LSA instructor?

I'm just back from OSH late last night as well. Had a good time, got
totally sunburned and enjoyed the show. A couple of questions came up,
and everyone I asked seemed to have a different opinion (which happens
when you don't have the FAR/AIM books at hand out on the Flight
line)....
1. I thought the LSA "mall" was a great idea at show center. My first
plane was an Ercoupe, and even thought I've moved "up" to a 172, the
LSA type airplanes are really pretty cool. What I've been trying to
figure out is this new LSA instructor thing. Can one really just take
the "fundamentals of instruction" (FOI) test and then the written for
the LSA instructor (and then the practical)? Without getting a
commercial and then insturment, like a traditional CFI?
2. I was oogling the new Czech "Mermaid" amphibian as well. My wife was
keen on that idea. Now with this, is there going to be a seperate
LSA-single engine seaplane rating (LSA-seaplane???)? If one already has
PP-SEL, does one just add SES on to it and then be qualified to fly the
thing?

I'm already a relatively active pilot, but I truly hope this LSA thing
really takes off and we start seeing these planes out at the FBO's!

Ryan
Madison, WI

Ryan,
I hope the sport thing takes off as well. There are alot of naysayers
that will do whatever they can to throw a monkey wrench into it all for
everyone. Like most "new" things done by any government agency there are
quirks that have to be worked out. One I am working on is the Catch 22 of
the 87 knot endorsement.
One rule says a sport pilot may train in single engine plane , even if
it is not light sport category, but must solo and take a check ride in the
light sport aircraft. The 87 knot endorsement requirement states a
certificated sport pilot may train and get an endorsement in a plane that
cruises over the 87 knots. Hmmm if you already have time training in a
Cherokee as a student why can't you get the 87 knot endorsement? The
training is the same...just one of those tricky little wording things that I
would guess got messed up by someone along the way.
As the FAA guy told me," Welcome to the FAR's" I sure wish I could
have made it up to the big event at OSH but driving was out of the question
for me. I would have loved seeing the sport planes. Fill us in if you
would!?

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm just back from OSH late last night as well. Had a good time, got
totally sunburned and enjoyed the show. A couple of questions came up,
and everyone I asked seemed to have a different opinion (which happens
when you don't have the FAR/AIM books at hand out on the Flight
line)....
1. I thought the LSA "mall" was a great idea at show center. My first
plane was an Ercoupe, and even thought I've moved "up" to a 172, the
LSA type airplanes are really pretty cool. What I've been trying to
figure out is this new LSA instructor thing. Can one really just take
the "fundamentals of instruction" (FOI) test and then the written for
the LSA instructor (and then the practical)? Without getting a
commercial and then insturment, like a traditional CFI?
2. I was oogling the new Czech "Mermaid" amphibian as well. My wife was
keen on that idea. Now with this, is there going to be a seperate
LSA-single engine seaplane rating (LSA-seaplane???)? If one already has
PP-SEL, does one just add SES on to it and then be qualified to fly the
thing?

I'm already a relatively active pilot, but I truly hope this LSA thing
really takes off and we start seeing these planes out at the FBO's!

Ryan
Madison, WI

Ryan, I think one of the big roadblocks to LSA is economics. Insurance
companies won't insure classic taildraggers for student solo, so someone
(FBO, student, flying club) is going to have to buy/lease a trike
geared LSA for training. That means one of the new planes which seem to
have a base price of 80,000 buckeroos. For that kind of money, you could
get a decent 182! And don't forget checkouts for the instructor, parts
inventory (which should be relatively small for such new planes), and
maybe even metric tools (1)

If someone is limited to SP, then yeah, 80 grand might seem like a good
idea, or they could go experimental, but you'd still have to find an
instructor to give lessons in a homebuilt...after you get the phase one
flown off, of course.
I really liked some of the new LSA's, and I hope it takes off...I'd like
to fly some of these planes.

John

(1) The week before Oshkosh, I dropped by the FBO hangar where there was
a NEW Katana (not the FBO's). The guys in the shop had to buy metric
tools cause they didn't have any! This was a FBO that had been around
for 75 years!

IMHO,
If sport pilot gets to the every plane costs 80G it will die. Other than
a few rich fellows that are going to lose their medicals the people that
sport pilot was intended to target to add to aviation will be left out in
the cold.
Not all, but in alot of cases people into ultralights are there because
they can not afford a certified aircraft,...a smart plane or kit builder
could make those ultralighters sport pilots which would be a great
percentage of their biz, or they can choose to cater to the rich and only
get 3 to 4 % of the biz.
You are correct in the dwindling number of taildraggers available for
rent because of ridiculas insurance. There are a few places left but you
really have to look for them. Insurance companies will always find a way to
screw people ..so this is just par for the course for those leeches.
A sport plane at tops should be in the 20-40 G range, if a company could
make one lower all the better. Why would it cost 60 G for a place to make a
new Cub or Champ? Simple GREED....and as long as that mentality prevails GA
will die. Yes a company needs to make a profit but not 200%-300% from every
sale.
The metal to build a 601 or Sonex will run in the 3000-4000 price range,
figure an engine to be 10 G , and there is nothing to building one of these
planes so labor SHOULD not be a boatload. But I have seen these sell for
40-60G , and it's highway robbery. 25G would be good , and 30G probably not
unreasonable. Hey they are not building 777's , just a small plane. I speak
from experience in production of aircraft, from MD-80's to Learjets.
A greedy company that wants to sell a 25G plane for 50G may sell
100...if he sold them for 25G he has the potential of selling 500, simply
because it opens the market for more people. All I can fly is sport category
and I WILL NEVER pay as much for a light sport plane as a 172, etc. I would
simply build my own plane before that happens, or even a certified old
project plane that meets the sport category. I realize some may not have the
know how or tools to do that..they will find ultralights very cheap in the
next few years if the sport category really takes off. Or they can surely
check with a local EAA group and probably gets tons of help building their
own light sport plane. When we "poor boys" HAVE to build one, it's one less
they can sell at a trumped up price, one less that will be rented on the
flight line. Just my take on it anyways

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
"John T" wrote in message
...
Ryan, I think one of the big roadblocks to LSA is economics. Insurance
companies won't insure classic taildraggers for student solo, so someone
(FBO, student, flying club) is going to have to buy/lease a trike geared
LSA for training. That means one of the new planes which seem to have a
base price of 80,000 buckeroos. For that kind of money, you could get a
decent 182! And don't forget checkouts for the instructor, parts inventory
(which should be relatively small for such new planes), and maybe even
metric tools (1)

If someone is limited to SP, then yeah, 80 grand might seem like a good
idea, or they could go experimental, but you'd still have to find an
instructor to give lessons in a homebuilt...after you get the phase one
flown off, of course.
I really liked some of the new LSA's, and I hope it takes off...I'd like
to fly some of these planes.

John

(1) The week before Oshkosh, I dropped by the FBO hangar where there was a
NEW Katana (not the FBO's). The guys in the shop had to buy metric tools
cause they didn't have any! This was a FBO that had been around for 75
years!

So let's do the math. If the metal is $4k, the engine is $10k, another $3k
for incidentals like tires, wires, and the like, and $5k in labor to build,
the out-door cost is $22k. Sell it for $25k and you've made a whole $3k,
times 500 customers is $1.5mil.

Sell it for $50k and you've made $28k times 100 customers and you've made
$2.8 mil, not to mention the headaches involved with another 400 customers
and the service that entails.

Like the man said, DO THE MATH.

Jim



The metal to build a 601 or Sonex will run in the 3000-4000 price
range, figure an engine to be 10 G , and there is nothing to building one
of these planes so labor SHOULD not be a boatload. But I have seen these
sell for 40-60G , and it's highway robbery. 25G would be good , and 30G
probably not unreasonable. Hey they are not building 777's , just a small
plane. I speak from experience in production of aircraft, from MD-80's to
Learjets.
A greedy company that wants to sell a 25G plane for 50G may sell
100...if he sold them for 25G he has the potential of selling 500, simply
because it opens the market for more people.

Well DUHHHH JIM,
There are variables for every kind of plane, the estimated cost of a
Tatcher CX4 is 8,000 with engine. Do you need to sell it for 50 G too? Take
the blinders off!!!!!!

Patrick

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
So let's do the math. If the metal is $4k, the engine is $10k, another
$3k for incidentals like tires, wires, and the like, and $5k in labor to
build, the out-door cost is $22k. Sell it for $25k and you've made a
whole $3k, times 500 customers is $1.5mil.

Sell it for $50k and you've made $28k times 100 customers and you've made
$2.8 mil, not to mention the headaches involved with another 400 customers
and the service that entails.

Like the man said, DO THE MATH.

Jim



The metal to build a 601 or Sonex will run in the 3000-4000 price
range, figure an engine to be 10 G , and there is nothing to building
one of these planes so labor SHOULD not be a boatload. But I have seen
these sell for 40-60G , and it's highway robbery. 25G would be good , and
30G probably not unreasonable. Hey they are not building 777's , just a
small plane. I speak from experience in production of aircraft, from
MD-80's to Learjets.
A greedy company that wants to sell a 25G plane for 50G may sell
100...if he sold them for 25G he has the potential of selling 500, simply
because it opens the market for more people.

Not to mention then you can sell parts and such to 500 customers instead of
100, Jim you should understand how that works you are in biz. Lots of
variables but the main point is companys are to greedy. Look at the greed
our auto industry has gotten into( from their own and the greed of their
workers). When things cost less you sell alot more, period.

Patrick

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
So let's do the math. If the metal is $4k, the engine is $10k, another
$3k for incidentals like tires, wires, and the like, and $5k in labor to
build, the out-door cost is $22k. Sell it for $25k and you've made a
whole $3k, times 500 customers is $1.5mil.

Sell it for $50k and you've made $28k times 100 customers and you've made
$2.8 mil, not to mention the headaches involved with another 400 customers
and the service that entails.

Like the man said, DO THE MATH.

Jim



The metal to build a 601 or Sonex will run in the 3000-4000 price
range, figure an engine to be 10 G , and there is nothing to building
one of these planes so labor SHOULD not be a boatload. But I have seen
these sell for 40-60G , and it's highway robbery. 25G would be good , and
30G probably not unreasonable. Hey they are not building 777's , just a
small plane. I speak from experience in production of aircraft, from
MD-80's to Learjets.
A greedy company that wants to sell a 25G plane for 50G may sell
100...if he sold them for 25G he has the potential of selling 500, simply
because it opens the market for more people.

Insurance companies won't insure classic taildraggers for student solo

That's not true. Insurance companies WILL insure Cubs and Champs and
their ilk for student solo. There's a Cub locally that can be soloed
at 10 hours tailwheel time, 5 hours make and model. Students can solo
it. It's insured - and the owner went cheap on the insurance. He
could have made it the same as the Champ in which I got my tailwheel
signoff - 5 hours tailwheel, CFI checkout - but that cost a bit more.

What insurance companies WON'T insure is students soloing after being
taught by unqualified instructors. The local flgiht school at my home
field has a Citabria on the line, and wants to check out a new
instructor. They plan to take him from zero tailwheel time to giving
dual in a Citabria - in 15 hours. That's when it all goes to hell.
Minimum of 100 (or is it 150) hours total time, private pilot or
better, 15 hours dual instruction in make and model to solo, and a huge
bill for mediocre coverage. The honest truth is that you can't be a
qualified tailwheel instructor with 15 tailwheel hours. Those low time
instructors of yesteryear who taught in Champs and Cubs ALL had 200+
hours tailwheel time and had passed checkrides in taildraggers
themselves.

Flight schools are quick to blame the insurance, but the real problem
is they are unwilling to do what it takes to attract and retain
qualified tailwheel instructors.

That means one of the new planes which seem to
have a base price of 80,000 buckeroos.

Something is severely wrong here.

When I was in the Keys a few months ago, I met a guy who does lessons
(officially, really they are usually rides) in a 2-seat floatplane
ultralight trainer. He says it does just fine getting off the water in
the Florida heat with two big people. It has a Rotax engine, and it is
open cockpit with a dacron-covered wing, but it's a three axis machine,
not a trike. He bought it new, ready to fly (not a kit) for under
$25,000 two years ago, straight from the factory. It also exists in a
landplane form, which is cheaper.

My understanding is that the whole point of Sport Pilot was that such
aircraft could be sold as LSA's, for general non-commercial (except
instruction) use, not as ultralight trainers for instruction only. In
its landplane configuration, it would be a perfectly serviceable
general purpose three axis sport pilot trainer or pleasure craft. Any
garden variety CFI could instruct in it. So what happened?

I suspect that the process the FAA claimed was going to be easy for
manufacturers is still bad enough that it winds up doubling or tripling
the cost of the aircraft. That would be typical. In fact, I will only
believe otherwise if I see those two-seat ultralight trainers selling
as LSA's for no more than 10% more than they cost as UL trainers.

Michael

The Polish say that this is ****ing in the soup. You get more soup, but it
doesn't taste anywhere near as good.

Jim



"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...

Not to mention then you can sell parts and such to 500 customers instead
of 100, Jim you should understand how that works you are in biz. Lots of
variables but the main point is companys are to greedy. Look at the greed
our auto industry has gotten into( from their own and the greed of their
workers). When things cost less you sell alot more, period.

This versus bankruptcy for trying to sell a 80G sport plane? Hard to tell
who is ****ing in what ain't it? Do you think a 80G sport plane will be a
moneymaker? I don't, that's the basis for my rant I would like to hear
your opinion on the 80G sport planes though, when I need sarcasm I just ask
my wife for that I am sure we don't need it to discuss the cost of a
sport plane.

Patrick

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
The Polish say that this is ****ing in the soup. You get more soup, but
it doesn't taste anywhere near as good.

Jim



"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...

Not to mention then you can sell parts and such to 500 customers instead
of 100, Jim you should understand how that works you are in biz. Lots of
variables but the main point is companys are to greedy. Look at the greed
our auto industry has gotten into( from their own and the greed of their
workers). When things cost less you sell alot more, period.