LSA Class?

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.

I can't pretend to speak for the FFA, but I
can speak for myself as a LSA student and
future LSA plane owner (Flight Design CT-SW,
March delivery).

I've wanted to fly all my life, but it never
made sense until the light sport class happened.
The combination of performance, cost of operation
and sheer fun makes it possible with LSA. For
little more than the price of a high-end German
road car you can buy a *new* light sport plane,
cruise at 120 knots and get 30 miles to the gallon
on mogas. And look forward to annual inspections
for around $500 instead of $5000.

As to the training, as long as a pilot flys within
the limitations of the license class, I don't see
why it should be any less safe than a PP license.

I'm 54 years old. I could pass the 3rd class
physical easy this year, but what about the future?
I *don't* want to fly at night, knowing how bad
my night vision can be. Why train on it? I *don't*
want to fly in weather, so why not limit the
training to avoiding weather? My plane will
not have VOR, RNAV, ADF, DME, etc, etc, so why
train on that? I will have 2 gps receivers and
current charts, and I'm taking my pilotage training
very seriously. All I've ever wanted to be is
a fair-weather pilot.

The 20 hour instruction requirement is, just
like a PPL, a minimum. The instructor and the
examiner won't sign you off unless you are
competent. Get rid of all the non-applicable
stuff and a 20 minimum makes sense without
sacrificing basic pilot competence.

Did I mention that LSA planes are an absolute
blast to fly? They are. Call up a dealer
and take a familiarization flight. I'm training
on a SportStar and, as I said, have a CTSW on
order. Try either one and get back to me.

Jay Beckman wrote:
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.

The Sportstar is the closest to the CT-SW that is
available for training where I live. I don't have
much experience to judge it by, but so far I find
it a delight to fly. It's really responsive and
at the same time it has a solid dependablity to
it. I did my first two takeoffs today and it leaped
into the sky at an almost fearful rate.

Well built, well equipped and suprisingly comfortable.

My instructor has mentioned a couple of times
that he would like to get his own CT-SW when
the Sportstar lease expires. So today I asked
him why. He said that the CT-SW is the best
of the LSA planes. It has quite a bit more
room than the Sportstar, goes faster, and the
high wing is not so hot as under the canopy in
the summer. Which is no small consideration
where we live.

Where are you flying?

At what was once McClelland AFB in Sacramento.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

passenger allowed? more skill required in bad weather? less reliable
powerplants?

My father just got a brand new Legend Cub. It is LSA compliant and it came
with a brand new shiny factory O-200. Tell me please how that powerplant is
less reliable than in a certified aircraft.

B A R R Y wrote:
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.

That's what I'm thinking, but I want mine really light, open and
probably amphib!

Margy