Sport Pilot ever going to happen?

In article ET,
writes:

Another part of the NPRM talks about having to train in a smaller,
slower aircraft first than transition to the larger faster aircraft... I
dunno how this will be resolved, but I expect some of this has already
been changed... we shall see.. hopefully soon.

That's one problem, past a certain point, we have had *no* visibility to
what has been kept or changed. The rule the OMB is balking over may not
closely resemble the rule as we last saw it.

And for starting LSA pilots, the idea was start in a small slow plane and
work up. But for UL pilots, who will have to solo slow, light, single
seat part103 aircraft - if there are no two seat trainers of that type -
how will they learn? My two seat Hawk flies much like a single seat
version, but neither fly much like a cub or champ, which might be the
closest aircraft type available to train in. We still have to have a
mechanism to train part 103 pilots, but the new rules effectively outlaw
the pool of training planes.

I don't mind creating a new upscale class of aircraft and somewhat
'better' (read 'more expensively') trained pools of certified pilots. I
*do* mind breaking a system that has been working well for a number of
years for the separate UL community. Killing the training exemption is a
stake in the heart of the UL community. Where's the corresponding gain
that makes that worthwhile?

So called "FAT UL's" ultralights have not proven to be a problem. In many
ways they are fat because the pilots wanted them safer - things like
decent horsepower engines, brakes, enough fuel not to run out just
puddling around for an hour, etc. Personally, I refuse to fly in an
aircraft that weighs less than I do! :-) The FAA has looked the other
way, because generally speaking, it hasn't been an issue. And also
because the FAA's original target weight was 500 lbs, but they got talked
down to 254 by some vendors who wanted to capture the market by setting
the limit just above their build weights. If/When Sport Pilot goes
through, the indications are that they will start enforcing 254/5gal more
vigorously - which is going to be a problem for about 80 percent of the
fleet of currently flying aircraft. That's going to break a much larger
part of a system that has been working well for years. Where's the gain
that makes *that* worthwhile?



And if you buy a factory built aircraft, you can't do your own work
and repairs on it, so it has to go to an AP, again increasing costs to
the BFI, and thence to the student. Too high a cost is what has shrunk
the American flying public from about 800,000 at it's peak down to the
current 500,00 or so.

Hrm, I know you can take a course for 2 levels of maint for LSA, I dunno
about the differing requirements for trainers though.

From what I can see, a training airplane has to be serviced by an AP. $$$
And they probably don't know as much about servicing my Hawk as I do.
Hell, I'm not sure I can fly into our fancy county airport where the AP's
are based without getting insurance to make the county manager happy. I'd
have to find an AP who makes housecalls. That's not gonna be cheap. And
they may not want the liability of working on that class of unfamiliar
aircraft. What if I can't find an AP who will service my plane? Do the
new rules *compel* AP's to work on UL's? I doubt it.


It is my expectation (although I cannot back this expectation up with
any facts whatsoever)..., that the planned obsolesence of these trainers
may be overturned, either by the final rule or an amendment later on....

That's my hope also, but generally speaking, whenever the government
'helps' me, I lose. EIther money or rights, and usually both, I lose. So
I don't have high hopes.


Most of my focus in sport pilot is on the new class of license created,
rather than the restrictions on existing UL's that are imposed.

But then it's "I got mine" at the expense of all those other folks who
were here before you. Eye's on the prize, and the heck with who gets
trampled in the process? :-)

Again, I don't mind them creating a new class. I very much mind them
breaking the ones that already exist. There are a lot more UL and fat UL
pilots at risk than the number of new LSA's who will be created. Look at
the recreational pilot license - there's how many of those, a few
hundred? Worth breaking the UL system as it works now for say 2000-3000
new pilots who could achieve much of what they want now just flying under
a loosely enforced part 103? Not in my book.



For me,
I expect it will allow me to get a SP lic for "about" half the cost of a
PPL and fly pretty much the way I would use a PPL anyway.... For my
father, who bought a high doller plane, only to have a minor medical
event that cause him to have to quit flying less than 30 days later :-(
it's an opportunity to fly, period.

He could fly a UL, either part 103 legal or a 'fat' one. Many of the UL
pilots in the air today either got medical'd out, or priced out, of GA
and have moved to UL's in response. If it's a high dollar airplane, it's
probably something more complicated or heavier/faster than a champ or cub
class anyway, and won't be available to him under LSA privileges. If it's
not, then a UL will give him a similar performance envelope at much lower
cost. And with a lot less fuss.


I believe OMB's 90 days was yesterday.... of course we would have all
fallen over dead in surprise if they had acted within the deadline...

And isn't that just an eloquent comment on the quality of government and
it's systems. We don't even expect it to obey the rules any more, and
would be surprised if they did.

Kevin

For me,
I expect it will allow me to get a SP lic for "about" half the cost of a
PPL and fly pretty much the way I would use a PPL anyway.... For my
father, who bought a high doller plane, only to have a minor medical
event that cause him to have to quit flying less than 30 days later :-(
it's an opportunity to fly, period.

He could fly a UL, either part 103 legal or a 'fat' one. Many of the UL
pilots in the air today either got medical'd out, or priced out, of GA
and have moved to UL's in response. If it's a high dollar airplane, it's
probably something more complicated or heavier/faster than a champ or cub
class anyway, and won't be available to him under LSA privileges. If it's
not, then a UL will give him a similar performance envelope at much lower
cost. And with a lot less fuss.


I believe OMB's 90 days was yesterday.... of course we would have all
fallen over dead in surprise if they had acted within the deadline...

And isn't that just an eloquent comment on the quality of government and
it's systems. We don't even expect it to obey the rules any more, and
would be surprised if they did.

Kevin



There is a considerable difference between an UL and a SP aircraft
performance. 130+mph flying can get you most anywhere which I would not
even try in an UL. I lost my medical and am working to get it back now
(probably will) but it is a hastle. It would be a lot more convienient to
go the SP route with the drivers license medical than going through annual
expensive testing/paperwork to maintain a medical than is dictated by a
bunch of old school government doctors.

John

Cloud_dancer wrote:

I
puddling around for an hour, etc. Personally, I refuse to fly in an
aircraft that weighs less than I do! :-)

Han gliders and PPG's are out then?



The FAA has looked the other
way, because generally speaking, it hasn't been an issue. And also
because the FAA's original target weight was 500 lbs, but they got talked
down to 254 by some vendors who wanted to capture the market by setting
the limit just above their build weights

I wonder if that is an urban myth started by critics of quicksilver. Sure
some
people asked for more, but almost the entire industry expected the
limit to be set to 220 lbs. There were planes designed to that limit
and displayed at Sun-N-Fun with that claimed weight. CGS Hawk
was one of them. Almost everybody was surprised when the
limit came out at 254 lbs I remember precisly the moment when I
first heard the news.

--Dan Grunloh



. If/When Sport Pilot goes
through, the indications are that they will start enforcing 254/5gal more
vigorously - which is going to be a problem for about 80 percent of the
fleet of currently flying aircraft. That's going to break a much larger
part of a system that has been working well for years. Where's the gain
that makes *that* worthwhile?



And if you buy a factory built aircraft, you can't do your own work
and repairs on it, so it has to go to an AP, again increasing costs to
the BFI, and thence to the student. Too high a cost is what has shrunk
the American flying public from about 800,000 at it's peak down to the
current 500,00 or so.

Hrm, I know you can take a course for 2 levels of maint for LSA, I dunno
about the differing requirements for trainers though.

From what I can see, a training airplane has to be serviced by an AP. $$$
And they probably don't know as much about servicing my Hawk as I do.
Hell, I'm not sure I can fly into our fancy county airport where the AP's
are based without getting insurance to make the county manager happy. I'd
have to find an AP who makes housecalls. That's not gonna be cheap. And
they may not want the liability of working on that class of unfamiliar
aircraft. What if I can't find an AP who will service my plane? Do the
new rules *compel* AP's to work on UL's? I doubt it.


It is my expectation (although I cannot back this expectation up with
any facts whatsoever)..., that the planned obsolesence of these trainers
may be overturned, either by the final rule or an amendment later on....

That's my hope also, but generally speaking, whenever the government
'helps' me, I lose. EIther money or rights, and usually both, I lose. So
I don't have high hopes.


Most of my focus in sport pilot is on the new class of license created,
rather than the restrictions on existing UL's that are imposed.

But then it's "I got mine" at the expense of all those other folks who
were here before you. Eye's on the prize, and the heck with who gets
trampled in the process? :-)

Again, I don't mind them creating a new class. I very much mind them
breaking the ones that already exist. There are a lot more UL and fat UL
pilots at risk than the number of new LSA's who will be created. Look at
the recreational pilot license - there's how many of those, a few
hundred? Worth breaking the UL system as it works now for say 2000-3000
new pilots who could achieve much of what they want now just flying under
a loosely enforced part 103? Not in my book.

For me,
I expect it will allow me to get a SP lic for "about" half the cost of a
PPL and fly pretty much the way I would use a PPL anyway.... For my
father, who bought a high doller plane, only to have a minor medical
event that cause him to have to quit flying less than 30 days later :-(
it's an opportunity to fly, period.

He could fly a UL, either part 103 legal or a 'fat' one. Many of the UL
pilots in the air today either got medical'd out, or priced out, of GA
and have moved to UL's in response. If it's a high dollar airplane, it's
probably something more complicated or heavier/faster than a champ or cub
class anyway, and won't be available to him under LSA privileges. If it's
not, then a UL will give him a similar performance envelope at much lower
cost. And with a lot less fuss.


I believe OMB's 90 days was yesterday.... of course we would have all
fallen over dead in surprise if they had acted within the deadline...

And isn't that just an eloquent comment on the quality of government and
it's systems. We don't even expect it to obey the rules any more, and
would be surprised if they did.

Kevin

In article ,
says...



Cloud_dancer wrote:

The FAA has looked the other
way, because generally speaking, it hasn't been an issue. And also
because the FAA's original target weight was 500 lbs, but they got t
alked
down to 254 by some vendors who wanted to capture the market by sett
ing
the limit just above their build weights

I wonder if that is an urban myth started by critics of quicksilver.
Sure
some
people asked for more, but almost the entire industry expected the
limit to be set to 220 lbs. There were planes designed to that limit
and displayed at Sun-N-Fun with that claimed weight. CGS Hawk
was one of them. Almost everybody was surprised when the
limit came out at 254 lbs I remember precisly the moment when I
first heard the news.

--Dan Grunloh

Chuck S has publically posted that we could have had 500 pounds if not
for "Lyle and Larry". Hardly folklore.

sleepy6 wrote:

In article ,
says...

Cloud_dancer wrote:

The FAA has looked the other
way, because generally speaking, it hasn't been an issue. And also
because the FAA's original target weight was 500 lbs, but they got t
alked
down to 254 by some vendors who wanted to capture the market by sett
ing
the limit just above their build weights

I wonder if that is an urban myth started by critics of quicksilver.
Sure
some
people asked for more, but almost the entire industry expected the
limit to be set to 220 lbs. There were planes designed to that limit
and displayed at Sun-N-Fun with that claimed weight. CGS Hawk
was one of them. Almost everybody was surprised when the
limit came out at 254 lbs I remember precisly the moment when I
first heard the news.

--Dan Grunloh

Chuck S has publically posted that we could have had 500 pounds if not
for "Lyle and Larry". Hardly folklore.

I'm sorry but it's still folklore to me.

I believe my good friend Chuck has embellished the point
just a little bit here. If a story is repeated often enough
it begins to sound true. I cannot believe that some crafty
UL manufacturer managed to talk the FAA down from
500 lbs empty weight to the 200 lbs which they eventually
proposed.

The truth is that there was much disagreement about
how much weight should be requested. Many thought
we should start very high as a negotiating point and
Chuck was one of those. He was probably right.

The FAA actually offered 200 lbs and many feared that would
be the limit once FAR103 was issued. In some part
the final increase was due to the John Chotia fatality
in his prototype J-24 which was said to have been
built to the 200lb limit.

The only organization representing UL's at the time was EAA.
They pushed for 220 lbs instead of 200lbs and that was also
the opinion given in editorials in Glider Rider magazine
(which later became "Ultralight Flying")

Another interesting fact came directly Mike Sacrey the
author of FAR103 at the FAA. He was asked years later
about how they came up with the 254 number. It did not
correspond to any international standard and comes
out to be about 115 kilograms.

Mike said they simply surveyed all the product liturature
in 1982 and picked a number which would allow all of the
ultralights at the time to continue to fly under the
new FAR103 rules. They didn't intend to ground anyone.
Unfortunately some manufacturers had under-reported
their empty weights by quite a bit.

The model most affected in 1982 was the Goldwing which
claimed 240lbs but actually weighed closer to 270 lbs.
As a result, it was the only ultralight at the time
which was excluded by FAR103. This was just before
the introduction of the Challenger, CGS Hawk, and
the Mimi-Max.

There was a humourous irony in the Goldwing situation
because of their company slogan, "Alone in it's class".


--Dan Grunloh

For those wishing to read the latest Sport Pilot Temporairy Proposal Retract
by the FAA, go to
http://www.eaa.org/communications/ea...040325_sp.html

Bart

"Ron" no one @home.com wrote in message
...
Current online message from EAA :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FAA TEMPORARILY RETRACTS SPORT PILOT PROPOSAL
Action Allows FAA to Answer OMB Questions


March 25, 2004 - FAA Administrator Marion Blakey ordered an
administrative move on Wednesday, March 24, that keeps the sport
pilot/light-sport aircraft rule on track for final approval this spring.
She
withdrew the proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
answer several final questions about the rulemaking package.
That maneuver saves the rule from facing a potential significant
delay
in its approval. By bringing the proposal back to FAA, Blakey can address
OMB's questions in the most expeditious manner and return it quickly for
final approval. FAA will return the rulemaking package directly to OMB
without another complete review by the Department of Transportation.

March 24 marked the end of OMB's 90-day review period. Had FAA not
retracted the rule, OMB could have rejected it, severely delaying issuance
of a final rule.

While expressing disappointment in the 11th-hour development, EAA
President Tom Poberezny commended FAA's decision and acknowledged it as
the
best way for the agency to address OMB's questions and secure a final rule
as quickly as possible.

"This is a temporary timing setback," he said. "EAA continues to
champion and support the sport pilot/light-sport aircraft rule, as
evidenced
by the considerable resources we've dedicated to developing programs and
services for our members, including the introduction this week of EAA
Sport
Pilot & Light-Sport Aircraft magazine." Poberezny also noted an upcoming
announcement regarding a major sport pilot and instructor training
program.

FAA officials confirmed to EAA that answering OMB's questions about
the proposed rule is a top priority.





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Gilan" wrote in message
.net...

Only 24 days, 1 hours, 56 minutes, and 59 seconds left until Sun n Fun
I wonder if Sport Pilot will ever come out???

--
You may be an Ultralighter if........
http://www.flyinggators.com/news/Bill%20Cook/Bill.htm

--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

So does anybody know how long it will be retracted before it goes back
to the OMB? Also, will it go to the OMB where it left off or will
they get another 90 days?

Dennis.


"SadlerVampire18" wrote:

For those wishing to read the latest Sport Pilot Temporairy Proposal Retract
by the FAA, go to
http://www.eaa.org/communications/ea...040325_sp.html

Bart

Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

I read about another concern with the Sport Pilot. Home land security is
worried about "fat" ultralights being used by terrorists. Another knee jerk
reaction by the feds that haven't a clue and want to keep their "fat"
salaries.


wrote in message
...

So does anybody know how long it will be retracted before it goes back
to the OMB? Also, will it go to the OMB where it left off or will
they get another 90 days?

Dennis.


"SadlerVampire18" wrote:

For those wishing to read the latest Sport Pilot Temporairy Proposal
Retract
by the FAA, go to
http://www.eaa.org/communications/ea...040325_sp.html

Bart

Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

Especially considering that a fat ultralight would do little more than
be a bug splat on a skyscraper's window.

Dennis H.

"Cy Galley" wrote:

I read about another concern with the Sport Pilot. Home land security is
worried about "fat" ultralights being used by terrorists. Another knee jerk
reaction by the feds that haven't a clue and want to keep their "fat"
salaries.

Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 22:35:19 GMT, wrote:


So does anybody know how long it will be retracted before it goes back
to the OMB? Also, will it go to the OMB where it left off or will
they get another 90 days?

Dennis.


"SadlerVampire18" wrote:

For those wishing to read the latest Sport Pilot Temporairy Proposal Retract
by the FAA, go to
http://www.eaa.org/communications/ea...040325_sp.html

Bart

Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

Ask about L1's also. There are no limits on the numbers, and many
companies are bringing in totally unqualified people, having their
employees train them then letting the employees go and either using
the L1's or shipping them and the jobs "home".

No, I'm not bitter.
--
dillon

Life is always short, but only you can make it sweet