Proposed Sport Pilot Changes

[dewhitaker]

I encourage everyone to comment to the FAA during the open comment period about he proposed changes to the Sport Pilot rules. We need to get the gross weight limit increased to include such as the Cessna 150 and the F-19 Taylorcraft.

Here is a link to the NPRM.

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/08-1127.pdf

It might be a long shot but at least we can make our voices heard. The gross weight limit of 1320 pounds was not very well thought out and is arbitrary and restrictive.

[Forrest Barber]

Re: Proposed Sport Pilot Changes

Thank you Dave lets jump on this one.

Actually it is around 1322. something based on kilograms in the beginning. I have been waiting for this and will recommend 1500 lbs.

[crispy critter]

Re: Proposed Sport Pilot Changes

I will certainly pay for this one....I don't think the 1500lbs increase is a good idea. I don't think the market or the skys can handle it all at once. If you open it up to the C150 then you will open it up to almost every 2 place airplane in the world. This means every two place tri gear(and taildragger) is going to be availible for every 16 year old kid(or anyone of any age) with 20-25 hours to do with as they please and when they please....any weather condition...any wind condition.....WITH PASSENGERS!!! At least right now the market revolves around classic taildraggers and thier loving owners or overpriced composits that the inexperienced can't normally afford. I just think opening the door to allow soooo many different airplanes and sooo many pilots is going to lead to more problems in the future which might make it harder for anyone to fly. O.K. you guys can let me have it now.

[Robert Lees]

Re: Proposed Sport Pilot Changes

As Forrest says, 1320 lbs comes from 600kg

[M Towsley]

Re: Proposed Sport Pilot Changes

Kevin,

I have to agree somewhat with what you are saying, however, in reality it is more like 30-40 hours before someone would get their Sport Pilot license. I don't think flying can be compared to a 16 year old getting a car and going out and speeding. There are responsible young people that would have no problem with the issue of getting their license and flying safely. Just review the NTSB reports and look at the ATP's, Commercial pilots and others with hundreds if not thousands of flight hours who are killing themselves over stupid stunts, including flying in bad weather, buzzing, etc. I think if you can afford a plane, for the most part, one would be somewhat responsible. I know there are those who are not, unfortunately, the ones I do know are mostly private pilots that fly irresponsibly. I started flying in the '70's and never finished. Several years ago I bought my BC-12D and was the first licensed Sport Pilot in Illinois. I felt I had a responsibility to the new Sport Pilot license to be extra careful, due to the eyes that were upon me. There will always be those who remove themselves from the gene pool due to their poor decision making skills, and sometimes take several people with them. I'm not sure if the Feds will ever raise the weight limit. Perhaps it would be safer to get people into tricycle geared aircraft rather than the tailwheel aircraft. I think flying a tailwheel aircraft should be part of flight training, though I know that would be impossible to implement. I think it makes one a better pilot, though taildraggers can be slightly more dangerous than a nose dragger. And remember, it is much easier today to buy a taildragger than a tricycle geared aircraft, (for the most part). You don't see a bunch of accidents due to that issue. You bring up some good points, but as I said earlier it is more dependant upon the pilot than the airplane. You will always get those with more money than sense. At lease they can only take one person with them instead of three, four or five. You almost sound like the airlines with the new very light jets. I just don't think the masses will go out, buy an old Cessna, get their license and fill the skys. It is easy to think that flying can be a bit of an elitism and you want to protect you hobby, but if it is to continue we need to get new people out their flying. I think the skys still have a little bit of room.

[Mark Julicher]

Re: Proposed Sport Pilot Changes

Kevin,
I respect your opinion. There will probably be a few more incidents as the Sport Pilot ranks increase and equipment proliferates. I used to get nervous turning my 21 year old students loose with supersonic jets also. Mixing aircraft fuel and hormones is very explosive.

That said, I always gave them a short speech to wit: "What you are doing flying airplanes is already cosmic to the general populace. If you go out flat-hatting you won't increase their esteem of your skills because they won't understand. However, your fellow pilots WILL understand what you are doing when you act stupid, and fellow pilots will NOT be impressed with your skill."

Kick me off the soap-box now.
I really would like my F-19 to be Sport qualified.

[jstall]

Re: Proposed Sport Pilot Changes

I will certainly pay for this one....I don't think the 1500lbs increase is a good idea. I don't think the market or the skys can handle it all at once. If you open it up to the C150 then you will open it up to almost every 2 place airplane in the world. This means every two place tri gear(and taildragger) is going to be availible for every 16 year old kid(or anyone of any age) with 20-25 hours to do with as they please and when they please....any weather condition...any wind condition.....WITH PASSENGERS!!! At least right now the market revolves around classic taildraggers and thier loving owners or overpriced composits that the inexperienced can't normally afford. I just think opening the door to allow soooo many different airplanes and sooo many pilots is going to lead to more problems in the future which might make it harder for anyone to fly. O.K. you guys can let me have it now.

Well? I agree that maybe the 1500 lbs might be a little much, but? any weather? naw, sport pilot now doesn't alow that and wont then, its day, vfr, and below 10,000 ft, not sure on class B airspace, anyway, what I would like to see would be at least the Cessna 120/140 types included and the F-19/21 Taylorcrafts. That would be good for the club

JS

[jstall]

Re: Proposed Sport Pilot Changes

I'm going to have to stand corrected, after doing a little research, I see that 1500 lbs, takes care of all 12/140's and 150's up to and thru 1963
above that grosses goto 1600 lbs, soooooo

I've got to agree with Forrest the weight needs to be increased to 1500 LBS


JS

[pftcraft]

Re: Proposed Sport Pilot Changes

I wish the Canadian and US authorities could get on the same page... One thing we do have here is an Advanced Ultralight catagory. 1220 lb max gross. This allows at least some Taylorcrafts in but leaves so many others out.

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: Proposed Sport Pilot Changes

I think 2 things would be good regarding Sport Pilot.
1. 1500 lbs should be good to go. Cessna 140s and heavier T-Crafts are not any harder to handle than the 1320 lbs pound limit. It would open p the possibilities that Sport Pilots can fly real deal planes.
2. Raise the 10,000 ft maximum flight level. Around Denver you can only fly 3 directions under LSA rules and West isn't one of them. Little planes like a 85hp T-Craft can fly the mountains. You just have to be certain of weather and terrain. While I wouldn't want to fly my L2 everywhere in Colorado, I know many passes just at or slightly above 10K that I'd like to go, and would be safer flying at 11 or 12K. Allowing for maneuver room and down-drafts. It would simply be safer to fly higher... say, a 12,500 limit.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[M Towsley]

Re: Proposed Sport Pilot Changes

Ed,

You bring up a good point I was just thinking about this morning. You guys out west are kinda short changed altitude-wise if flying Sport Pilot. Out here it would take me thirty minutes to get there in my BC-12.

JS,

Class B,C or D with additional instruction. Why anyone with a Sport Pilot license would want to go into B is beyond me. I was checked out in C and D. I got a waiver from my local class C so I could go in to my friend's aircraft museum for maintenance, etc. without needing a transponder

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: Proposed Sport Pilot Changes

Marty; (by the way -- it's good to talk to you)
Class B/C radar will let you make an ID turn and keep track of you... unless they're busy. Often they ARE busy. In Denver I usually skirt the B/C until I have to penetrate. BUT, only after a conversation with control, of course. A couple times I've had my penetration request denied because I couldn't fly a certain profile because of altitude restrictions on the LSA. I just think 12,500 is a better break point and 1500lbs for the same reason. Otherwise, the trouble we face is not the feds but the forces of nature.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[mohawktipi]

Re: Proposed Sport Pilot Changes

I would like to see the rules change a little. Keep the sport pilot rules as they are but allow licensed pilots to fly any two place under 150 horesepower without a medical as long as they can still pass the drivers license requirements.

[jstall]

Re: Proposed Sport Pilot Changes

I think 2 things would be good regarding Sport Pilot.
1. 1500 lbs should be good to go. Cessna 140s and heavier T-Crafts are not any harder to handle than the 1320 lbs pound limit. It would open p the possibilities that Sport Pilots can fly real deal planes.
2. Raise the 10,000 ft maximum flight level. Around Denver you can only fly 3 directions under LSA rules and West isn't one of them. Little planes like a 85hp T-Craft can fly the mountains. You just have to be certain of weather and terrain. While I wouldn't want to fly my L2 everywhere in Colorado, I know many passes just at or slightly above 10K that I'd like to go, and would be safer flying at 11 or 12K. Allowing for maneuver room and down-drafts. It would simply be safer to fly higher... say, a 12,500 limit.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

I AGREE

JS

[VictorBravo]

Re: Proposed Sport Pilot Changes

I just think 12,500 is a better break point and 1500lbs for the same reason.

There is already a precedent in the FAA's airspace system which has to do with "XYZ altitude OR within XYZ feet of the surface". This was put there to address areas like Colorado where you could b e skimming the surface and still have an altimeter reading of 10K and higher.

So a change to the LSA rules saying something like "10,000 feet or within 2500 feet of the surface whichever is higher" is not foreign to the FAA.

I would also add a catch-all that says "so long as the operation of the specific aircraft at that altitude and proximity to the surface can be safely conducted without undue risk due to winds, downdrafts or other meteorological conditions." A 12,000 foot mountain pass on a windy summer day is no place for a low time pilot or one who is not experienced in such conditions. A 40 horsepower Taylorcraft even in the hands of a highly experienced pilot would be unsafe in many such conditions.

It may even be prudent to add something like "... and the pilot in command has sufficient experience or has received instruction on the safe operation of low powered or LSA aircraft in such conditions"

1500 pounds sounds reasonable to me unless there is something I'm not aware of. Perhaps the FAA, AOPA, EAA, and all the LSA industry groups can have a committee to approve or disapprove aircraft types on a case by case basis when they exceed 1320 pounds.

I do find it a little silly that a Cessna 150 or some Ercoupes are not qualified for LSA but the Taylorcraft, Luscombe, etc. which require more skill/judgment/experience/insurance are qualified for this "basic" category.

I'll bet my ass that the loudest voice against approving the 150 for Sport Pilot would come directly from Cessna!