Backcountry Pilot

[a64pilot offline]

Split from the "Cost of a Private PL" thread. -Z
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MTV,
What is a "sport pilot" license? What are the limitations? I guess that is the best way to to ask.

[TomD offline]

Here is an article which outlines the differences between PPL and Sport Plane.
http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2007/ ... o_solo.php

One thing you may want to keep in the back of your mind is training at a small field will probably net you more actual flying time for hours spent than training at a towered field. Just due to the traffic and other delays.

Small fields often have a grass strip as well which is a good thing to get some hours on.

TD

[mtv offline]

Sport Pilot brochure:
http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificate ... ochure.pdf

FAR:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... 10&idno=14

Basically, you can fly an LSA without a medical as long as you don't know of any disqualifying medical condition, and you haven't been denied a medical, or lost your medical due to medical reasons.

The basic requirement is 20 hours instead of 40 hours, and there are some limitations. You can only operate LSA category aircraft (less than 1320 max weight, 2 seats max, etc.) and there are some other limitations, which are noted in the FAR.

This is allegedly the "Next Great Hope" for GA.

Note that a Piper J-3 Cub qualifies as an LSA aircraft, however.

When I start thinking I'm not going to make the next medical, the best thing to do is just drop the medical and fly LSA.

MTV

[Zzz]

In case anyone is interested, here are the requirements to get the cert and rating for Sport Pilot, Single Engine Land:

Hours logged:
(1) 20 hours of flight time, including at least 15 hours of flight training from an authorized instructor in a single-engine airplane and at least 5 hours of solo flight training in the areas of operation listed in §61.311.

Aeronautical experience:
(i) 2 hours of cross-country flight training,

(ii) 10 takeoffs and landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport,

(iii) One solo cross-country flight of at least 75 nautical miles total distance, with a full-stop landing at a minimum of two points and one segment of the flight consisting of a straight-line distance of at least 25 nautical miles between the takeoff and landing locations, and

(iv) 3 hours of flight training on those areas of operation specified in §61.311 preparing for the practical test within 60 days before the date of the test.

Except as specified in §61.329, to apply for a sport pilot certificate you must receive and log ground training from an authorized instructor or complete a home-study course on the following aeronautical knowledge areas:

(a) Applicable regulations of this chapter that relate to sport pilot privileges, limits, and flight operations.

(b) Accident reporting requirements of the National Transportation Safety Board.

(c) Use of the applicable portions of the aeronautical information manual and FAA advisory circulars.

(d) Use of aeronautical charts for VFR navigation using pilotage, dead reckoning, and navigation systems, as appropriate.

(e) Recognition of critical weather situations from the ground and in flight, windshear avoidance, and the procurement and use of aeronautical weather reports and forecasts.

(f) Safe and efficient operation of aircraft, including collision avoidance, and recognition and avoidance of wake turbulence.

(g) Effects of density altitude on takeoff and climb performance.

(h) Weight and balance computations.

(i) Principles of aerodynamics, powerplants, and aircraft systems.

(j) Stall awareness, spin entry, spins, and spin recovery techniques, as applicable.

(k) Aeronautical decision making and risk management.

(l) Preflight actions that include—

(1) How to get information on runway lengths at airports of intended use, data on takeoff and landing distances, weather reports and forecasts, and fuel requirements; and

(2) How to plan for alternatives if the planned flight cannot be completed or if you encounter delays.

[a64pilot offline]

What's a recreational pilot? They can fly a 4 passenger fixed gear airplane, but not at night or outside of 50 miles from home? I guess the advantage is that a sport pilot can fly at night and farther away, but in littler airplanes? Oh and doesn't have to have a medical. Or can they fly at night? All the LSA airplanes I looked at at Sun-N-Fun had lights.
A student pilot can fly just about anywhere, but not in class B in a larger airplane, but only by themselves?
I'm a pilot, although not a smart one and this is confusing to me, I can imagine how confusing it is to someone off of the street.
So a student pilot as long as they maintain currency and their medical, they are good forever? Do they need a BFR? Does either a sport pilot or recreational pilot?
About the only way this could get more complicated is if they come up with different instructors as well to fit the different certificates.
I keep coming up with more and more questions, like can a "real" pilot fly an LSA at night if a Sport Pilot can't? Are any of these things IFR certified?
I give up, I 'm not sure when I can fly now.

[Zzz]

a64, I have a theory that you intentionally stir the pot by acting confused

I guess the advantage is that a sport pilot can fly at night and farther away, but in littler airplanes?

Everything anyone needs to know is spelled out in Part 61 of an up-to-date FAR.

Sec. 61.315

[What are the privileges and limits of my sport pilot certificate?]

[(a) If you hold a sport pilot certificate you may act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft, except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) You may share the operating expenses of a flight with a passenger, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenses, or aircraft rental fees. You must pay at least half the operating expenses of the flight.

(c) You may not act as pilot in command of a light-sport aircraft:
(1) That is carrying a passenger or property for compensation or hire.
(2) For compensation or hire.
(3) In furtherance of a business.
(4) While carrying more than one passenger.
(5) At night.
(6) In Class A airspace.
(7) In Class B, C, and D airspace, at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace, and to, from, through, or at an airport having an operational control tower unless you have met the requirements specified in §61.325.
(8) Outside the United States, unless you have prior authorization from the country in which you seek to operate. Your sport pilot certificate carries the limit "Holder does not meet ICAO requirements."
(9) To demonstrate the aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer if you are an aircraft salesperson.
(10) In a passenger-carrying airlift sponsored by a charitable organization.
(11) At an altitude of more than 10,000 feet MSL.
(12) When the flight or surface visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
(13) Without visual reference to the surface.
(14) If the aircraft has a VH that exceeds 87 knots CAS, unless you have met the requirements of §61.327.
(15) Contrary to any operating limitation placed on the airworthiness certificate of the aircraft being flown.
(16) Contrary to any limit or endorsement on your pilot certificate, airman medical certificate, or any other limit or endorsement from an authorized instructor.
(17) Contrary to any restriction or limitation on your U.S. driver's license or any restriction or limitation imposed by judicial or administrative order when using your driver's license to satisfy a requirement of this part.
(18) While towing any object.
(19) As a pilot flight crewmember on any aircraft for which more than one pilot is required by the type certificate of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted.]

[a64pilot offline]

a64, I have a theory that you intentionally stir the pot by acting confused

Honestly it's really only partially an act, I am confused, and I do learn a lot from the discussion. ex. I've been an A&P for so long, it seems normal to work on an airplane. I still can't get my head around that as a pilot I'm not allowed to compute a CG, when as a pilot I am required to ensure I operate the aircraft within CG limits. (One example)
I think we as aviators tend to overcomplicate things ourselves. For example in the 120/140 forum somebody asked what they had to do to comply with installing their own interior. I quoted them chapter and verse from AC 43.13 and gave them the link. Had a moderator chime in and say that if you changed anything you had to meet FAR23, no reference was given and the owner decided that well since he had to meet FAR23 it wasn't worth it. Somebody else decided to err on the side of safety, he won't install his own custom interior now and that type of attitude is rampant. Pretty soon none of us will fly because of 'what if"
Student pilot, recreational pilot, sport pilot, private pilot, I am confused.
I just got off of the phone with a friend reference a ferry permit, he is a DAR. Apparently all of the ultralights have to be converted to LSA's. Not many DAR's are willing to do that. What type data do they conform to? engines, props electrical etc. etc. Not saying there will be, but there is real potential for problems there.
I see the possibility of us allowing this aviating thing to be regulated right out of existance. Common sense isn't applied. Used to be the main thing was to try to comply with the "spirit" of the regulation. Now blind compliance is required, if there is no way to comply, that's not their problem.

[Zzz]

To answer some of your questions, from what I know. Anyone who knows otherwise, correct me. I'm just a lowly PPL ASEL but I enjoy this analysis of our regulations.

* You can fly an LSA with your Private Pilot certificate, granted that you hold the appropriate rating/endorsement for the undercarriage. i.e. ASEL, ASES, tailwheel, tri-gear. A Private Pilot, theoritically, has more training, and has been held to a higher standard of certification, so his certificate qualifies him to fly any aircraft of the same class, down to the lightest, smallest, LSA. The Piper J3 qualifies for LSA, right?

Are you allowed to fly an experimental aircraft IFR if the aircraft is properly equipped and you have an instrument rating?

* Part 103 single-seat ultralights will be able to continue to operate under Part 103 if they meet the qualifications. All other aircraft formerly being flown under exemptions to Part 103 for "training" must be converted to EXPERIMENTAL category LSA's. There is no FAR 23 complying data because they're not certified. At some point the original manufacturer may seek certification for the type, but what's the point? Insurance? Commercial ops? Our local DAR is being quite helpful. It's just the same as a home builder getting an N-number for his Experimental kit that he assembled.

* The reason, I believe that a pilot is not allowed to amend his own weight and balance sheet is because that data is more important than a per-flight weight and balance calculation to ensure that the aircraft is within limits. The W&B sheet contains the basis for all other calcs, and will follow the airplane to the next owner. I for one want those weights and calculations performed by someone certified to do so. Even though you may capable of doing it, I've met many aviators who stare at me blankly when I used terms like "station arm" or "mean aerodynamic chord."

[a64pilot offline]

Zane,
Realize my first certificate was Rotorcraft, Commercial Instrument.
As far as the FAA, I was never a student or private pilot so I never had to worry about what their ratings or limitations were. My first fixed wing license was Commercial. I didn't see any point in paying for the private ride. I got my A&P around the same time.
I did an end around so to speak and skipped a few steps, so I don't understand some things.

[a64pilot offline]

Tomorrow, when I have a keyboard and not this tablet I'll respond. I enjoy these discussions because I get in the books and learn something and get to listen to other people's interpretation, because quite often they bring up something that I haven't thought of that shows me I was wrong.

[a64pilot offline]

OK, I haven't had any coffee today, had to go to the Doc and have a fasting bleed, may as well use leeches.
Anyway, I guess this was just a rant, but the overwhelming number of rules seem to be increasing and it has even gotten to the point to where we are buying into it.
Zane I'm sure that an experimental catagory aircraft may be flown IFR as long as it and the pilot are current and qualified to do so, but I don't know about an LSA.
As far as the weight and balance thing, nobody told you to change the aircraft's basic weight. I mean if the seat's not in the required equipment list and removes in less than 30 seconds without the use of tools, then what's the difference between it and a suitcase.
To hell with it, if all they can get me on is the seat being out and not recorded, fine let em get me then.
BTW don't any of you guy's change from a wet cell battery to an AGM one, yes you are allowed to change the battery, but you can't update the W&B, so you can't change the battery.
The ultralight part. I know that they are not being certified in the normal sense of the word, but why muck with them at all? Is changing them to EXPERIMENTAL LSA's going to do anything at all or is it merely a needless paperwork drill? That's at the heart of my rant here, how the hell is safety being served here at all?

[Zzz]

I think we've kicked Trigger into a fine rawhide chair over in the W&B thread, so we can continue over there...but the ultralight thing:

The LSA/Sport Pilot thing is good in my opinion. Here are my person pros and cons regarding the new rules and certs:

Pros:

1. Pilots who previously had very little standardized training are now required to be certified to a standard PTS. This is good for all of us. Those guys who flew wacky patterns and didn't even know what the AIM is before, hopefully will now. If they don't have the commitment and ability to pass a simple written and a checkride, I don't want them flying around my airport anyway. You'd be amazed at the ultralight guys I've met who don't even know what a section chart is.

2. The industry benefits by having a seemingly "simpler" pilot certificate to obtain, and relatively cheaper new certified aircraft on the market. Flight schools, maintenance shops, mannufacturers, insurance companies (maybe) could all benefit from a renewed sense of freedom in pure fun flying.

3. Some degree of maintenance inspection standardization.

4. Certified LSAs can be insured.

5. Part 103 compliant aircraft and can still be flown by non-certificated pilots if they meet the specifications.

6. Smaller engines = less fuel consumption, which could become very important in the future if the demand for energy continues to grow.

Cons:

1. More regulations can equal less freedom.
2. Possible pilots flying who should not be for medical reasons

[lowflybye offline]

2. The industry benefits by having a seemingly "simpler" pilot certificate to obtain, and relatively cheaper new certified aircraft on the market. Flight schools, maintenance shops, mannufacturers, insurance companies (maybe) could all benefit from a renewed sense of freedom in pure fun flying.

Have you looked at the price of these new LSA's? These are not cheap aircraft. I can find you a handful of loaded 80's model Cessna 182's and 70'sa model Cessna 210's for the price of a new basic LSA. The FAA screwed up and should have upped the max weight to include Cessna 152's if they wanted to make LSA's affordable. Look at the price of the new LSA capable Cub or the Champ. Not relatively inexpensive in my book. If I am going to pay that much for one it darn sure will be more capable than just DAY, VFR, and 100 kts. Unless of course it is a Supercub

4. Certified LSAs can be insured.

Contrary to the FAA, insurance companies don't particularly like the Sport Pilot rating. Even an LSA can kill you...it just does it more slowly and in clear, daylight skies so everyone can watch. The monetary loss to the insurance company will be equal to that of a full fledged pilot as the liability limits are equal and the values of the new LSA's are comparable to fully certified aircraft.

Would you foot the bill of an accident and possible lawsuit for someone flying a $100,000+ aircraft carrying $1,000,000 in liability who only had to complete 20 hours of training, 10 landings, and does not have to prove themselves healthy? Not I said the Lowflybye!

I have been asked about the insurance view of LSA's a lot in recent weeks so I will try to put an article togather for the next magazine and post it here as well.

[Zzz]

All new aircraft are expensive. A new 172 is almost $200,000. A new 182 is almost $350,000. These LSA's being manufactured now ARE relatively inexpensive to GA models of similar vintage. If manufacturers are going to stay alive, I think LSA's are the market that are going to save them, as the cost of building and selling GA aircraft goes up and the sales go down.

I agree that with less experienced or health risky pilots at the controls, the insurance market may not being in for the best risk management bets...but the fact is that more aircraft are being insured. The insurance companies don't make money unless someone is paying premiums. If a claim is made, well hopefully the risk/reward works out for the insurance company. Just because new aircraft are being introduced to the market doesn't make the insurance formula any different. Let them gouge less experienced pilots to balance their risk, like they always have.

[lowflybye offline]

If manufacturers are going to stay alive, I think LSA's are the market that are going to save them, as the cost of building and selling GA aircraft goes up and the sales go down.

In 2005 the GA market aircraft sales were up 27% from 2004. In 2006 ( a record sales year) that number increased an additional 21% from 2005. The big 3 aircraft companies again led the way in total units sold. Cirrus sold more single engine, fixed gear aircraft in their than any other manufacturer in 2006 and they are some of the highest priced in their class. They were followed closely by Cessna and then Piper. There does not seem to be any problem with manufacturers sales numbers...keep in mind that these manufactures do not offer an LSA aircraft. Price does not seem to be an issue.

I agree that with less experienced or health risky pilots at the controls, the insurance market may not being in for the best risk management bets...but the fact is that more aircraft are being insured. The insurance companies don't make money unless someone is paying premiums. If a claim is made, well hopefully the risk/reward works out for the insurance company. Just because new aircraft are being introduced to the market doesn't make the insurance formula any different. Let them gouge less experienced pilots to balance their risk, like they always have.

Be careful of your assumptions Zane...the insurance formula is directly related to the number of aircraft in the market so new aircraft entering the market DO change the formula. The problem is not the aircraft...it very rarely is.

The insurance companies ONLY make money when the loss ratio is less than about 75% after the cost of doing business is figured in. People paying premiums is one of the few positives to the equation, but is not the reason that the companies make money. Companies make money based on good risk management techniques. The outflow has to be less than the inflow. If this were not the case then aircraft insurance companies would be as numerous as car insurance or home insurance. Just 2 years ago there were only 7 markets total and now we are back up to 14. Give it another 7 - 10 years and we will be back down to around 10 of them due to poor risk management which causes an inability to remain profitable. You can never charge enough premium to cover the loss of a bad risk.

Of the 14 companies currently writing aviation insurance I can tell you of 2...maybe 3 that will write a Sport Pilot rated risk without a valid accompanying medical. If there is a valid medical then the risk will be rated according to experience...as it should be.

Again I ask...

Would you foot the bill of an accident and possible lawsuit for someone flying a $100,000+ aircraft carrying $1,000,000 in liability who only had to complete 20 hours of training, 10 landings, and does not have to prove themselves healthy? Not I said the Lowflybye!

[Zzz]

Of the 14 companies currently writing aviation insurance I can tell you of 2...maybe 3 that will write a Sport Pilot rated risk without a valid accompanying medical. If there is a valid medical then the risk will be rated according to experience...as it should be.

Interesting...

I'm not arguing with you, as you are obviously better educated on the insurance industry than I am. The only way the equation is balanced is to have either 1) drastically higher premiums or 2) lower priced new aircraft.

Reality just doesn't seem to be working out in either of those directions if both the insurance companies AND the manufacturers are going to remain healthy financially.

Anyway, good info. Any more insurance talk and this thread is gonna undergo some mitosis!

[lowflybye offline]

That one accident probably cost the insurance company the full value of the aircraft and probably the full liability limit since there were 2 fatal and 2 injured. Ballpark guess is $1.2 Million payout on that claim... $1 Million for the liability and $200,000 for the aircraft.

The larger the fleet insured by a company, the less of an impact any given loss will have on that particular model. The Bo fleet is pretty large so it will probably hardly be felt by the other owners unless you are insured with the same company as the accident airplane. Even then it will be very little if any. It typically takes more than one policy limit loss to make a noticable difference with any of the major insurance carriers.

That is the short, simple answer. It is all based on the law of large numbers.

Liability claims usually cost more to cover, but happen less frequently. Hull claims cost relatively less, but tend to happen more frequently...propstrike, gear up, hangar rash, hail, etc.

[mtv offline]

LowFlyeby,

Uh, I would point out that both Cessna AND Cirrus have now announced an SLSA aircraft each.

I agree that the insurance industry may in fact wind up driving this bus, but what it will drive it to is a bunch of old guys flying these $100,000 airplanes uninsured. Some of them will be willing and able to take the (hull) risk at least.

High insurance may preclude flight schools from using them, and thereby accomplishing what the alphabets hope will happen: More pilots.

Cirrus has figured that one out: Find a gazillionaire dot-commer and sell him a high performance airplane to learn to fly in. That will only go so far, methinks.
MTV

[lowflybye offline]

LowFlyeby,

Uh, I would point out that both Cessna AND Cirrus have now announced an SLSA aircraft each.

I agree that the insurance industry may in fact wind up driving this bus, but what it will drive it to is a bunch of old guys flying these $100,000 airplanes uninsured. Some of them will be willing and able to take the (hull) risk at least.

High insurance may preclude flight schools from using them, and thereby accomplishing what the alphabets hope will happen: More pilots.

Cirrus has figured that one out: Find a gazillionaire dot-commer and sell him a high performance airplane to learn to fly in. That will only go so far, methinks.
MTV

Agreed...I should have typed "did not". My point was that they were still the top selling companies by a huge margin without have any LSA aircraft..at the time. If the idea catches on as it seems to be doing they will obviously want their piece of the pie...smart business.

The older pilots thing is a bum deal all the way around...I hope when I get to be "elder" I will still be able to fly as well. The smart business decision (insurance companies are a business) is not in favor of pilots who cannot (or will not submit to due to medical reasons) pass a medical. I am sure it will always be available, but the cost may be prohibitive for pilots in this category.

[a64pilot offline]

yep,
When the doc looks at you and tells you your not taking your medical this year, you sell the Baron or Bonanza and buy the Cirrus LSA. That's my take on it as well. Not using the 152 as the model was a mistake in my opinion.
The M brand has a 180 horse two seat FAA certified airplane for about 20
% less than the better LSA's seem to be going for. Who is kiddding who here?
If you wanted to foster new pilots with this LSA thing, you would have included the thousands of 20 to 30 thousand dollar 152's, which is maybe the best trainer ever made.
I think LSA was geared either for the older, wealthy generation or for new manufacturers. I don't think it was meant to foster new younger pilots that couldn't afford toget their PPL.