LSA Class?

Why is the FAA so supportive of this class of flying? Older pilots?
passenger allowed? more skill required in bad weather? less reliable
powerplants? no FAA medical exam? Less stringent certification of LSA?
I can only surmise that the FAA, EAA and MAYBE a need for grooming
future military pilots (where ever they go) endorse this effort. I am
only concerned about safety and why we even consider this class of
flying. Freedom yes but the FAA/EAA says "become a pilot faster,
easier, and cheaper than ever before". This scares me and I worry about
safety. Maybe I am wrong in my thinking.

Larry/PP

"Larry" wrote in message
oups.com...
Why is the FAA so supportive of this class of flying? Older pilots?
passenger allowed? more skill required in bad weather? less reliable
powerplants? no FAA medical exam? Less stringent certification of LSA?
I can only surmise that the FAA, EAA and MAYBE a need for grooming
future military pilots (where ever they go) endorse this effort. I am
only concerned about safety and why we even consider this class of
flying. Freedom yes but the FAA/EAA says "become a pilot faster,
easier, and cheaper than ever before". This scares me and I worry about
safety. Maybe I am wrong in my thinking.

Larry/PP


I think you probably are wrong. Think about how much of your training time
for your Private certificate was used to teach you things that are either
not allowed or require additional training under the LSA rules.

Many of the pilots who will avail themselves of the LSA program are fully
trained older pilots that for what ever reason can no longer fly under
medical rules that are more stringent that those required of drivers of
18-wheelers.

As far a less reliable power plants go. Do you have anything to back that
up?

I'll bet you think the Exp/Homebuilt class is a threat to safety as well.

They all simply want more money.

"Larry" wrote in message
oups.com...
Why is the FAA so supportive of this class of flying? Older pilots?
passenger allowed? more skill required in bad weather? less reliable
powerplants? no FAA medical exam? Less stringent certification of LSA?
I can only surmise that the FAA, EAA and MAYBE a need for grooming
future military pilots (where ever they go) endorse this effort. I am
only concerned about safety and why we even consider this class of
flying. Freedom yes but the FAA/EAA says "become a pilot faster,
easier, and cheaper than ever before". This scares me and I worry about
safety. Maybe I am wrong in my thinking.

Larry/PP

Jim,

Very well said on all counts.

How do you like the Sporstar? I had a chance to sit in one at the AOPA Expo
and I have to say that I was very impressed.

Well built, well equipped and suprisingly comfortable.

Where are you flying?

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
...
Jim,

Very well said on all counts.

How do you like the Sporstar?

Err, that should be SportStar...

Fingers are sometimes faster than brain.

Jay

Hi Larry -

If you study the the statistics available at the Air Safety Foundation
(asf.org), you will find that there are very few medically-related
accidents. Furthermore, sport pilots must self-certify their medical
fitness prior to flight.

We should support these new rules to revitilize general aviation in the
United States. As you may be aware, we are running out of pilots. My
employer (a large regional airline) is currently offering employees a
$500 reward for anyone that we refer who makes it through training! I
believe that the number of student starts per year is down about 25% in
the past 10 years (this is from memory).

Why are we in a pilot shortage? For one, flying has become very
expensive (a rich man's sport) and therefore cost-prohibitive for most.
The new sport pilot/light-sport aircraft rules will change that. I
believe that flying can be safe AND affordable.

Regarding the new ASTM consensus standards - these standards were
developed by the industry to establish a level of safety without FAA
involvement. The traditional FAA certification process was very
lengthy and expensive. Now manufacturers of light-sport aircraft all
have a common standard to meet (and in the future can undergo an audit
to substantiate their level of quality) and they don't have to spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars (and lots of time) to reinvent the
wheel with each new airplane (and all of the bureaucracy that goes with
it).

I don't think these rules have anything to do with military pilots.
The military has plenty of money (yours and mine) to pay for flight
training.

The new sport pilot/light-sport aircraft rules will be the RENAISSANCE
of general aviation!

http://www.SportPilotTalk.com

GeraldZ


Larry wrote:
Why is the FAA so supportive of this class of flying? Older pilots?
passenger allowed? more skill required in bad weather? less reliable
powerplants? no FAA medical exam? Less stringent certification of LSA?
I can only surmise that the FAA, EAA and MAYBE a need for grooming
future military pilots (where ever they go) endorse this effort. I am
only concerned about safety and why we even consider this class of
flying. Freedom yes but the FAA/EAA says "become a pilot faster,
easier, and cheaper than ever before". This scares me and I worry about
safety. Maybe I am wrong in my thinking.

Larry/PP

Larry wrote:
Why is the FAA so supportive of this class of flying? Older pilots?
passenger allowed? more skill required in bad weather? less reliable
powerplants? no FAA medical exam? Less stringent certification of LSA?
I can only surmise that the FAA, EAA and MAYBE a need for grooming
future military pilots (where ever they go) endorse this effort. I am
only concerned about safety and why we even consider this class of
flying. Freedom yes but the FAA/EAA says "become a pilot faster,
easier, and cheaper than ever before". This scares me and I worry about
safety. Maybe I am wrong in my thinking.

These are valid concerns, but I think they are misplaced. You are
quite correct that the just-certified Sport Pilot (SP) will have had
less total training than the just-certified Private Pilot (PP).
However, much of that training will cover operations that are
prohibited to the SP. In fact, although having had somewhat fewer
hours of training, the SP may have in fact had *more* training in those
areas directly affecting his flights (Day, VFR).

As for the (LSA) aircraft, there is no reason to assume that they are
any less safe. It is certainly true that they are not required to be
equipped for night flight or for flight in instrument conditions
(flying inside the clouds) - but those operations are prohibited to the
LSA SP anyway.

My normally certificated aircraft is not certified for flight in known
icing; whereas the MD-80 that I am about to board is so certified. Is
my plane inherently less safe? Not if I stay out of the ice!

In fact, the truth of the matter is that the FAA supported the LSA
rules precisely to *improve* safety. The reality of ultra-lights in
the US is that probably 80% of them are technically illegal
(overweight, above max fuel, more than one seat, etc.). They fly with
a reasonable level of safety, but they were pretty much without FAA
oversight. One of the goals of LSA was to bring more of these "into
the system" and give the FAA back some control.

Will some SP in an LSA eventually do something really stupid and kill
himself and maybe a passenger? Of course. And, unfortunate though it
is, tonight some guy will down a couple of six packs and manage to kill
himself and maybe a bunch of others on the highway. In both cases it
was the stupidity that was unsafe, not the level of training or the
mechanical condition of the vehicle.

As for the (LSA) aircraft, there is no reason to assume that they are
any less safe. It is certainly true that they are not required to be
equipped for night flight or for flight in instrument conditions
(flying inside the clouds) - but those operations are prohibited to the
LSA SP anyway.

The CT -- the only LSA I've flown -- had equipment comparable to my
IFR-certified Pathfinder. And if flew wonderfully. LSAs need not be
anything but excellent light aircraft.

Will some SP in an LSA eventually do something really stupid and kill
himself and maybe a passenger? Of course. And, unfortunate though it
is, tonight some guy will down a couple of six packs and manage to kill
himself and maybe a bunch of others on the highway. In both cases it
was the stupidity that was unsafe, not the level of training or the
mechanical condition of the vehicle.

'Twas ever thus, I'm afraid.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Beckman wrote:
"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
...
Jim,

Very well said on all counts.

How do you like the Sporstar?

Err, that should be SportStar...


I was picturing an LSA made of mold. G

Jay Honeck wrote:
As for the (LSA) aircraft, there is no reason to assume that they are
any less safe. It is certainly true that they are not required to be
equipped for night flight or for flight in instrument conditions
(flying inside the clouds) - but those operations are prohibited to the
LSA SP anyway.

The CT -- the only LSA I've flown -- had equipment comparable to my
IFR-certified Pathfinder. And if flew wonderfully. LSAs need not be
anything but excellent light aircraft.

I haven't tried one yet, but hope to @ AOPA Expo '07. They seem like
they would be a lot of fun, along the lines of many of the old
taildraggers some of my fellow pilots own for hopping around the 'patch
for the fun of it.

A few of us who already own other aircraft have tossed the idea of
buying an LSA as a group for a second local "fun" plane.