I never have understood the recreational pilot's license. It
takes pretty much the same amount of time, and still requires the PTS,

I got a recreational cert so I didn't have to transition to the 172.

checkride, and medical. It has glaring shortcomings in utility, however,
with only one passenger, and 50 miles from base. The proposed sport

Well, the Cub only carries one passenger. I seldom carry passengers in
any event; I am 71 and don't like to carry anyone who can't land the
plane in a pinch.

The 50 miles from base is a non-issue (I thought it was 25 miles). All
you need do is fly to an airport more than 50 miles and there make
three landings and takeoffs -- an easier XC requirement than for the
PPL. Thereafter the restriction is lifted forever. I fly all
over--well, as far as the Cub will take me in one day.

license makes more sense, since there's no medical required. If you go
through the trouble of a rec license, though, might as well do a few
cross-countries with a VOR and get the PPL.

Probably, but I would have had to fly the 172. That was a price I
wasn't willing to pay. It is in my opinion a perfectly awful vehicle,
on the lines of jet-skis and Nash Ramblers.

As for the sports pilot cert, it's not the FAA that will determine its
success or failure, but the insurance companies. I can't rent without
hull insurance, and even if I could I wouldn't fly without liability
insurance. If AIG will write insurance on the sports cert, I will
probably move over to one and save the hassle of the bienniel medical.

No--make that "might". The sport cert would prevent me from flying a
Super Cub, Husky, or Great Lakes, to name three planes I've flown with
great happiness.




all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com