because if you do overshoot a turn, you can fix it, whereas in a car, you hit a curb.

Not when there is a mountain...or building in the way..Ask Cory Liddle

 

[gprellwitz]

What does a private pilot NEED to know?? How to turn, climb, descend, land, how to fly a rectangular course, how to recover from inadvertant stalls (and spins, IMHO), and how to navigate.

You may consider it intrinsic in the other things you've listed, but I would include enough instrument time to get out of an inadvertent instrument conditions. Yeah, our current regs are supposed to give that, but they don't. It's a combination of technical skills and mindset, and I don't think much is done for the mindset portion. You must be willing to recognize that things are deteriorating and that you need to switch to instruments.

 

[SkyHog]

You may consider it intrinsic in the other things you've listed, but I would include enough instrument time to get out of an inadvertent instrument conditions. Yeah, our current regs are supposed to give that, but they don't. It's a combination of technical skills and mindset, and I don't think much is done for the mindset portion. You must be willing to recognize that things are deteriorating and that you need to switch to instruments.

Yeah, I forgot that in my second post, but I had it in my original. That is another thing that is necessary, the ability to get out of a screw up of entering IMC.

 

[kath]

No ATCer is ever going to ask you do to an S-Turn for spacing (there's a reason why).

Huh? I was asked to do S-turns for spacing many times as a PP at a busy airport.

One of the first things PP's do when they take passengers is do things like fly over the passenger's house. Maybe circle it a few times to take pictures. That's "turns around a point" and I'd like to know that PP's out there know how to do this while scanning for other traffic.

Sometimes turns need to be steep, sometimes they need to be shallow. PP's should know how to make a steep turn, how to not sink or climb while doing one, at whatever angle they need to to get the job done.

Holding airspeed in a takeoff may not seem important for a PP, but when that pilot buys a big heavy airplane where "the secret to landing it is to fly the numbers", then that PP should be able to hold airspeed on approach.

I dunno... I guess I'm in the camp that thinks that standards for PP's need to get higher rather than lower.

--Kath

 

[Greg Bockelman]

No ATCer is ever going to ask you do to an S-Turn for spacing (there's a reason why).

Care to explain that? Because it isn't true. I have done S's in the 777 for pete's sake. Not 180 degree turns, like turns across the road, but S's nontheless.

Also, you can complain all you want, but the minimum requirements for the PP are not going to change anytime soon. And they shouldn't. I don't want someone in the same airspace that is not capable of exercising basic control of their airplane.

 

[KennyFlys]

Listen to JFK tower on LiveATC.net and you'll hear plenty of allowances to do S-turns for spacing. Sometimes, you can slow down only so much be it aircraft limits or operating specs.

Numbers have to be learned. Various maneuvers have to be learned. Limits of the aircraft must be learned. I've heard the following many times: The PPL is to learn the basics. The IR is to learn precision. The CPL is to learn safety as well as further accuracy, particularly in maneuvering flight. All along the way, you have numbers and limits to fly by.

Learning to control the aircraft by sight and sound is a necessary skill, as discovered during partial or lost panel. But, how will you know what to expect if you don't know what you get when flying by the numbers?

 

[wsuffa]

Care to explain that? Because it isn't true. I have done S's in the 777 for pete's sake. Not 180 degree turns, like turns across the road, but S's nontheless.

Also, you can complain all you want, but the minimum requirements for the PP are not going to change anytime soon. And they shouldn't. I don't want someone in the same airspace that is not capable of exercising basic control of their airplane.

I've done 'em in my plane, and I was on a 717 a few weeks ago that did 'em into MCI (we still had to go around because a prop twin didn't clear the runway fast enough).

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Honestly I think many instructors are afraid of it. I can tell pretty quick how good an instructor is. If I'm doing a checkout in the airplane and their eyes are concentrating on my airspeed indicator throughout takeoff and throughout the landing phase

Remember, the instructor has no idea what the feel of the plane is at any moment if their hands aren't on the controls. So, you can't fault 'em for looking at the airspeed now and then.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

No ATCer is ever going to ask you do to an S-Turn for spacing (there's a reason why). Turns around a point? Good for aerial photography and commercial applications, but they should not be a required manever for a private pilot.

What's this reason why ATC won't ask for S turns? Sure they will. They'll ask for turns around a point on occasion as well.

Just like these maneuvers aren't "real world" maneuvers for a private pilot... When in the world do you think a commercial pilot is going to NEED to do a chandelle? All of the maneuvers are simply designed to show that you have a certain level of mastery of the airplane. Likewise, many states require a serpentine backing turn on a CDL test. You'd never use it in the real world, but it shows you have control and knowledge of the vehicle.

 

[jesse]

Remember, the instructor has no idea what the feel of the plane is at any moment if their hands aren't on the controls. So, you can't fault 'em for looking at the airspeed now and then.

Attitude, RPM, and actually knowing the airplane. I'd much rather their eyes be outside looking for planes. I'm not paying them to stare at the airspeed indicator for half the flight.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Attitude, RPM, and actually knowing the airplane. I'd much rather their eyes be outside looking for planes. I'm not paying them to stare at the airspeed indicator for half the flight.

FWIW, I'll be looking at the ASI a lot as an instructor. I have a LOT of trouble determining attitude visually, especially in something like a DA40. I'm too damn tall to relate the cowl to anything. I need something like the 182 before I can even think about determining pitch attitude visually.

 

[nosehair]

S-turns, steep turns, turns around a point and a bunch of other useless tools to a new private pilot. They can be taught, but not required.

An S-Turn is not for the purpose of being able to do S-Turns on final when requested by ATC. It is one of the ground track maneuvers used to teach ground track. New pilot trainees need to be focused on what path over the ground they are flying. All the maneuvers you are opposed to are tools for teaching basic control in a variety of attitudes and positions. They are not intended to be an actual maneuver you might do routinely - like landings. By your logic, there would be no need to teach spins, because you wouldn't intentionally get the airplane in a spinable condition.

Most of the maneuvers, chandelles, lazy 8's, and such are just standardized maneuvers to develop overall flying proficiency.

Maybe these maneuvers could be changed into better teaching tolls than currently exist, but learning to gain absolute control and authority will not happen if you only learn the minimum things you are going to do on a normal routine basis.

The PTS is actually regulatory. If you look at the FAR that requires skill (proficiency) for the certificate, you will see each regulatory requirement as an Aera of Operation. The PTS further defines that regulation with specific TASKS for the applicant to perform. This is just a way of standardizing the test.

I started flying back when there was no PTS. There were just regulatory requirements as you mention. The skill level and method of performance was up to the examiner. In a perfect world, this would be the ideal. Instuctors teaching good solid pilot skills, and examiners checking and verifying. But we are all imperfect people, and instructors tend to teach to a checkride, and examiners tend to focus on their own personal priorities.

I like your idea, but it seems that you are not correlating specific skills to overall performance.

 

[SkyHog]

I'm not disagreeing that learning maneuvers is important to be a good pilot, but here's the deal:

We are a small group of people compared to the total population. That makes us hard to relate to. Harder requirements to get your PPL makes less people start flying. Less people start, we become a smaller group. The only way to save the ability to fly in the United States is to get more people to start flying.

That said, I now say that we need less stringent requirements. We need more people flying, driving the price of flying down. We need a bigger group of us to be represented by our politicians, so we have real voting power.

So I won't back down, this is something we need.

edit: I should qualify "good pilot." I mean a pilot that is better than the minimum standards. Sure people die flying, and it is sad. More people fly, more people will die. That doesn't mean that not knowing how to properly do s-turns is going to cause accidents, it just means that the pilot that doesn't know them will probably only fly from point a to point b. There is the argument that "Sport Pilot" or "Recreational Pilot" may be what I'm getting at, but not with the restrictions imposed. We need a license (certificate for Ed ) that has similar rights to the PPL with regards to carrying passengers and night flight, but will less stringent requirements. Maybe, like the recreational, the FAA can limit the ability to get an IR add-on, but we're going quickly towards extinction, and those of you that say "we need higher standards" are putting us there quicker.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I'm not disagreeing that learning maneuvers is important to be a good pilot, but here's the deal:

We are a small group of people compared to the total population. That makes us hard to relate to. Harder requirements to get your PPL makes less people start flying. Less people start, we become a smaller group. The only way to save the ability to fly in the United States is to get more people to start flying.

That said, I now say that we need less stringent requirements. We need more people flying, driving the price of flying down. We need a bigger group of us to be represented by our politicians, so we have real voting power.

So I won't back down, this is something we need.

We've already received that in the Sport Pilot rating. Those standards have got to be low enough for you.

All maneuvers taught in PPL are useful in PPL flying, such as turns on a point for viewing windsocks in low ceilings, and S turns are asked for all the time by tower for spacing on final which you'll eventually experience.

It seems somehow wrong to agree with the FAA but, their REGs including currencies and WX mins are just about right for PPL.

O2 toxicity happens slowly and there is no deffinate "line". Deterioration of pilot functions starts as low as 5000 MSL, especially at night, and worse part is the pilot doesn't usually even know it until it's too late! Try the hypobarric chamber for about 10 minutes to see for sure, in a safe environment.

 

[SkyHog]

We've already received that in the Sport Pilot rating. Those standards have got to be low enough for you.

All maneuvers taught in PPL are useful in PPL flying, such as turns on a point for viewing windsocks in low ceilings, and S turns are asked for all the time by tower for spacing on final which you'll eventually experience.

It seems somehow wrong to agree with the FAA but, their REGs including currencies and WX mins are just about right for PPL.

O2 toxicity happens slowly and there is no deffinate "line". Deterioration of pilot functions starts as low as 5000 MSL, especially at night, and worse part is the pilot doesn't usually even know it until it's too late! Try the hypobarric chamber for about 10 minutes to see for sure, in a safe environment.

I know you missed my edit, but you should read it, and see what I mean. I honestly believe this stuff.

 

[poadeleted20]

Regrettably, the single most important quality in a pilot (good judgement) is virtually impossible to regulate or measure.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I know you missed my edit, but you should read it, and see what I mean. I honestly believe this stuff.

Knock yourself out, Nick. Does the term "Spitting into the wind" mean anything to you? LOL

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I know you missed my edit, but you should read it, and see what I mean. I honestly believe this stuff.

I like your part and have agreed for a long time, about increasing requirements by requiring spins and recoveries, which is not now required. No steep turns??? Those guys in the Hudson Corridor and MANY others could have stood some expertise in safe, steep turns I'll venture. Otherwise, the Sport Pilot seems very close to what you desire and should be helping to meet your goals right now. Not enough difference to make no nevermind about, anyhow that I can see.

Let's see how the accident rates compare in about 5 more years or so between PPL and SPL, it should be interesting.

BTW: Have you reconsidered O2 REGs?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

We are a small group of people compared to the total population. That makes us hard to relate to. Harder requirements to get your PPL makes less people start flying. Less people start, we become a smaller group. The only way to save the ability to fly in the United States is to get more people to start flying.

That said, I now say that we need less stringent requirements. We need more people flying, driving the price of flying down. We need a bigger group of us to be represented by our politicians, so we have real voting power.

Nick,

With all due respect... Which requirements do you think should be less stringent? Do we eliminate the instrument training? Too many people die from VFR into IMC already. Do we allow +-200 feet on the tasks for private? Well, having a bunch of people who can't hold altitude within 100 feet would be very bad for the airspace system.

Considering most folks can't get the PPL done in 40 hours with the existing requirements, I don't think we're gonna get much of anywhere with less stringent requirements.

Now, I do agree with the premise - We need to get more people to fly. So, how do we do this?

I can think of a few things that could be done to make a halfway point between the PPL and Sport Pilot. Let's call it "Leisure Pilot". Maybe restrict them to no more than 4 seats, no HP/complex/taildragger/multi/instrument... Just your basic rental types. There'd be less knowledge required (How many PP students really understand the operation of a CS prop when they take the written?). I honestly can't think of a way to lessen the flight requirements.

The big thing that needs to be done is to make getting those flight hours cheaper. To do that, we need the magical auto-fuel-even-if-it-has-ethanol conversion, or biodiesel, or something completely different like electric/fuel cell/who knows. Then, we need to reduce maintenance costs. (Don't ask me how, I wish I knew! I've spent $46.50/hr in maintenance over the last two years. ) And, we need to reduce the price of airplanes somehow... Sport Pilot/LSA may do that somewhat, but it's not enough yet.

I wish there were a realistic way to do this. However, I think that the battle we really need to fight is against the media, and against apathy. We need to market ourselves better, and get all those folks (and there are at least 20 of these for every pilot) who have "always wanted to fly" to become pilots and quit putting it off! We need to somehow get the media to quit sensationalizing accidents and making people think flying is super-dangerous (leading, hopefully, to increased spousal approval).

 

[KennyFlys]

I don't think there should be any standards relaxed. In fact, I'd like to see a higher standard for some aspects of PPL where hood time is required and I'm in favor of stricter standards in remaining proficient under IMC.

The problem with bringing about new students into aviation isn't the standards which they must meet. I'm of the opinion... if you want it, you'll work for it. There's nothing in the current or proposed standards to prevent new students to enter this special minority. If you relax them, people come in who are not willing to work for it, let alone improve proficiency. Then, we all suffer and we are all less safe.

However, costs... that is the limiting factor in every aspect. The cost of the plane, fuel, insurance and those "cheap" instructors. Instructors really are not paid as well as they should be. People will pay $3-4 at least once every day for a cup of Staryucks coffee and not flinch. But, $45 for an hour of a professional flight instructor's time is overkill. That's only three times what it was 25 years ago.

When you consider the embedded cost of insurance in a new airplane's price, that makes rental costs higher. The high cost of fuel due to inflation is to be expected. The high amount of taxes from various authorities makes it worse. Then, there's the liability insurance for the school/FBO and the instructor.

Setting standards has very little, if anything, to do with drawing new folks to aviation. If they don't want to put in the time to learn, I'd rather they stay away.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

Nick,

With all due respect... Which requirements do you think should be less stringent? Do we eliminate the instrument training? Too many people die from VFR into IMC already. Do we allow +-200 feet on the tasks for private? Well, having a bunch of people who can't hold altitude within 100 feet would be very bad for the airspace system.

Considering most folks can't get the PPL done in 40 hours with the existing requirements, I don't think we're gonna get much of anywhere with less stringent requirements.

Now, I do agree with the premise - We need to get more people to fly. So, how do we do this?

I can think of a few things that could be done to make a halfway point between the PPL and Sport Pilot. Let's call it "Leisure Pilot". Maybe restrict them to no more than 4 seats, no HP/complex/taildragger/multi/instrument... Just your basic rental types. There'd be less knowledge required (How many PP students really understand the operation of a CS prop when they take the written?). I honestly can't think of a way to lessen the flight requirements.

The big thing that needs to be done is to make getting those flight hours cheaper. To do that, we need the magical auto-fuel-even-if-it-has-ethanol conversion, or biodiesel, or something completely different like electric/fuel cell/who knows. Then, we need to reduce maintenance costs. (Don't ask me how, I wish I knew! I've spent $46.50/hr in maintenance over the last two years. ) And, we need to reduce the price of airplanes somehow... Sport Pilot/LSA may do that somewhat, but it's not enough yet.

I wish there were a realistic way to do this. However, I think that the battle we really need to fight is against the media, and against apathy. We need to market ourselves better, and get all those folks (and there are at least 20 of these for every pilot) who have "always wanted to fly" to become pilots and quit putting it off! We need to somehow get the media to quit sensationalizing accidents and making people think flying is super-dangerous (leading, hopefully, to increased spousal approval).

All good stuff. One solution to most all of that may be some adjustments in the Experimental rules. A lot of experimentals are cheap to buy, and fly on 2-3 gal/hour, and you can do your own maintenance if you built it. Reducing some more of the use restrictions after demonstrated flight performance could make them more attractive. So, what about the buyer of a home built also being able to do their own maintenance after some training that does not equal an A&P rating? What about allowing some of the C-150 and C-152 aircraft that are cheap to buy and simple to maintain to be re-registered as Experimental without being disassembled and rebuilt from parts, so the owners can do their own maintenance and some economy mods? Personally, I would rather fly a factory built Cessna over a home built, but doing your own maintenance and mods would be a great help. I have always wondered why more aircraft are not using the new lightweight turbodiesel engines that can produce about 100HP burning 3 gal/hour of cheap diesel (or Jet with 2-cycle oil added). Safer in a crash and less complicated to run without mag and mixture, and the power curve is actually much better for turning a prop than an AVGAS engine, and you get a substantial increase in range and endurance too. This is becoming popular in Europe where the difference in price between diesel and AVGAS is much more than in the US. Of course, if they become more attractive to buy because of rule changes the price will go up to buy them. And improving the utility of Experimentals would not help at all with spousal approval. My wife would not be very supportive of either of us flying in anything marked Experimental.

 

[tonycondon]

All good stuff. One solution to most all of that may be some adjustments in the Experimental rules. A lot of experimentals are cheap to buy, and fly on 2-3 gal/hour, and you can do your own maintenance if you built it. Reducing some more of the use restrictions after demonstrated flight performance could make them more attractive. So, what about the buyer of a home built also being able to do their own maintenance after some training that does not equal an A&P rating? What about allowing some of the C-150 and C-152 aircraft that are cheap to buy and simple to maintain to be re-registered as Experimental without being disassembled and rebuilt from parts, so the owners can do their own maintenance and some economy mods? Personally, I would rather fly a factory built Cessna over a home built, but doing your own maintanance and mods would be a great help. I have always wondered why more aircraft are not using the new lightweight turbodiesel engines that can produce about 100HP burning 3 gal/hour of cheap diesel (or Jet with 2-cycle oil added). Safer in a crash and less complicated to run without mag and mixture, and the power curve is actually much better for turning a prop than an AVGAS engine, and you get a substantial increase in range and endurance too. This is becoming popular in Europe where the difference in price between diesel and AVGAS is much more than in the US. Of course, if they become more attractive to buy because of rule changes the price will go up to buy them. And improving the utility of Experimentals would not help at all with spousal approval. My wife would not be very supportive of either of us flying in anything marked Experimental.

You dont have to build it to do maintenance, however if you didnt build it you are depending on an A&P or original builder for the Condition Inspection so you better not get too carried away.

Ive never had a student quit because the standards for getting a license were too stringent. Ive lost oogles because they ran out of money. Cheaper is the key.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

You dont have to build it to do maintenance, however if you didnt build it you are depending on an A&P or original builder for the Condition Inspection so you better not get too carried away.

Ive never had a student quit because the standards for getting a license were too stringent. Ive lost oogles because they ran out of money. Cheaper is the key.

I understood you needed to meet the 51% rule to do your own maintenance. Did I miss something?
And anytime you buy a used aircraft you depend on the prior owners, the maintenance records, and a condition inspection. I agree a factory assembly is better; but what about a 40 year old factory built plane with 15,000 hours vs a 2 year old kit built with under 1000 hours? Which one do you think you depend on the condition inspection more?

 

[tonycondon]

you need to meet the 51% to get the repairman certificate. Part 43 does not apply to Experimental. Anyone can do maintenance (ask me how I know). But an A&P or the person with the Repairman certificate issued with the airplane must sign it off for the Condition Inspection every year.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Of course, if they become more attractive to buy because of rule changes the price will go up to buy them. And improving the utility of Experimentals would not help at all with spousal approval. My wife would not be very supportive of either of us flying in anything marked Experimental.[/quote]

"Experimental" is a misnomer and they're more accurately called Home Built aircraft, as cursory observation of designs that have been flying for many years, sometimes over 2 decades, clearly shows. They all still have to go through FAA sign offs.

Waiting for spousal approval is one of the worst mistakes a pilot can make.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

you need to meet the 51% to get the repairman certificate. Part 43 does not apply to Experimental. Anyone can do maintenance (ask me how I know). But an A&P or the person with the Repairman certificate issued with the airplane must sign it off for the Condition Inspection every year.

Ok. Poor choice of wording on my part. That is what I meant about doing it yourself.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

"Experimental" is a misnomer and they're more accurately called Home Built aircraft, as cursory observation of designs that have been flying for many years, sometimes over 2 decades, clearly shows. They all still have to go through FAA sign offs.

Waiting for spousal approval is one of the worst mistakes a pilot can make.

And disregarding spousal objections is one of the worst mistakes a husband can make. Better to find a compromise that both can feel good about. For me it was a certified aircraft, but I still get to fly.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

And disregarding spousal objections is one of the worst mistakes a husband can make. Better to find a compromise that both can feel good about. For me it was a certified aircraft, but I still get to fly.

Of what real value is a compromise, that is based on inaccurate information?