Sport Pilot "one of the worst things to happen to GA"?

I think Mari has it right. It was also a way to stop the growing ultralight movement from getting out of control with the use of uncertified aircraft. I think there was a regulatory fear that the ultralight crowd was doing something that could reflect poorly on the FAA if accident started getting up to a noticeable amount and the suits did not want to appear as though they had been remiss in not regulating the ultra light pilots.


Well, I think I have it right. Its a way to pacify us to accept flying planes that are less capable and therefore less likely to mix it up in Class B airspace. The FAA wants the airlines to be the exclusive user of ATC and Class B airspace. How many LSA's will be used IFR? Wake up and smell the coffee!
 
Well, I think I have it right. Its a way to pacify us to accept flying planes that are less capable and therefore less likely to mix it up in Class B airspace. The FAA wants the airlines to be the exclusive user of ATC and Class B airspace. How many LSA's will be used IFR? Wake up and smell the coffee!
There are far too many non-LSA light aircraft out there for this to ever happen: the LSAs number in the low thousands (not more than 3000, IIRC); the non-LSA GA fleet is in six figures, and most of that is the smaller stuff.
 
There are far too many non-LSA light aircraft out there for this to ever happen: the LSAs number in the low thousands (not more than 3000, IIRC); the non-LSA GA fleet is in six figures, and most of that is the smaller stuff.

How much longer will people be able to afford the gas and maintenance of an aging fleet? The LSA fleet is in its infancy. The GA fleet is largely in the Old folks home. We can all be happy little pilots flying around the patch while when we need to travel we'll be on a Boeing or Airbus.
 
The GA fleet is largely in the Old folks home.
I wouldn't call the airplanes from Cirrus or Columbia (OK, Cessna) ready for the old folks home. Speaking of Cessna, you can still buy a new one of those too. People buy airplanes for different reasons. Some folks want to use their airplanes as serious transportation. Others don't. I don't see any conspiracy by the FAA at all. If it's anyone who doesn't want to see GA around it's the airlines. However, their main target is the turbine fleet. They don't care whether people are flying around to small airports in their small airplanes or not. Sometimes it might seem as if they are targeting small GA but I think it's just collateral damage.
 
I wouldn't call the airplanes from Cirrus or Columbia (OK, Cessna) ready for the old folks home. Speaking of Cessna, you can still buy a new one of those too. People buy airplanes for different reasons. Some folks want to use their airplanes as serious transportation. Others don't. I don't see any conspiracy by the FAA at all. If it's anyone who doesn't want to see GA around it's the airlines. However, their main target is the turbine fleet. They don't care whether people are flying around to small airports in their small airplanes or not. Sometimes it might seem as if they are targeting small GA but I think it's just collateral damage.


Good points Mari, but the number of Cirri, Columbia and new Cessnas are dwarfed by the number of 30 - 40 year old aircraft from the 60's and 70's. I just realized my Tiger is 30 years old! WTF? Where did time go? I think we will see more pressure due to gas prices, maintenance cost of older airframes, user fees and ADIZ type regulation really cull our ranks. I know the airlines really hate the bizjet/fractionals and that's their major competition, but we are as you say collateral damage.

I am not against Sport Pilot, but I do think its less capable flying and GA will be consumed by it and thus we'll become purely recreational flyers in every sense of the word. I hope I'm wrong and pilots use it as a stepping stone, but I doubt it.
 
<<<Personally I think the "sport pilot" idea ("Let's let people fly with LESS training!") and all that went along with it is one of the worse things to happen to general aviation along the continued tolerance of homebuilt aircraft and ultralights. Suffice to say I believe in increasing standards, not skirting the bare minimum.>>>

Personally .. I think you're one of two things .. arrogant as heck or
a troll just posting flame bait.

So going on the assumption you're for real .. how long have you been flying now to gain all this wisdom? I think you're just jealous because you paid
for your training and heaven forbid anyone else would get to fly without
paying the same dues. I doubt it has anything to do with skill level. I know
enough pilots that have pretty high qualifications that like flying LSAs. And
I know pilots with only SP certificates that are good pilots.

I have a few ratings I earned, but I welcome the Sport Pilots with 20 hours
to the pilot community. I see no issue with the SP qualifications given the
simplicity of the aircraft and the restrictions on flying under SP.

I fly an EXP/AB that I built. It qualifies as an LSA. So I didn't bother paying
to renew my medical and just fly it under SP rules. I've owned 5 type certificated aircraft prior to this one. It's expensive. Now the only thing
I pay someone else to do is the transponder check. If I somehow feel like
spending lots of money again fly .. I'll renew my medical and jump back into
that arena. But the LSA arena gives me what I want .. cheap, fun flying.

So you just do the kind of flying you like .. and everyone else can do what
they like.

Are you really Bertie the Bunyip?????

Guys like you with your experience will be the exception, at least now in the beginning, later on not so much. I think LSA is generally good for GA even though part of the price will be higher accident rates for initially trained LSA pilots.

Generally speaking, I predict ~15-20% higher accident rates for LSA pilots, with the "continued day VFR into night" cause factor weighing more heavily for LSA pilots than PPL ones.
 
Generally speaking, I predict ~15-20% higher accident rates for LSA pilots, with the "continued day VFR into night" cause factor weighing more heavily for LSA pilots than PPL ones.

You may need to qualify that to holders of Sport Pilot certificates, if
that's what you mean. I don't see any reason a Light Sport Aircraft
in the hands of a pilot trained to a higher level would result in any increase
in the probability of an accident.
 
I don't see any reason a Light Sport Aircraft
in the hands of a pilot trained to a higher level would result in any increase
in the probability of an accident.
Both AOPA and Aviation Safety have now run articles commenting on just this. Apparently, it's not at all uncommon for a high-time pilot with lots of experience in bigger stuff to jump in an LSA and go, thinking he won't have any problems, only to get in trouble. This is the reason insurance companies are requiring 5 hours of transition training before solo for folks moving into an LSA.
 
Both AOPA and Aviation Safety have now run articles commenting on just this. Apparently, it's not at all uncommon for a high-time pilot with lots of experience in bigger stuff to jump in an LSA and go, thinking he won't have any problems, only to get in trouble. This is the reason insurance companies are requiring 5 hours of transition training before solo for folks moving into an LSA.
5 of the worst landings I ever got see was my friend the multi-thousand hour 757/67 Capt for a major airline do when he got on board a 172 to brush up his flib skills. He called it a day after getting far too many '1 wires' and most likely flattening a few tires. He did walk away saying that he will need some time with a CFI before he takes his kids up. Smart man.
 
Medical incapacitation is not a significant cause of GA fatalities - at least until poor decision-making becomes a treatable disease.

I'm not sure what your point is. The forefront of FAA's worries is NOT medical issues. Or maybe that's your point.

The SSA did a study on this a few years ago. IIRC over a 10 year period they studied they found no sailplane accidents that were caused by a medical issues (medicals are not required for sailplanes) , however in the same period they found 2 incidents of tow pilots with a 3rd class medicals (or better) had heart attacks while towing gliders.

The results of the analysis was that 3rd class medicals do little or nothing to improve safety. I believe there have been other simlar independant studies that have had simlar results. I think the FAA is even slowing coming around to this as the extend the lengths of the 3rd class medical durations and with the sport pilot no medical.

The reality is that medicals are more for public perception than anything else.

Brian
 
His opinion of himself is he's still a safe pilot. Yet, he wanted to get checked out to rent before his medical expired... implying he didn't think he was likely to pass a new medical. If that's the case, one should self-ground. If you're not doing that when you believe you're not medically capable, there's something wrong in your ADM.
.........
While I despise government regulation on the whole and am tired of so many useless or worthless laws written, there's a large sector of society who allow it or worse, require it. They refuse to act responsibly so someone else must require them by statute to take such actions. We haven't seen the end of this, either.

On point 1, I don't know the gentlemen, but I don't think I'd look at wanting to do a rental checkout before going for a medical renewal as an indication that something's wrong with his medical (or that he wouldn't pass). It MAY be that he has an SI pending that will clear easily, but take time. It MAY be that he wants to get some time in before going to his medical. It MAY be that he's going to a new doc and doesn't know what to expect. Or he may simply have not gotten an appointment in time (or gotten an appointment after the last day of the month). From your standpoint (and from a legal standpoint), he still has a valid medical.

I did much the same: my BFR was due in the same month as my medical. I knocked off the BFR a week before the medical. We ended up doing an IPC the following month due to scheduling issues, but that's done, too. No ill intent at all - just how the schedule has all worked out.

As for gov't regulation, I agree: there are some folks that just outright won't accept personal responsibility. It's not just limited to aviation. The answer has been more and more and more regulation and control by the government, to the point that freedom is lost. Government regulation should not substitute for personal responsibility.

I think Mari has it right. It was also a way to stop the growing ultralight movement from getting out of control with the use of uncertified aircraft. I think there was a regulatory fear that the ultralight crowd was doing something that could reflect poorly on the FAA if accident started getting up to a noticeable amount and the suits did not want to appear as though they had been remiss in not regulating the ultra light pilots.

I think that's right to a large degree. But there are other elements at work, too.

The FAA is clearly concerned about LSA/ultralights being outside their control. And control is something that government agencies love to expand. From the commercial side, having LSA is all about getting insurance and relieveing some liability burden on manufacturers and lessors.

There are political factors, too.

Well, I think I have it right. Its a way to pacify us to accept flying planes that are less capable and therefore less likely to mix it up in Class B airspace. The FAA wants the airlines to be the exclusive user of ATC and Class B airspace. How many LSA's will be used IFR? Wake up and smell the coffee!

To some degree, but on the other hand, it supposedly matches regulation to the actual flying habits of pilots. No question that there is a lot of political pressure put on the FAA by the airlines and other vested interests to neuter GA.

Good points Mari, but the number of Cirri, Columbia and new Cessnas are dwarfed by the number of 30 - 40 year old aircraft from the 60's and 70's. I just realized my Tiger is 30 years old! WTF? Where did time go? I think we will see more pressure due to gas prices, maintenance cost of older airframes, user fees and ADIZ type regulation really cull our ranks. I know the airlines really hate the bizjet/fractionals and that's their major competition, but we are as you say collateral damage.

I am not against Sport Pilot, but I do think its less capable flying and GA will be consumed by it and thus we'll become purely recreational flyers in every sense of the word. I hope I'm wrong and pilots use it as a stepping stone, but I doubt it.

THe airlines have carefully crafted the user fee proposals to minimize the impact of avgas, and make it much more expensive on JetA. On the other hand, the environmental pressure will eventually push GA to Jet A. At that point, taxes become much higher on GA.

The regulatory pressure is tough, but the current administration has looked at "user fees" as a pot of gold. They don't view 'em as taxes. It's not just aviation, it's everything from roads (Mary Peters was interviewed on our local Fox affiliate as saying that eventually she thinks EVERY highway in the DC area should have tolls) to fire/police/ambulance. So, the "user fees" go up, but there's no corresponding tax decrease. (But, in the DC area plan, buses get a free ride...)

Frankly, I think if you surveyed most GA pilots, you'd find most of their use of aviation to be recreational. Some of us are the exception - we use it for travel. That presents a risk to airlines and other travel providers. There's a lot of money at stake.

I am not optimistic about the future of GA for a lot of reasons...
 
In my looking at the Sport Pilot PTS I observe that the standards for Sport Pilot are nearly identical to the Private Pilot Standards. The only things I recall that have been omitted are Night, ATC and Instrument requirements. These are all things the Recreational flyers typically avoid anyway so I doubt these will be significant issues to cause additional accidents in Sport Pilot Category.

I have however noted that many Sport Pilot Aircraft do not fly like production aircraft having unusual controls and unusual sight pictures when flying. This may contribute to some accidents but this is a result of the Sport Aircraft not the Sport Pilot Training requirements. I think the issue will be more with pilots (and even CFI's) thinking they can fly these aircraft without additional training. Pilots that iniitally train in these aircraft or get adeqate transition training should not have a problem.


Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
In my looking at the Sport Pilot PTS I observe that the standards for Sport Pilot are nearly identical to the Private Pilot Standards. The only things I recall that have been omitted are Night, ATC and Instrument requirements. These are all things the Recreational flyers typically avoid anyway so I doubt these will be significant issues to cause additional accidents in Sport Pilot Category.

Not only that, but one (ATC) can be added via CFI endorsement, and without that endorsement, a sport pilot cannot fly in class D/C/B airspace. Less training, fewer privileges. The pending NPRM would add an hour of simulated instrument training to the sport pilot requirements; there's some controversy over that proposal, but I see nothing inherently wrong with it.

I have however noted that many Sport Pilot Aircraft do not fly like production aircraft having unusual controls and unusual sight pictures when flying. This may contribute to some accidents but this is a result of the Sport Aircraft not the Sport Pilot Training requirements. I think the issue will be more with pilots (and even CFI's) thinking they can fly these aircraft without additional training. Pilots that iniitally train in these aircraft or get adeqate transition training should not have a problem.
Indeed. The insurance industry is addressing this one with its general requirement of 5 hours dual before solo. FWIW, the two LSAs I've flown, the Zodiac and the Tecnam Bravo, are pretty conventional; while I had some trouble in the Zodiac, that was gone by the time my 5 hours was up. I was comfortable and reasonably competent in the Bravo right away.
 
Can sport pilots not add night privileges through training and an endorsement?
No, doggone it. That's the limitation that's hitting me the hardest right now; my aircraft is equipped and placarded to allow night operations, and I've got a private ticket (and about 90 night landings), but I can't fly at night, period. Personally, I think sport pilots should be able to add night ops the same way as they can add other things.

My only guess is that the FAA won't approve night ops without a medical because that's the only way they can test for color vision. Maybe the answer is to allow it for anyone who's ever held a third class medical without a restriction prohibiting night operations, or gets a statement of demonstrated ability for color vision (as is needed now for someone who fails the spot diagram tests).
 
No, doggone it. That's the limitation that's hitting me the hardest right now; my aircraft is equipped and placarded to allow night operations, and I've got a private ticket (and about 90 night landings), but I can't fly at night, period. Personally, I think sport pilots should be able to add night ops the same way as they can add other things.
You're not able to just go for a private ticket?
 
I have a private ticket. I don't have a medical, and have issues that get in the way of just getting one.

To paraphrase a country song "It's always light somewhere."
 
You may need to qualify that to holders of Sport Pilot certificates, if
that's what you mean. I don't see any reason a Light Sport Aircraft
in the hands of a pilot trained to a higher level would result in any increase
in the probability of an accident.

Yes that is what I meant, thanks. I believe that's essentially what I said in the preceeding paragraph. The pilots initially trained to LSA standards only. (not obtaining any higher flight training) LSA is still a good thing for GA overall for now I think.
 
In my looking at the Sport Pilot PTS I observe that the standards for Sport Pilot are nearly identical to the Private Pilot Standards. The only things I recall that have been omitted are Night, ATC and Instrument requirements. These are all things the Recreational flyers typically avoid anyway so I doubt these will be significant issues to cause additional accidents in Sport Pilot Category.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Would that be similar to the way unqualified pilots typically avoid unplanned flight into IMC? (an unendingly significant fraction of GA accidents)
 
In my looking at the Sport Pilot PTS I observe that the standards for Sport Pilot are nearly identical to the Private Pilot Standards. The only things I recall that have been omitted are Night, ATC and Instrument requirements. These are all things the Recreational flyers typically avoid anyway so I doubt these will be significant issues to cause additional accidents in Sport Pilot Category.

If you think that will be so inconsequential, why do you think the FAA has significantly increased the instrument training over the past few years?
 
If you think that will be so inconsequential, why do you think the FAA has significantly increased the instrument training over the past few years?

Because VFR into IMC has been a big problem, as has been disorientation at night.

Instrument training may help with the second, but the first is really a problem with ADM.
 
Because VFR into IMC has been a big problem, as has been disorientation at night.

Instrument training may help with the second, but the first is really a problem with ADM.


Hmmm....

Is there any evidence that the 3 hours under the hood makes a difference?

I take my Student Pilots up in IMC so they know "this is not good."

But I give them no illusions that they can fly instruments after the paltry required hours.
 
Hmmm....

Is there any evidence that the 3 hours under the hood makes a difference?

I take my Student Pilots up in IMC so they know "this is not good."

But I give them no illusions that they can fly instruments after the paltry required hours.
In my nine-year database of Cessna 172/210 accidents, about 5% were due to VFR pilots entering IMC, but 16% occurred when the pilots botched landings. So maybe the time would be better spend on pattern work.

OTOH, ~92% of the VFR into IMC accidents were fatal, vs. just 3% of the botched landings....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Hmmm....

Is there any evidence that the 3 hours under the hood makes a difference?

I take my Student Pilots up in IMC so they know "this is not good."

But I give them no illusions that they can fly instruments after the paltry required hours.

Every student I've seen go through at least 3 hours of decent hood has shown that it is enough to get them through a 180 degree IMC turn and back to the VMC they just left. The harder part is probly getting them to realize that is their main smart option.
 
Every student I've seen go through at least 3 hours of decent hood has shown that it is enough to get them through a 180 degree IMC turn and back to the VMC they just left. The harder part is probly getting them to realize that is their main smart option.

I'm sure that's the case shortly after the training, but apparently (based on the VFR into IMC accident record) the 3 hours isn't exactly a "Get Out Of Jail Free."

The old Bonanza manual suggested doing the 180 with rudder only (of course that airplanes has rudder-aileron interconnect, but rudder only would work in airplanes lacking that "feature")

The record seems to imply the more likely scenario isn't "Hey! Here's a cloud! Let me turn around!" but rather gradual lowering of ceilings and subtle reductions in visibility, which is survived a few times and then emboldens until the time the vis is completely gone.
 
I'm sure that's the case shortly after the training, but apparently (based on the VFR into IMC accident record) the 3 hours isn't exactly a "Get Out Of Jail Free."

The old Bonanza manual suggested doing the 180 with rudder only (of course that airplanes has rudder-aileron interconnect, but rudder only would work in airplanes lacking that "feature")

The record seems to imply the more likely scenario isn't "Hey! Here's a cloud! Let me turn around!" but rather gradual lowering of ceilings and subtle reductions in visibility, which is survived a few times and then emboldens until the time the vis is completely gone.

That gets into the realm of stupid judgement overriding adequate training.
 
Hmmm....

Is there any evidence that the 3 hours under the hood makes a difference?

I take my Student Pilots up in IMC so they know "this is not good."

But I give them no illusions that they can fly instruments after the paltry required hours.

At night, it might help. As you say, in real IMC, it's not that useful... Which is why I consider VFR-into-IMC to be a problem with ADM, not with their instrument skills. Lots of instrument-rated pilots die in VFR-into-IMC too.

And landing/manuevering is another one of the FAA's top five hazards, so they are focusing on that even more than VFR into IMC.

I've got a FAASTeam yearly meeting later this month, so I'll post an update on what FY09's hot topics will be. There are national as well as regional and local issues that get targeted for training.
 
Hunh?

Not sure what you mean here...


What I think he's saying is that an IR doesn't guarantee you will survive, VFR to IMC. The stats say you are more likely to survive, but there is no guarantee.
 
That's right. A LOT of people who have died in VFR-into-IMC accidents were instrument rated. But for whatever reason they didn't file or fly under IFR. Maybe they weren't current, whatever...

As I said, VFR into IMC is due to stupidity, 99+% of the time. I give a pass to the VFR guy who pops into a cloud he couldn't see at night, but he usually pops right back out, or can do the 180 turn. (been there and done that as a private pilot without the IR). For everybody else, you made a bad (probably a bunch of bad) decision(s).
 
What I think he's saying is that an IR doesn't guarantee you will survive, VFR to IMC. The stats say you are more likely to survive, but there is no guarantee.


OK, I suppose if you mean "Had an Instrument checkride and passed one day" I'd agree -- the rating provides no inherent protection.

All my IFR flights have been VMC into IMC (I haven't had a reason to do a zero-zero t/o yet).
 
Last edited:
Because VFR into IMC has been a big problem, as has been disorientation at night.

Instrument training may help with the second, but the first is really a problem with ADM.

Not that I disagree with that, but do you see the ADM issue amoung pilots be served better in the reduced hours of SP training?
 
All my IFR flights have been VFR into IMC (I haven't had a reason to do a zero-zero t/o yet).

Sure you don't mean VMC into IMC? I doubt you are taking off into a low ceiling under VFR then air filing to get into the IFR system (though it is possible and sometimes even necessary).

IFR/IMC & VFR/VMC are often interchanged, but really they are quite different. One represents meterological conditions, one represents a set of operating rules.
 
Sure you don't mean VMC into IMC? I doubt you are taking off into a low ceiling under VFR then air filing to get into the IFR system (though it is possible and sometimes even necessary).

IFR/IMC & VFR/VMC are often interchanged, but really they are quite different. One represents meterological conditions, one represents a set of operating rules.

Fixed it.
 
Not that I disagree with that, but do you see the ADM issue amoung pilots be served better in the reduced hours of SP training?

I think ADM coverage is lacking from ALL curriculums, so I don't think SP sucks any more at this than PP.

I'll freely admit that I don't have an easy answer to the problem. When I start teaching, my students (whether I'm teaching ground, flight, or both) are gonna get both a lecture and some interactive discussion on the difference between being a pilot and being a PIC. They want the signoff, they're gonna have to endure that, and prove that they are "worthy" - that they really do understand that details matter, and that you fly an airplane with your hands and feet, but you command one with your head.
 
I think ADM coverage is lacking from ALL curriculums, so I don't think SP sucks any more at this than PP.

I'll freely admit that I don't have an easy answer to the problem. When I start teaching, my students (whether I'm teaching ground, flight, or both) are gonna get both a lecture and some interactive discussion on the difference between being a pilot and being a PIC. They want the signoff, they're gonna have to endure that, and prove that they are "worthy" - that they really do understand that details matter, and that you fly an airplane with your hands and feet, but you command one with your head.

Lecture may or may not work -- really depends on the student.

Better to constantly provide opportunities while in flight, "So what are you going to do now...?"

Those lessons stick.
 
Back
Top