Continuous Closed Traffic Approved

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

Not exactly the sort of places to encourage
young aviators.


Our local FBO (and I use that term lightly), seems to do everything it can
to discourage new pilots. My kid's elementary school used to take all the
kindergartners to the airport and let them see a plane, sit it one, talk on
the headsets, etc. Now the FBO has informed them that they can't do that
anymore due to "security issues" involving 9/11. This is a very rural
non-controlled field with about 40 planes based there (but they are the only
show in town).

In the last four years, I've sent 3 people in to talk with them about
learning to fly. All 3 were treated like complete outsiders and all three
had the same conversation. I went in with the last one and sat in the lobby
area while he tried to talk to them about lessons. The conversation went
something like this:

FBO - (Sitting behind counter talking amoungst themselves)

Potential Student - (Walks in, stands at counter for 2 minutes waiting for
someone to help, then finally asks the guys sitting there "Excuse
me....I'm interested in learning to fly"

FBO - "Great! We rent our Cherokees for $75 wet and the CFI will cost
another $30 per hour"

PS - (not knowing what a Cherokee wet or a CFI is) "ooook....."

Awkward pause where the FBO needs to take over the conversation.....they
don't...they start chatting with each other again.

PS - "Excuse me, ok...so that's $105 per hour....how many hours do I need?"

FBO - "40" -

PS (still the one driving the conversation) - "Well, what do I need to get
started?"

FBO (seeming to be tiring of all the questions) - "Money" (they all
laugh).....Well you need to buy the student kit, which is $195 for your
ground school, then you'll need a good headset for about $350. Then you'll
need to plan on flying for an hour at least twice a week. If you can't fly
twice a week, your wasting your time"

PS - "Twice a week? I don't have time to do that. And that's also $210/wk.
Or $800/month! I can't afford that"

FBO - (and this is a direct quote) "Then I guess you'll never be a pilot"

PS - Leaves in disgust and to this day hasn't even taken an intro flight.

On 2006-05-13, Jeff wrote:
Potential Student - (Walks in, stands at counter for 2 minutes waiting for
someone to help, then finally asks the guys sitting there "Excuse
me....I'm interested in learning to fly"

snip

The trouble is that people who are good at business don't run FBOs
because they realise (being good at spotting worthwhile business
opportunities) that the FBO business is not a good one to be in. So you
tend to get people who love aviation running them - nothing wrong with
that - but who have no clue about how to run a business or what
"customer service" means. Yes, you've got exceptions to that - I've
known people who are the exception - but guess what, they moved on to
something that will actually pay their living costs and have money left
over to go flying sooner or later.

There are some exceptions of course. But most of the people who do
business well and love aviation set up in some other more profitable market
because they realise they'll get a LOT more flying in that way.

Don't get me started on the owners of private airfields - most of them
seem to be hell-bent on driving their customers away with either hostile
attitudes, or they are the sort who promises to do things and never does
them or even worse - a combination of both. Again there are exceptions
but they are rare.

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

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