Glass Panel Training

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...


In the past few years, one (supposedly) successful flight training
school dumped their Cessna fleet for Diamonds.

http://www.eaa-fly.com/Training/Training.html

I believe they do not have any aircraft that with standard, "steam"
instrumentation. Regardless, the conversation turns quickly to
"Is this a good way to go about training for your PPL?"

Since most rentals, especially lower priced ones, are Cessna 15x/17x,
the transition (backwards so to speak to glass) would appear to be an
issue.

My expectation is that the majority of newbies to flying look
forward to curbing not inflating costs and that they will need to be
Cessna (std gauging) prepared not glass panel prepared.

Comments appreciated.

My best guess is that the new designs will haul about the same payload as a
Cessna 152 at about the same speed as a Cessna 172 for a lower cost per mile
than either of the other two. That will probably work out for both hobbs
time and tach time in the very near future--assuming that it is not already
the case.

That does not mean that I am in the least bit pleased. Based upon my belief
that the LSA standard will form the basis of the next new training fleet,
and I remain disgusted by those standards! I believe that the weight limit
should have been at least 750Kg instead of 600Kg, the maximum cruising speed
should have been at least 130Kts instead of 120Kts, and that the standards
should have amended as needed to include the maximum number of type
certificates already owned by US manufacturers for w seat aircraft.

Peter
Comment as requested

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:47:59 -0800, BT wrote:

It would be very difficult to get "Renters Insurance" to
cover the full hull value and lose of use of the aircraft.

"Lose of use" as in "loss of income"?

Loss of income.. yes

In article ,
says...


My best guess is that the new designs will haul about the same payload as a
Cessna 152 at about the same speed as a Cessna 172 for a lower cost per mile
than either of the other two. That will probably work out for both hobbs
time and tach time in the very near future--assuming that it is not already
the case.

That does not mean that I am in the least bit pleased. Based upon my belief
that the LSA standard will form the basis of the next new training fleet,
and I remain disgusted by those standards! I believe that the weight limit
should have been at least 750Kg instead of 600Kg, the maximum cruising speed
should have been at least 130Kts instead of 120Kts, and that the standards
should have amended as needed to include the maximum number of type
certificates already owned by US manufacturers for w seat aircraft.

Peter
Comment as requested


In light of your chosen adjectives, I cannot doubt the sincerity of your
opinion on the matter, however in purely objective terms I would have
difficulty imagining a more off-topic post. . .

Perhaps you intended to respond to a different thread ? ? ? ?

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:45:22 -0800, BT wrote:

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:47:59 -0800, BT wrote:

It would be very difficult to get "Renters Insurance" to
cover the full hull value and lose of use of the aircraft.

"Lose of use" as in "loss of income"?

Loss of income.. yes

BT, how is that proven to the adjustor? Past records?

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:53:23 -0500, Peter Dohm wrote:

Based upon my belief
that the LSA standard will form the basis of the next new training fleet,
and I remain disgusted by those standards! I believe that the weight limit
should have been at least 750Kg instead of 600Kg, the maximum cruising speed
should have been at least 130Kts instead of 120Kts, and that the standards
should have amended as needed to include the maximum number of type
certificates already owned by US manufacturers for w seat aircraft.

Peter
Comment as requested

Peter, why those numbers? I agree but would appreciate your additional
comments.

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
"Lose of use" as in "loss of income"?

Loss of income.. yes

BT, how is that proven to the adjustor? Past records?

It does not have to be proven to any adjuster. All they need to do is be
willing to sue the renter pilot. Then the renter has to choose between
paying up, or handing the same (or more) money to a lawyer to defend against
the claim.

Vaughn

"Gezellig" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:53:23 -0500, Peter Dohm wrote:

Based upon my belief
that the LSA standard will form the basis of the next new training fleet,
and I remain disgusted by those standards! I believe that the weight
limit
should have been at least 750Kg instead of 600Kg, the maximum cruising
speed
should have been at least 130Kts instead of 120Kts, and that the
standards
should have amended as needed to include the maximum number of type
certificates already owned by US manufacturers for w seat aircraft.

Peter
Comment as requested

Peter, why those numbers? I agree but would appreciate your additional
comments.

Actually, part of it is because I goofed. I should have said 800Kg for the
weight--because I wanted my weight to include the common existing basic
trainers, such as the 152 and Tomahawk which actually weigh about 760Kg.
The other big problem with the weight is that it still seems to press the
limits of the available materials, so that many of the LSA aircraft are
forced to use a lot of carbon fiber in an effort to give a practical usefull
load--and even then it is not enough because so many of the pilots who have
a problem medical certification are overweight. Therefore, I strongly
suspect that a large proportion of LSA aircraft are simply operated over
gross.

I also have two problems with the speed range allowed. First, I fail to see
any good reason that an entry level aircraft should not deliver a practical
speed for travel. The second is safety--the slower an aircraft lands and
takes off, the less crosswind it can usually tolerate.

In addition to my personal belief in nationalism, it would have been so much
simpler to just create the Light Sport Pilot classification to cover 2 seat
aircraft that are neither complex nor high performance. That would have
allowed the development of a far more capable class of LSA--and one free
from the poor initial accident record tat we have experienced.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...

Therefore, I strongly suspect that a large proportion of LSA aircraft are
simply operated over gross.

I suspect (and this could lead to a dangerous safety culture) that many
LSA's really have two gross weights. One gross weight that satisfies the
Light Sport regulation, and a "whisper" gross weight at which they really
are operated. The actual engineering of the plane may (or may not) actually
support that "whisper" figure. Of course if you guess wrong and die, it is
on you.

Just look at the useful load of the Cessna 162 with a full fuel payload of
346 #. That means that if you have full tanks and a 200# student you have
146 pounds left over for the instructor and the flight bags etc.. I call
that a 1 passenger airplane!

Vaughn

"vaughn" wrote in message
...

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...

Therefore, I strongly suspect that a large proportion of LSA aircraft are
simply operated over gross.

I suspect (and this could lead to a dangerous safety culture) that many
LSA's really have two gross weights. One gross weight that satisfies the
Light Sport regulation, and a "whisper" gross weight at which they really
are operated. The actual engineering of the plane may (or may not)
actually support that "whisper" figure. Of course if you guess wrong and
die, it is on you.

Just look at the useful load of the Cessna 162 with a full fuel payload
of 346 #. That means that if you have full tanks and a 200# student you
have 146 pounds left over for the instructor and the flight bags etc.. I
call that a 1 passenger airplane!

Vaughn


I agree.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
...

Actually, part of it is because I goofed. I should have said 800Kg for
the weight--because I wanted my weight to include the common existing
basic trainers, such as the 152 and Tomahawk which actually weigh about
760Kg. The other big problem with the weight is that it still seems to
press the limits of the available materials, so that many of the LSA
aircraft are forced to use a lot of carbon fiber in an effort to give a
practical usefull load--and even then it is not enough because so many of
the pilots who have a problem medical certification are overweight.
Therefore, I strongly suspect that a large proportion of LSA aircraft are
simply operated over gross.

I also have two problems with the speed range allowed. First, I fail to
see any good reason that an entry level aircraft should not deliver a
practical speed for travel. The second is safety--the slower an aircraft
lands and takes off, the less crosswind it can usually tolerate.

In addition to my personal belief in nationalism, it would have been so
much simpler to just create the Light Sport Pilot classification to cover
2 seat aircraft that are neither complex nor high performance. That would
have allowed the development of a far more capable class of LSA--and one
free from the poor initial accident record tat we have experienced.

Peter

Splendid outline, I couldn't agree more. But it seems to me the deliberately
intended to limit all LSA pilots to the fat ultralights that had grown out
of control.

I don't think they were trying to do anyone a favor, just pencil whip a
problem that had grown beyond there desire to control it.