Continuous Closed Traffic Approved

I don't think the Sport Pilot thing will help GA to any significant degree.
LSAs are nothing but toys. I flew my Sundowner to work today, and saved a
little time compared to driving. I couldn't have done that with an LSA.

We don't use the practical aspects of our planes nearly as much as we could,
but GA can be useful and reasonable transportation. LSA/SP might be as much
fun as it looks, but it has very little practicality.

Personally, I am looking for tools, not toys. It's nice to have things the
family can do together. Now if those tools happen to be lots of fun, so
much the better!


"Jeff" wrote in message
...
It's all getting scary.

You know, I had hoped that the Sport Pilot rage would help re-light a fire
in GA for the general public. But in my last trip to OSH, I was looking
at all the "Sport Pilot ready" planes (this was pre-release of the SP
rating/cat). Hoping to see where an average person could buy a plane for
the price of a really nice bass boat, I was definitely disappointed.

"LWG" wrote in message
...
I don't think the Sport Pilot thing will help GA to any significant degree.
LSAs are nothing but toys. I flew my Sundowner to work today, and saved a
little time compared to driving. I couldn't have done that with an LSA.

Okay, I'll bite. Why couldn't you have?

I should have said that an LSP/SP would not have sufficed, at least without
additional endorsements. I departed from Class D airspace, and was
operating in furtherance of a business (I think).

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"LWG" wrote in message
...
I don't think the Sport Pilot thing will help GA to any significant
degree. LSAs are nothing but toys. I flew my Sundowner to work today, and
saved a little time compared to driving. I couldn't have done that with
an LSA.

Okay, I'll bite. Why couldn't you have?

"LWG" wrote in message
. ..
I should have said that an LSP/SP would not have sufficed, at least without
additional endorsements. I departed from Class D airspace, and was
operating in furtherance of a business (I think).

I still don't see any conflicts.

You can fly from class D. You can travel for business, if the travel is
coincidental to the business.
--
Jim in NC

"LWG" wrote in message
. ..
I should have said that an LSP/SP would not have sufficed, at least without
additional endorsements. I departed from Class D airspace, and was
operating in furtherance of a business (I think).

As Jim pointed out, there's nothing about the type of operation that
conflicts with the Sport Pilot certificate.

More to the point, however, you wrote "I couldn't have done that with an
LSA". The limitations on the Sport Pilot certificate are on the pilot, not
the airplane. An "LSA" flown by a pilot with a Private Pilot certificate
(for example) can do pretty much anything they would normally be able to do
(a typical exception might be flying IFR, since not all of the "sport"
airplanes are certificated for IFR flight).

The Sport Pilot certificate certainly should expand the potential market for
these light airplanes, but the market has always existed and the airplanes
are quite usable for much of the kind of flying most pilots at that end of
the market are looking to do.

Don't confuse the pilot certification with the airplane certification. They
are two separate things.

Pete

In article ,
LWG wrote:
I should have said that an LSP/SP would not have sufficed, at least without
additional endorsements. I departed from Class D airspace, and was
operating in furtherance of a business (I think).

You (as a private pilot) could have flown a LSA out of class D airspace
without any additional training, endorsements, or whatever. Not all
LSA's come with radios and transponders (the ones I've seen in the
"cheaper" end do not), but you could have departed NORDO if you were
really trying to economize and didn't want to spring for a handheld
radio.

I don't understand your objection to LSAs. If they are successful,
they will get more people flying ... that means airports get more
utilization, more money gets pumped into the aviation industry, there's
a general overall awareness of flying, and that's only good things for
the industry as a whole. They may not be right for your mission, and
that's okay ... they're not designed for everyone. But the more people
flying, the better the industry is ... the more people that use an
airport, for example, the harder it is to close.

If your issue is with the Sport Pilot rating, well, I guess I see two
purposes to the rating. One is to keep old farts who are in danger of
losing their medicals in the air; these old farts are still allowed to
fly into class D airspace, they just can't flying big planes, or at
night. Seems reasonable. The other is to get new pilots into the air
quicker. The limitations of the rating seem reasonable given the
amount of training you get. I think the hope is that new Sport Pilots
will get bitten by the flying bug, and go on to get the necessary training
(which means that they're spending more money on aviation, which is
always a good thing).

--Ken

I know, that's why I said LSA/SP, meaning the combination of an SP in an
LSA.

I have nothing against the LSA or the SP, I just don't think they have
enough practicality to catch on. I would really like to see more people
flying, I just don't think that this will affect the decline in GA. It
looks like we are the last of a generation. I remember my intense
preoccupation with flying when I was a teenager, and compare it to what I
see, even with my own kids. They couldn't care less about aviation, unless
it says Lear or Gulfstream, and that't not for the flying, it's just for the
bling.

Kids can't wander onto an airport, at least not my home base. I have to
drive through a manned security gate and present ID.

There is nothing I would like to see more than a resurgence in the interest
in GA. I don't see any new investment in anything related to general
aviation, except from government. Private airports are now housing
developments. Businesses depending upon GA are folding up. The only "new"
buildings or improvements I see in my area have been put up by state or
local government. That's better than nothing, but I'd rather see the engine
of private enterprise doing these things.


"Ken Hornstein" wrote in message
...
In article ,
LWG wrote:
I should have said that an LSP/SP would not have sufficed, at least
without
additional endorsements. I departed from Class D airspace, and was
operating in furtherance of a business (I think).

You (as a private pilot) could have flown a LSA out of class D airspace
without any additional training, endorsements, or whatever. Not all
LSA's come with radios and transponders (the ones I've seen in the
"cheaper" end do not), but you could have departed NORDO if you were
really trying to economize and didn't want to spring for a handheld
radio.

I don't understand your objection to LSAs. If they are successful,
they will get more people flying ... that means airports get more
utilization, more money gets pumped into the aviation industry, there's
a general overall awareness of flying, and that's only good things for
the industry as a whole. They may not be right for your mission, and
that's okay ... they're not designed for everyone. But the more people
flying, the better the industry is ... the more people that use an
airport, for example, the harder it is to close.

If your issue is with the Sport Pilot rating, well, I guess I see two
purposes to the rating. One is to keep old farts who are in danger of
losing their medicals in the air; these old farts are still allowed to
fly into class D airspace, they just can't flying big planes, or at
night. Seems reasonable. The other is to get new pilots into the air
quicker. The limitations of the rating seem reasonable given the
amount of training you get. I think the hope is that new Sport Pilots
will get bitten by the flying bug, and go on to get the necessary training
(which means that they're spending more money on aviation, which is
always a good thing).

--Ken

On 2006-05-12, LWG wrote:
looks like we are the last of a generation. I remember my intense
preoccupation with flying when I was a teenager, and compare it to what I
see, even with my own kids. They couldn't care less about aviation, unless
it says Lear or Gulfstream, and that't not for the flying, it's just for the
bling.

But that was true of any time - only a very tiny minority of the
population are obsessed enough about flying to actually do it. I can
give you teenaged counter-examples right now - but it's irrelevant:
flying has always been a minority pursuit and always will be a minority
pursuit. Flying is _not_ a natural habitat for a human being, and
therefore 99.5% of the human race is innately afraid of flying. Most of
the population ranges from mild discomfort and anxiety to full blown
terror at the idea of being even a few feet off the ground in a plane.

It's only a tiny percentage who actually find the experience enjoyable.
It's always been like that and always will be like that.

Kids can't wander onto an airport, at least not my home base. I have to
drive through a manned security gate and present ID.

For each airfield like that there are 100 you can just wander up to.

For the remainder of the human population who DO enjoy flying (and there
is enough to keep GA going) with the current costs and timescales it
takes to learn to fly, you are left with:

- those young enough that they don't yet have a family
- those old enough that the family have left home AND finished college

Out of the former, most don't have the money. So you are left with the
latter, most who face spousal pressure not to start flying in the first
place, or who find themselves disappointed at having to fly a ratty old
C152 that's almost as old as they are and costs a fortune.

Then you add to that the current cotton-wool total risk aversion of
society and you take away even more of the already tiny possible pool of
people who may learn to fly.

Some are doing something about it - the British Gliding Association are
running scholarships for youths. Our tiny soaring club (about a dozen
regular members) has two scholarship students currently in the club -
paid up to solo by the BGA. By the time they solo, they can't stop.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

In article ,
Dylan Smith wrote:
Kids can't wander onto an airport, at least not my home base. I have to
drive through a manned security gate and present ID.

For each airfield like that there are 100 you can just wander up to.

While I think that ratio might be a bit off (I'd put it at more like
10-20 "free love" airfields versus 1 "armed camp" airfield), it's been
my experience that the airfields you can walk up to are ghost towns
that are grim, depressing places. I'm not saying that vibrant
airfields of yesteryear don't exist (I've encountered a few
counter-examples myself), but they sure do seem to be rare. What's
more common is the broken-down, one horse airport who's runway is only
home to few tumbleweeds. Not exactly the sort of places to encourage
young aviators.

--Ken

In article ,
LWG wrote:
I have nothing against the LSA or the SP, I just don't think they have
enough practicality to catch on.

Okay ... what exactly is not practical about them? They are by far the
cheapest new airplanes out there, most of them run on mogas (of course,
who knows what's happening with ethanol, but still), they have low
operating costs, it seems like most of them cruise in the 90-110 knot
range. Maybe it doesn't carry as much load as quickly as your
Sundowner ... but they're still airplanes, and people can fly in them.
Most of the ones I've seen have a more useful load than a 152.

I would really like to see more people
flying, I just don't think that this will affect the decline in GA. It
looks like we are the last of a generation. I remember my intense
preoccupation with flying when I was a teenager, and compare it to what I
see, even with my own kids. They couldn't care less about aviation, unless
it says Lear or Gulfstream, and that't not for the flying, it's just for the
bling.

I don't think that much has changed, really. When I was growing up,
relatively few of my friends were interested in aviation. The ones that
are interested as adults are turned off by the cost; I know a large number
of people that investigated flying and realized they couldn't afford it;
a smaller but sigificant number that started their license but ran out
of money. I actually got my license, but the costs made it so I don't
fly anymore.

There is nothing I would like to see more than a resurgence in the interest
in GA. I don't see any new investment in anything related to general
aviation, except from government. Private airports are now housing
developments. Businesses depending upon GA are folding up. The only "new"
buildings or improvements I see in my area have been put up by state or
local government. That's better than nothing, but I'd rather see the engine
of private enterprise doing these things.

The reason I believe that happened was that there is very little money
to be made in aviation; it seems like most people do it as a labor of
love. Maybe more planes will help that out; I guess we'll have to see.

--Ken