Light Sport Visual Reference

Palmpilot

Palmpilot

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
22,442
Location
PUDBY
Display Name
Display name:
Richard Palm
61.315(c)(13) requires sport pilots to maintain "visual reference to the surface." Does that require being able to see the ground directly under the aircraft, or is it sufficient to see the ground elsewhere in the general area?
 
Seeing the ground anywhere is pretty much the same. It doesn't say what window to look out to see it, your using the ground to maintain visual reference so you can keep the shiny side up.
 
If you can see the ground, my take is you are good to go. My take also is that if the cloud deck is few to scattered you are good to go but if it is broken best be underneath the cloud layer.
 
To some 'visual reference to the surface' is ambiguous.

To others it means the pilot must be able to operate the aircraft with visual reference to the ground (at all times), and by extension be visually avoiding obstructions and other aircraft on their own without ATC help.

So, if you are flying with broken layer below you or fly thru a layer below VFR minimums it is possible to lose visual reference to the ground and thus violate the rule.
 
Depends how good at scud running you are anything more than a few,or scattered,your looking for trouble.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
If you can see the ground, my take is you are good to go. My take also is that if the cloud deck is few to scattered you are good to go but if it is broken best be underneath the cloud layer.
Click to expand...

What prompted the question was a solid but localized stratus layer, like we get so often here in the San Francisco area.
 
Palmpilot said:
61.315(c)(13) requires sport pilots to maintain "visual reference to the surface." Does that require being able to see the ground directly under the aircraft, or is it sufficient to see the ground elsewhere in the general area?
Click to expand...


Don't read into things that much, and please done write a letter to the FAA!

It's means "can you see the ground".
 
The real meaning is that you can use the "surface" for attitude reference so no, you don't need to be able to see the "ground" directly below the aircraft.

If you're talking about the San Francisco area and the typical summertime marine layer it has a well defined edge and obviously you're probably not talking about say, cutting across Watsonville to Salinas and ending up 15 or 20 miles out over it because that can give you trouble whether you're a Sport Pilot or not.
 
James331 said:
Don't read into things that much, and please done write a letter to the FAA!

It's means "can you see the ground".
Click to expand...

Palmpilot said:
Amen to that!
Click to expand...

May be too late, though the interpretation is in regards to student pilots and the reasoning used doesn't seem to carry over very well when applied to sport pilots who presumably should have about the same training in this regard as private pilots:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...2008/murphy - (2008) legal interpretation.pdf

"Secondly, you inquire whether a student pilot may operate solo above a scattered or broken cloud layer. You reference the prohibition in 14 C.F.R. § 61.89(a)(7) that a student pilot may not act as PIC when the flight cannot be made with visual reference to the surface.

14 C.F.R. § 61.87 sets forth the requirements that a student pilot must meet prior to operating an aircraft in solo flight. Assuming that the student pilot complies with those requirements for solo flight, section 61.89 sets forth limitations on a student pilot. Section 61.89(a)(7) states, in relevant part, that a student pilot may not act as PIC of an aircraft when the flight cannot be made with visual reference to the surface. 1 This general prohibition against operating in marginal weather conditions is intended to alleviate the problem of student pilots becoming lost or disoriented in those marginal conditions. Operating above a scattered or broken cloud layer could be the sort of marginal conditions that could cause a student pilot to become lost or disoriented. For this reason, section 61.89(a)(7) prohibits a student pilot from acting as PIC above a scattered or broken cloud layer."
 
The reasoning in that opinion does seem potentially applicable. Please note, however, that my "Amen to that" did not apply to the entirety of his post, only the portion I quoted.
 
Palmpilot said:
The reasoning in that opinion does seem potentially applicable. Please note, however, that my "Amen to that" did not apply to the entirety of his post, only the portion I quoted.
Click to expand...

Sorry about that - I was being lazy and using the multiquote feature and didn't edit his quote to match your version.
 
No problem. By the way, how do you use the multiquote feature?
 
Palmpilot said:
No problem. By the way, how do you use the multiquote feature?
Click to expand...

Lazy again; here's a Youtube video on the feature. The icons look a little different but I believe the technique is the same in this version of vBulletin.
 
So as long as you can see a distant mountain peak, you can see the ground so you should be ok.
 
Jim Logajan said:
May be too late, though the interpretation is in regards to student pilots and the reasoning used doesn't seem to carry over very well when applied to sport pilots who presumably should have about the same training in this regard as private pilots:
Click to expand...
Less training in this regard. Sport pilot training doesn't include hood work.
 
My take...

1) If they wanted to prohibit a Light Sport pilot from operating over a scattered,broken or overcast layer, they could have just said so in the reg.

2) Since they didn't, my take is that as long as you can see the ground at all, in any direction, you're golden.

3) If it was illegal for a Sport Pilot to operate over a scattered layer it would be a huge operational problem. In the southeast there's often a scattered layer somewhere around 2,000' to 6,000'. The air above is usually smoother and cooler, especially important when warm. To condemn a pilot to bouncing around in the heat and turbulence down low makes no sense. It can even adversely affect safety, forcing a pilot down to where towers live and limiting gliding range and available landing spots in the event of an engine failure.

4) I will again point out that Light Sport restrictions like these may make sense for a pilot only trained to Light Sport standards. Much less so for a Private, Commercial or ATP that is simply flying sans medical. None of that pilot's previous training or experience suddenly vanished the day his or her medical expired. Logically, there should be some sort of "grandfather" provisions built in for such cases.

But for now, I'm just glad to be flying at all without the yearly "annual roulette". I can live with not flying at night, not flying over 10,000' and needing "visual reference to the surface". Not hugely limiting for the kind of flying I do now, just seems kinda silly.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Less training in this regard. Sport pilot training doesn't include hood work.
Click to expand...

Per 61.303:

A private, commercial, or even airline transport pilot who lets their medical lapse and flies a light sport aircraft under light sport pilot rules may not fly without visual reference to the surface. The exact same people with current medicals may makes such flights. So the rule depends primarily on medical certification, not training or experience.

The rationale cited in the chief counsel opinion letter for student pilots made some dubious claim about getting lost or disoriented that seems to be a post hoc invention. I don't see it applying to the sport pilot limitation for the reasons noted above.
 
When did the one hour under the hood requirement get implemented? It definitely wasn't required when I did mine. Also, not one of the planes I trained in were equipped with the appropriate instruments.

I'll be doing some research now, but based on your posts in other threads, I suspect that you have acquired and internalized a LOT of misinformation.
 
Nope! Channelling the little bit of Ron that is in each of us, I see in the footnote that there were changes made to 61.113 in 2009 and 2010, but still no view-limiting-device requirement. I honestly don't know what did change, but that definitely wasn't it.

I suggest that you change up the source for your information regarding FARs, because your current source hasn't served you well.
 
I saw the ground when I took off, and I still remember what it looked like. Is that good enough?

No slaw, bodies, bags therefore, nor corrosion of any sort noted. I am thinking about having a beer or three in a couple of hours. Should I have pre-reported this on my last consult with the doctor in order to use my DL in lieu of a medical. Emergency declaration was sent in by mail when I applied for my student pilot cert in 2008.

This environmentally-responsible message was sent using 100% recycled electrons.
 
Stevel said:
When did the one hour under the hood requirement get implemented? It definitely wasn't required when I did mine. Also, not one of the planes I trained in were equipped with the appropriate instruments.

I'll be doing some research now, but based on your posts in other threads, I suspect that you have acquired and internalized a LOT of misinformation.
Click to expand...

Here is the reg:

61.93(e)(12).

Control and maneuvering solely by reference to flight instruments,
including straight and level flight, turns, descents, climbs, use of radio
aids and ATC directives. For students seeking a sport pilot certificate,
the provisions of this paragraph only apply when receiving training for
cross-country flight in an airplane that has a Vh greater than 87 knots
CAS.


You need a log book endorsement as a Sport Pilot student (PIC) for flying in a plane faster than 87 CAS...But most SLSA fly at 100 to 120ktas cruise (120 - 140ktas max speed) so that is usually a requirement anyway
 
Last edited:
I always thought the rule was: If you can see the ground when you take off and you can see the ground when you land, you're fine.
All the time in between takeoff and landing, you're too busy looking for your impending midair collision, navigating, or taking selfies.
 
Palmpilot said:
What prompted the question was a solid but localized stratus layer, like we get so often here in the San Francisco area.
Click to expand...

Legally you are fine to cruise over it in the clear so long as you can see a way to get down without going through it.

Now this is another one of those situations where what is legal may not be safe, so consider having to deal with that layer with a dead engine. What are ceilings and terrain underneath?
 
LoxaBagels said:
You need a log book endorsement as a Sport Pilot student (PIC) for flying in a plane faster than 87 CAS...But most SLSA fly at 100 to 120ktas cruise (120 - 140ktas max speed) so that is usually a requirement anyway
Click to expand...

You are forgetting about the huge number of "fat ultralights", slow experimentals, and antiques that are in the registry. I suspect that a large majority of the registered airplanes in the current fleet that are kosher for a SP to fly are actually somewhere South of the 87 CAS.
 
Stevel said:
You are forgetting about the huge number of "fat ultralights", slow experimentals, and antiques that are in the registry. I suspect that a large majority of the registered airplanes in the current fleet that are kosher for a SP to fly are actually somewhere South of the 87 CAS.
Click to expand...
yep. You'd have to make that mph for an ercoupe to have a chance

and it's amazing to me how quick you can still travel in a slow plane. An 80mph plane is still a heck of a lot faster than driving for anything other than rural towns both on the interstate hwy
 
JHW said:
yep. You'd have to make that mph for an ercoupe to have a chance

and it's amazing to me how quick you can still travel in a slow plane. An 80mph plane is still a heck of a lot faster than driving for anything other than rural towns both on the interstate hwy
Click to expand...

The stuff that my crowd flies is the perfect speed for 200ish mile fly-out events. We take off and then our ground crews hit the road. When we land, the ground crew already has the tri-tip on the grill and half-cooked.

BTW: I'm not talking about the Odyssey in my avatar (which I no longer own). Our pace would be set by the Quicksilvers and similar.
 
Last edited:
LoxaBagels said:
There is one hour of under hood work for Sport Pilot. Three hours for Private Pilot.
Click to expand...

So a CFI giving hood training to a LSA student needs a medical? FARS say you have to a medical to be safety pilot. That would say to me a Light Sport Instructor would need a medical to complete the job.
 
LoxaBagels said:
There is one hour of under hood work for Sport Pilot. Three hours for Private Pilot.
Click to expand...
FAR or other FAA reference? Flight solely by reference to instruments does not appear anywhere in Part 61, Subpart J as a sport pilot experience or training requirement far as I can tell. Even the student pilots regs excempt sport pilot students from the hood requirement unless training is for solo cross country in an aircraft with a Vh above 87 KTS. Of course, that is going to mean some hood time for most sport students but there is no mention of any specific time requirement.
 
Last edited:
gacoon said:
So a CFI giving hood training to a LSA student needs a medical? FARS say you have to a medical to be safety pilot. That would say to me a Light Sport Instructor would need a medical to complete the job.
Click to expand...
Yes.

As I recall there has been some movement, I think by EAA to change that. And to consider a sport hood training requirement. I haven't see much on it lately so it may have taken a back burner to medical reform (which would accomplish the same thing)
 
gacoon said:
So a CFI giving hood training to a LSA student needs a medical? FARS say you have to a medical to be safety pilot. That would say to me a Light Sport Instructor would need a medical to complete the job.
Click to expand...

Correct. A Sport Pilot Instructor (CFIS) that does not have a medical cannot do the 1 hour of under hood instruction. So if you are using a CFIS you may need to use a CFI or CFII for that hour.

The checkride DPE is supposed to check logbook endorsements. If they see the endorsement for aircraft faster than 87CAS they are supposed to also check for the 1 hour of under hood instruction.

In any case, getting at least 1 hour under hood is prudent.
 
Last edited:
Stevel said:
When did the one hour under the hood requirement get implemented? It definitely wasn't required when I did mine. Also, not one of the planes I trained in were equipped with the appropriate instruments.

I'll be doing some research now, but based on your posts in other threads, I suspect that you have acquired and internalized a LOT of misinformation.
Click to expand...

I'm a Sport Pilot, and my CFI insisted on an hour of Instrument flying with "goggles", something I'm very thankful for .

Cheers
 
ralarcon said:
I'm a Sport Pilot, and my CFI insisted on an hour of Instrument flying with "goggles", something I'm very thankful for .

Cheers
Click to expand...
A good idea even if it is not a requirement (and no one has yet pointed to the fabled one hour of required hood work)
 
I second Mark's thought. It is a good idea, but not a requirement for the basic SP cert.
 
ralarcon said:
I'm a Sport Pilot, and my CFI insisted on an hour of Instrument flying with "goggles", something I'm very thankful for .

Cheers
Click to expand...
Yup! My CFI had me doing quite a few things that were not required by the FARs, and I'm glad for that as well.
 
gacoon said:
So a CFI giving hood training to a LSA student needs a medical? FARS say you have to a medical to be safety pilot. That would say to me a Light Sport Instructor would need a medical to complete the job.
Click to expand...

No. The CFI is acting as PIC, not a safety pilot. The CFI, whether Sport or a CFI that has let his medical lapse, just needs to meet the qualifications to be PIC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top