But seriously - new engine

In article ,
says...


"sleepy6" wrote

The claim about time needed to get SP up and running is debateable.
Many existing certificated planes have been available for training f
rom
the first day.

Really? At FBO's in the rental fleets? I don't agree, at least aroun
d
here.

There was about a 2 year period to get ramped up for
this

You are kidding, right? Until the rule was published, no one knew for
sure
what the specifics were going to be. Surely not enough to go out and
buy an
airplane, and then have it not qualify.

and another year since it went into effect.

The list of planes that are approved has grown, but slowly. Still, th
e
planes are expensive, and until the FBO's see the need, they won't buy
. It
is a catch 22.

As far as a newbie just entering the sport, there just isn't enough
difference involved to get the SP ticket instead of the PP ticket.

Except for those who know they can not pass a medical, and have never
tried
to get a medical. I believe those numbers are significant. Still, th
ey are
stuck in the catch 22, waiting for a way to get the training, and a pl
ane to
fly.
--
Jim in NC

Lots of certificated planes qualify Jim. Look at the list the EAA puts
out. It was well known way before the final version came out but even
if it wasn't, it's been a year since then. Any FBO could have set up a
program with an old L3 or L4 anytime.

The time excuse has worn pretty thin. There are people out there today
who had absolutely no FAA experience or certs prior to SP that are now
legally instructing pilots and teaching the maintaince classes. The
existing FBOs and instructors would have had it easier than they did.

The real bottom line is that SP is too close to PP for the average
student to accept it.

Until that changes, there will not be a large number of SP students.

"sleepy6" wrote

Lots of certificated planes qualify Jim. Look at the list the EAA puts
out.

I KNOW that, but the FBO's don't have them. They have 150's, 152's, 172's,
Warriors, Arrows, Cirrus, and a few other assorted others, but NO light
sports.

Obviously, you have opinions about the new rating. I won't confuse you with
facts, anymore.
--
Jim in NC

Originally Posted by Morgans

"sleepy6" wrote

Lots of certificated planes qualify Jim. Look at the list the EAA puts
out.

I KNOW that, but the FBO's don't have them. They have 150's, 152's, 172's,
Warriors, Arrows, Cirrus, and a few other assorted others, but NO light
sports.

Obviously, you have opinions about the new rating. I won't confuse you with
facts, anymore.
--
Jim in NC

I looked into getting a Sport Pilot license, and I could find NO flight schools who even knew anything about Sport Pilot, let alone offered training. I still can't find a school in my area that offers SP training.

You are right, sport pilot is going pretty slow. Getting the DPE's and CFI's
in gear for it as well as finding aircraft to train in is a real blast!
It's taking some of us alittle longer because we are running into those
obstacles...but they will be overcome. By golly can I make number 65? Hmmm
hard to tell......
So far I have not heard alot of hopes of "reality" for the FAA
postponing the fat ultralight status. Get your N number ready!!!! All
kidding aside, if you know it's coming, why not go ahead and get it done?
Beat the crowd , so to speak?

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech

"sleepy6" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:57:49 +0100, Chris Wells
wrote:


Any reliable sources for that information?
So far the UL community hasn't seen any of it.

That's all I've heard recently from the UL community up
here...they're all saying in 2007 the FAA will be clamping down on f
at
ultralights.

I don't have anything solid though, it's all hearsay. I've read a fe
w
things in various places online about considerations for brakes,
starters etc. (such as Ultraflight Radio) but as far as I know it's
all
being worked out still. I'm not sure where the "2007" stuff is, but
that's the year everyone is quoting.

"14CFR 21.191 Experimental certificates.
* * * *
(i) Operating light-sport aircraft. Operating a light-sport aircraft
that-
(1) Has not been issued a U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate a
nd does
not meet the provisions of §103.1 of this chapter. An experimental ce
rtificate
will not be issued under this paragraph for these aircraft after Augus
t 31,
2007;"

That's where the "2007" is coming from. Through August 31st, 2007, th
e FAA will
allow a "fat ultralight" to be licensed as an Experimental Light Sport
Aircraft.
The training exemptions for two-seat ultralights expire five months la
ter. It's
certainly a pretty good guess that, after that date, the FAA will get
a bit more
serious about enforcing Part 103 limits.

If your plane isn't currently registered and is not Part 103 compliant
, you're
vulnerable if you don't convert. The EAA has details for this process
at:

http://www.sportpilot.org/lsa/transi..._aircraft.html

Ron Wanttaja

Possibly. It's also possible that the petition to move back that date
will be approved. It's also possible that enforcement will be no
different than it has for over 20 years. It's also possible that part
103 will be changed.

Don't let scare tatics by pro sport pilot people scare you

BTW the FAA released figures for new sport pilots. There were a grand
total of 64 of them as of a month ago Sport Pilot isn't doing much
so far.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:39:20 -0400, "Morgans" wrote:


"sleepy6" wrote

Lots of certificated planes qualify Jim. Look at the list the EAA puts
out.

I KNOW that, but the FBO's don't have them. They have 150's, 152's, 172's,
Warriors, Arrows, Cirrus, and a few other assorted others, but NO light
sports.

And more to the point, there are few tricycle-geared standard-category aircraft
that are Sport Pilot eligible. Few of the budding airline pilots who instruct
at FBOs will be qualified to teach in taildraggers, and the insurance rates are
scary.

While it's been a year since Sport Pilot/LSA started, the training curricula
didn't get approved until quite a while after, and, of course, the SLSAs just
started getting their approval during the spring. These things take time.


Ron Wanttaja

"Chris Wells" wrote in message
...

Morgans Wrote:
"sleepy6" wrote
-
Lots of certificated planes qualify Jim. Look at the list the EAA
puts
out.-

I KNOW that, but the FBO's don't have them. They have 150's, 152's,
172's,
Warriors, Arrows, Cirrus, and a few other assorted others, but NO
light
sports.

Obviously, you have opinions about the new rating. I won't confuse you
with
facts, anymore.
--
Jim in NC


I looked into getting a Sport Pilot license, and I could find NO
flight schools who even knew anything about Sport Pilot, let alone
offered training. I still can't find a school in my area that offers SP
training.


--
Chris Wells


What is your area Chris?

I'll second that question ! I have done alot of ground work and know folks
that will train you, if you are likeme you may have to drive alittle...but
you may get lucky and have someone in the next county that will train you!
I finally got to spin an airplane this past weekend. It was an absolute
blast! Made the drive worth every minute! Better than Six Flags I tell
ya!!!!

Patrick
student SP
aircraft structural mech
"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:3ow2f.24099$b65.7346@okepread01...

"Chris Wells" wrote in
message ...

Morgans Wrote:
"sleepy6" wrote
-
Lots of certificated planes qualify Jim. Look at the list the EAA
puts
out.-

I KNOW that, but the FBO's don't have them. They have 150's, 152's,
172's,
Warriors, Arrows, Cirrus, and a few other assorted others, but NO
light
sports.

Obviously, you have opinions about the new rating. I won't confuse you
with
facts, anymore.
--
Jim in NC


I looked into getting a Sport Pilot license, and I could find NO
flight schools who even knew anything about Sport Pilot, let alone
offered training. I still can't find a school in my area that offers SP
training.


--
Chris Wells


What is your area Chris?

Bryan Martin wrote:
It took over ten years to get LSA approved. How long do you think it would
take to get changes made to 103 especially since the FAA has emphatically
claimed that 103 would not be changed? Most likely not until long after the
deadline has passed. If you own a fat ultralight, you had better take the
2007 deadline seriously or you may be sorry you didn't.



A little birdie whispered in my ear that the weight limit for
FAR 103 will be raised to 330 lbs in about a year.

--

FF

In article .com,
says...


Bryan Martin wrote:
It took over ten years to get LSA approved. How long do you think it
would
take to get changes made to 103 especially since the FAA has emphati
cally
claimed that 103 would not be changed? Most likely not until long af
ter the
deadline has passed. If you own a fat ultralight, you had better tak
e the
2007 deadline seriously or you may be sorry you didn't.



A little birdie whispered in my ear that the weight limit for
FAR 103 will be raised to 330 lbs in about a year.

--

FF

Or more Your prediction is as good as those predicting disaster
The ultralight lists have been through all this literally years ago and
RAW is just now getting into it.

Yes SP is great for older pilots and others with medical problems.

No it's not really attractive to newbies. When they compare costs and
limitations they choose PP.

Study it and/or actually go through the process and you will see why.
Many in the UL community were all for it until it came time to lay
their money down. Suddenly they decided to go PP.

The planes are there if the FBO was interested. The instructors were
there if the FBO was interested. Some of the FAA classes were canceled
because they couldn't find enough people to take them. There is a
reason for that

wrote)
A little birdie whispered in my ear that the weight limit for
FAR 103 will be raised to 330 lbs in about a year.


400 lb single seater would be better - which would include 'safety
equipment' weight. Floats would get extra lbs.

....and 10 gallons of fuel.
......and no upper end speed limit.

If they're going to fix 103, let's fix it right.


Montblack