Plane & Pilot also had a good article on the new Sport Pilot craze.

Until I read the article I wasn't aware a Sport Pilot Instructor need only a private pilot certificate with 150 hrs time, with no commercial or instrument ratings required.

I just skimmed over that article in Plane and Pilot, as the headline is "Become a Pilot in 2 Weeks!" They had a photo of one guy who got his Sport Pilot certificate in 8 days. How do you feel about sharing the pattern with that guy? I'm not terribly excited about it.

I appreciate that people can accomplish that, but I just think that it's not possible to absorb and digest all the knowledge that is necessay to becoming a competent pilot in that short a period of time. I remember during my training for my Private, the evenings spent studying for the knowledge exam and really trying to solidly comprehend the concepts(and this after I had been an ultralight pilot for years!) I also remember taking my simulated checkride, my french buddy Yves, who was my faux-examiner, chiding me for my lack of use of ailerons during stall recovery. We did stall after stall, wallowing in that stalled, sinking, mushing zone maintaining attitude and level "flight" with careful finesse of the rudder and ailerons..the ultimate slow flight. And then doing rudder stalls, with hands off the yoke. I just don't think those are the dark corners of practical flight you'd get into in an 8-day intensive course, and actually understand what you were doing.

I think the Sport Pilot and LSA programs could be the jumpstart light aviation needs to flourish, and is a great way to appeal to aspiring pilots who for whatever reason don't want to or can't complete the Private program, but it's kinda scary to see something so serious be regarded so whimsically. I'm afraid of the mentality an easy-to-get-with-less-work certificate attracts. I've seen some retarded ultralight pilots doing their thing, flying low, no radio, wrong pattern, etc (I'm an ultralight pilot too) I just hope the Sport Pilot certificate doesn't open up a whole new world of carnage.


[/rant]

Then again, you can give an idiot hundreds of hours of dual-- and he'll still be an idiot! I know some low-time/student pilots I've rather share the pattern, with than some high-timers I've seen.
I think the sport pilot concept is a good thing, but they shouldn't put the emphasis on getting your ticket in a week. Every year at Oshkosh,Zenair builds a homebuilt CH601 (?) in a week, but I consider that a stunt,not to be tried at home. Same with a one-week SP ticket.
I got after my PP pretty hard, took 3-1/2 months & 54 hours. The SP requirements are half that of the PP, so concievably I coulda got one of those in 7 weeks & 27 hours.
I think that a lot of people (including myself) could do most of their flying just fine with a SP ticket, IF they add the controlled-airspace & radio-com endorsements. And of course a tailwheel endorsement--that goes without saying! This is of course assuming that they can live with the LSA limitations (1,320# gross, etc). Just look at how many people are happily flying around doing their thing in a Luscombe,Cub,Champ, etc.

Eric

Between work and money it took me 2 years to get my PPL, and I still think I might have missed out on some experience. I just don't think you get challenged with enough variables if all your flying is done within to weeks. But I'm just a punk kid

In the beginning I think the Sport Pilot thing was to pacify older pilots who would be getting out of aviation due to medical issues. They tacked on the rest of the nonsense to get it through.

The Sport Pilot ticket will attract thrill seekers who are looking for a quick fix or title without the commitment.

The time requirements are ridiculous. Jamming the training into 10-14 days....all I can say is that individual better keep flying several hours a week for the first few months or he/she will become a danger to themselves as well as everyone else they are sharing the skies with.

I think we would all agree a PPL at 40-50 hours is only a ticket to learn, as there are a multitude of variables that just can't be covered in that amount of time. A Sport Pilot License may be the answer to Dr. Devorkians dilemma.

Would you let a family member fly with a new Sport Pilot? I wouldn't.

There are a couple things you folks are missing regarding the Sport Pilot rule.

First, no night. That takes about 3 hours off the PPL. Very little cross country, cause it is expected that the Sport Pilot won't fly big cross countrys.

No instrument. Period. At all. Not never. That may have its own consequences, but..

Nothing complex. None. No controllable propeller, no retractable gear, not much of anything at all.

I'm still a little skeptical of what these will turn into, mostly due to the "ratings mills" out there who don't give a rat's behind what they shove out the door, as long as they get the $$$.

Take a look at Seaplane ratings, or multi engine ratings. Does anyone here seriously think you can learn to operate a seaplane safely after a total of four or five hours of instruction in a totally different environment??? How about safe to operate a light twin in IMC after 8 to 9 hours of dual???

Is this any worse? I think not.

Is it a good thing for aviation?? I don't have the answer to that. But time will tell.

Let's give the honest to gosh folks who really want to enter aviation this way the benefit of the doubt, though, and help them along any way we can. Don't turn your backs on them and consider them "wanna be" pilots.

That won't help anyone.

MTV

mtv wrote:
Take a look at Seaplane ratings, or multi engine ratings. Does anyone here seriously think you can learn to operate a seaplane safely after a total of four or five hours of instruction in a totally different environment??? How about safe to operate a light twin in IMC after 8 to 9 hours of dual???

Is this any worse? I think not.
MTV

MTV Your point is well taken, but you ask "is this any worse?" I think to a degree it is. The comparison you make is not the same. You are comparing an experienced pilot to a newbie with zero knowledge or experience.

I think the key factor to any successful pilot training is developing within that pilot judgement skills. Training in night flying, instruments, cross country etc. go along way in developing these skills. The Sport Pilot training seems to suggest, we'll take away all these variables that require judgement and they'll be ok. That's wrong.

I guess time will tell.

Let's give the honest to gosh folks who really want to enter aviation this way the benefit of the doubt, though, and help them along any way we can. Don't turn your backs on them and consider them "wanna be" pilots.

That won't help anyone.

Agreed. I'd welcome anyone to this board who was sincerely interested in becoming a pilot, regardless of the program or certificate they're after. I likely would never have gotten into aviation had it not been for the even less restrictive Part 103. Back then I viewed general aviation as a bloated cost prohibitive thing that was going to crumble under it's own bureaucracy eventually and I wanted nothing to do with it. I soloed and operated aircraft around airports even though I was not as educated as I should have been on airport ops. Now that I'm a participating member of the bureaucracy, I can't imagine knowing less than I do now, and it gives me some solace than there is a minimum that other certificated pilots must know.

All the things that MTV mentions are to limit the scope of a Sport Pilot's operations, I guess to protect them and their passengers from themselves. It still puts another airplane in the pattern though, and that conduct is what's important to you and me.

Most pilots strive for further ratings. I hope that will be the case with the new Sports.

With the price of a PPL ticket now I understand there have to be alternatives to keep young blood in aviation. Not sure if this is the right approach.

Keep in mind, on the other side of the spectrum is the loophole that will allow ailing pilots to continue flying on a drivers license, who would have otherwise been grounded. I know, these pilots are supposed to disqualify themselves from flying with any known ailment, but doubt that many will.

Just opens the door for a lot of bad press down the road, which aviation doesn't need right now.

Supercubber wrote:In the beginning I think the Sport Pilot thing was to pacify older pilots who would be getting out of aviation due to medical issues. They tacked on the rest of the nonsense to get it through........

I disagree, I think the feds were trying (in their very special way) to revitalize general aviation. The LSA requirements were intended to help manufacturers produce new aircraft designs without going broke in the process of certifying them. The SP license is an attempt to get new pilots involved to fly all these new light airplanes ( ) that will be produced. The driver's license in leiu of a medical certificate is a move in the right direction- to simplify things. The fact that older pilots (who may be medically-challenged) and older airplanes (under 1320 gross) can qualify is a bonus.
The main disadvantage to the new LSA/SP thing is the unreasonably low weight limit. The Cessna 150 is arguably the safest GA trainer/personal airplane out there, yet it doesn't qualify. The FAA doesn't really care- like I said, the new rules were intended for new aircraft designs & new pilots, not existing.
I'd like to see the LSA weight limit go up to 1600 or maybe even 1800 pounds. I think even new manufacturers would have an easier time designing good airplanes if they had a little more lee-way on the weight.
I'd also like to see a new owner-maintained airplane category similar to what Canada came up with, it would seem to go hand-in-hand with the repair/inspection instruction courses/licenses for LSA'a that are a part of the new rules.

Eric

zero.one.victor wrote: I disagree, I think the feds were trying (in their very special way) to revitalize general aviation.

I think it's a way to gather the Part 103 guys who were operating under their USUA "Basic Flight Instructor" license to carry passengers. It was all under the guise of training Part 103 pilots. AFAIK, the BFI is going to be done away with in the next few years, leaving only the SP instructors to teach. The resulting pilot will either get his SP cert, or just fly Part 103 aircraft with no passengers. There is some truth to the revitalization of GA, but as more and more pilots got into ultralighting, I think the FAA saw the need to regulate it more than what the sanctioned USUA was doing.

A good discussion, keep it up. I do think these rules have some promise, but as with most things, you do have some bad with the good.

I think the key to make these programs work is as I noted earlier, and that is for those of us "blessed" with a "real" pilots license to work with these folks, to fan the flames of their enthusiasm, and to show them that there are many other ways to dispose of their income in aviation.

Er, I mean, lots of other options to explore in aviation.

The similarities between LSA and SES ratings mills aren't that different. You see a lot of folks who really CFFS (can't fly for ---) wanting to add a SES rating. They spend two days at a certain organization in Florida and bingo, they've got another rating, and lo and behold: a flight review as well. Nothing to it. You're going to have to go a ways to suggest to me that some of the folks I've flown with in training are significantly better equipped to deal with todays airspace and complexities than the LSA folks.

Want proof? Uh, how about the dipstick who flew over the White House? He had a "real" pilots certificate, and was "current".

Sorry, but the LSA's can't hurt us much more than that one.

Again, its incumbent on the rest of us to work with those folks, act as mentors to them, and convince them that its a big wonderful world out there, and with just a little more learning, it's all theirs.

MTV

It seems to me with the abbreviated course length the instructors should be held to a higher standard to be certain of quality instruction.

I'm not sure a 150 hour private pilot would be capable of providing the quality needed in such a condensed package.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think the FAA will be revisiting the requirements for both Sport Pilot Instructors and Sport Pilots.

Zane, what requirements were necessary for ultralight instructors?

It sounds reasonable, I guess. Everybody knows though that it's a mainly a way for pilots to be able to take passengers as a loophole in Part 103 for both aircraft and pilot requirements.

* Be at least 18 years old, and in good health.
* Be a current member of the USUA.
* Be registered as a USUA Ultralight Pilot.
* Have logged at least 100 hours Ultralight pilot-in-command (PIC) time. FAA rated pilots may receive credit for up to 80 hours of flight time toward this 100 hour minimum.
* Obtain at least 15 hours of additional dual instruction from a USUA BFI or AFI. More than one BFI/AFI can provide this 15 hours of instruction. At least 5 of the 15 hours must be performed in the air. The remaining 10 hours of instruction can be ground instruction. The AFI that will administer the final test can, optionally, provide up to 5 hours of this training. FAA rated CFI's are exempt from this requirement.
* Pass the FAA written exam "Fundamentals Of Instruction". FAA rated CFI's and ground instructors are exempt from this requirement (since they have already taken this test). In addition, some educators are also exempt.
* Pass USUA written, oral, and flight tests administered by a USUA AFI.
* Submit completed application and appropriate fees to USUA. ($100/yr registration fees, plus USUA membersip fees if required)

months or he/she will become a danger to themselves as well as everyone else they are sharing the skies with.

I think we would all agree a PPL at 40-50 hours is only a ticket to learn, as there are a multitude of variables that just can't be covered in that amount of time. A Sport Pilot License may be the answer to Dr. Devorkians dilemma.

Would you let a family member fly with a new Sport Pilot? I wouldn't.



///////////////////////////////////////////////////

I had the same thoughts. One thing that is for sure,,,,

The good news is......Gravity will weed out the incompenent pilots real quick.

The bad news is I live 1/4 mile from the Jackson Hole airport so I better wear a hardhat.. <G>

Wasn't that infamous sport pilot instructors name Kevorkian though?

mtv wrote:...................................
Want proof? Uh, how about the dipstick who flew over the White House? He had a "real" pilots certificate, and was "current".

Sorry, but the LSA's can't hurt us much more than that one.
.................................................

MTV

Don't be so sure! He coulda topped off his performance by (pick one) 1) running out of gas, or 2) going VFR-into-IMC, or 3) doing a moose stall--and then performed a grand finale by augering into the White House.
Maybe the SP & SP-instructor requirements are a bit on the light side. But I for one don't see why an instructor needs an instrument rating, etc to teach people to fly a light VFR airplane. Some of the best flyers I know are "only" private pilots,admittedly with a fair amount of time-- and a couple of the worst I know are IFR rated. I've seen some pretty poor GA performances by people who turned out to be airline pilots.
It'll be up to the SP pilot examiners to make sure that applicants know their stuff, & are safe to be issued a "license to learn".

Eric

I'd like to add one more thing, and that is that even after all my spewing in the above posts, I really believe that a person's personality is the true defining factor in safety, rather than an "inferior" rating. I've seen both ultralight and GA guys do low flyovers, do stupid tricks over camp, and buzz cattle. I've also seen some very conservative UL pilots who I'd rather let my kids ride with than the next GA guy. Some people get the "license to learn" concept, and some think they're Chuck Norris..er.. I mean Chuck Yeager right after signoff. Some people respect the laws of physics more than others, and just have a conservative approach to staying alive. I don't think all the instruction in the world can impress that into the wrong type of personality.

So, my only gripe is that the "wrong" type of impulsive pilot personality can now more easily legally fly a heavier aircraft (than 254 lbs per part 103.)