Sport Pilot ever going to happen?

Cloud_dancer wrote:

In article ET,
writes:
It's the BFI with a 2 place that has given 500 "lessons" but never
solo'd a student that is against it... why? I have no idea....

Actually, most of the real BFI's I've talked to are against it. The
reason is, if I understand it correctly, that it takes your currently
usable training aircraft and regulates it out of use in 3 years, and
forces you to buy a factory built aircraft to teach in instead. I know
that I won't be able to make that kind of financial stretch to keep on
teaching - it simply won't pay back - and resent being forced to when I
have a perfectly serviceable aircraft now. I expect most other BFI's are
in the same situation.

So in 3 years many of the current BFI's will be forced out of business.
That means fewer people to train new pilots, and more expensive training
if you can find it. It's not even clear whether many manufacturers will
even be willing to sell completed aircraft for training use, with the
potential liability issues there. So you may be forced to train in GA
aircraft and then self transition into lighter UL types. Less training
and training in a different class of aircraft than you are actually going
to fly in probably won't do good things for the accident rate. :-(

And if you buy a factory built aircraft, you can't do your own work and
repairs on it, so it has to go to an AP, again increasing costs to the
BFI, and thence to the student. Too high a cost is what has shrunk the
American flying public from about 800,000 at it's peak down to the
current 500,00 or so.

IMHO - Sport Pilot could be ok, IF they left the 2 seat training
exemption in place, and just bumped up the UL empty weight limits to 350#
for part 103 and 600# for 2 seaters under the training exemption. But as
we last saw it, it looks like it's intended to screw the current BFI's
out of existance and force all training to the existing GA CFI's. I'd
rather have what we have now than that.

Kevin


being a past BFI, I think you have it about right,

if the exemption wasn't involved, i wouldn't have read the NPRM much
less commented about it,

planes must be factory certfiied to be used as trainers, this means the
estimates from 35,000 to 60,000 would place them out of my reach as UL
trainers,

i have not heard of any US mfr commit to building one either,

the repairs would require factory parts, changing a prop would require
factory approval, or perhaps an STC

work must be done by an AnP or a person with FnAA training on that
particular plane,,,,,,,

no more replacing fuel lines or experiementing with a new regulator, the
addition of a radio, or even the removal would DE certify the ppane for
commercial use,,,,,,,

just like the real ones !!!
it sounds like a 'mini GA' plan to me,

make and model will kill most legal flying anyway, since there are
SOOOOOOOOmany makes and models, an many without two places for the
required training,,,,,,,,

again, a rule written by those who don't fly much about planes they
don't fly at all,,,,,,,,,

I just heard the FnAA pulled the rule back from OMB to avoid getting
their comments officially, which were to have sunk it at the
pier,,,,,,,,,,,,

but I have been criticized for rumor mongering, so maybe it is really
OK, and the head of the FnAA didn't say anything, and maybe the FSDOs
that broke the news at twqo safety seminars last week were jumping the
gun incorrectly ,

long live sprot,,,,,,,,,,may it rot !
--


Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620

Cloud_dancer wrote in
:

In article ET,
writes:
It's the BFI with a 2 place that has given 500 "lessons" but never
solo'd a student that is against it... why? I have no idea....

Actually, most of the real BFI's I've talked to are against it. The
reason is, if I understand it correctly, that it takes your currently
usable training aircraft and regulates it out of use in 3 years, and
forces you to buy a factory built aircraft to teach in instead. I know
that I won't be able to make that kind of financial stretch to keep on
teaching - it simply won't pay back - and resent being forced to when
I have a perfectly serviceable aircraft now. I expect most other BFI's
are in the same situation.

Yes I agree, this part is quite troubling...



So in 3 years many of the current BFI's will be forced out of
business. That means fewer people to train new pilots, and more
expensive training if you can find it. It's not even clear whether
many manufacturers will even be willing to sell completed aircraft for
training use, with the potential liability issues there. So you may be
forced to train in GA aircraft and then self transition into lighter
UL types. Less training and training in a different class of aircraft
than you are actually going to fly in probably won't do good things
for the accident rate. :-(

Another part of the NPRM talks about having to train in a smaller,
slower aircraft first than transition to the larger faster aircraft... I
dunno how this will be resolved, but I expect some of this has already
been changed... we shall see.. hopefully soon.


And if you buy a factory built aircraft, you can't do your own work
and repairs on it, so it has to go to an AP, again increasing costs to
the BFI, and thence to the student. Too high a cost is what has shrunk
the American flying public from about 800,000 at it's peak down to the
current 500,00 or so.

Hrm, I know you can take a course for 2 levels of maint for LSA, I dunno
about the differing requirements for trainers though.



IMHO - Sport Pilot could be ok, IF they left the 2 seat training
exemption in place, and just bumped up the UL empty weight limits to
350# for part 103 and 600# for 2 seaters under the training
exemption. But as we last saw it, it looks like it's intended to screw
the current BFI's out of existance and force all training to the
existing GA CFI's. I'd rather have what we have now than that.

Kevin


It is my expectation (although I cannot back this expectation up with
any facts whatsoever)..., that the planned obsolesence of these trainers
may be overturned, either by the final rule or an amendment later on....

Most of my focus in sport pilot is on the new class of license created,
rather than the restrictions on existing UL's that are imposed. For me,
I expect it will allow me to get a SP lic for "about" half the cost of a
PPL and fly pretty much the way I would use a PPL anyway.... For my
father, who bought a high doller plane, only to have a minor medical
event that cause him to have to quit flying less than 30 days later :-(
it's an opportunity to fly, period.

I believe OMB's 90 days was yesterday.... of course we would have all
fallen over dead in surprise if they had acted within the deadline...


--
ET


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

In article ET,
writes:

Another part of the NPRM talks about having to train in a smaller,
slower aircraft first than transition to the larger faster aircraft... I
dunno how this will be resolved, but I expect some of this has already
been changed... we shall see.. hopefully soon.

That's one problem, past a certain point, we have had *no* visibility to
what has been kept or changed. The rule the OMB is balking over may not
closely resemble the rule as we last saw it.

And for starting LSA pilots, the idea was start in a small slow plane and
work up. But for UL pilots, who will have to solo slow, light, single
seat part103 aircraft - if there are no two seat trainers of that type -
how will they learn? My two seat Hawk flies much like a single seat
version, but neither fly much like a cub or champ, which might be the
closest aircraft type available to train in. We still have to have a
mechanism to train part 103 pilots, but the new rules effectively outlaw
the pool of training planes.

I don't mind creating a new upscale class of aircraft and somewhat
'better' (read 'more expensively') trained pools of certified pilots. I
*do* mind breaking a system that has been working well for a number of
years for the separate UL community. Killing the training exemption is a
stake in the heart of the UL community. Where's the corresponding gain
that makes that worthwhile?

So called "FAT UL's" ultralights have not proven to be a problem. In many
ways they are fat because the pilots wanted them safer - things like
decent horsepower engines, brakes, enough fuel not to run out just
puddling around for an hour, etc. Personally, I refuse to fly in an
aircraft that weighs less than I do! :-) The FAA has looked the other
way, because generally speaking, it hasn't been an issue. And also
because the FAA's original target weight was 500 lbs, but they got talked
down to 254 by some vendors who wanted to capture the market by setting
the limit just above their build weights. If/When Sport Pilot goes
through, the indications are that they will start enforcing 254/5gal more
vigorously - which is going to be a problem for about 80 percent of the
fleet of currently flying aircraft. That's going to break a much larger
part of a system that has been working well for years. Where's the gain
that makes *that* worthwhile?



And if you buy a factory built aircraft, you can't do your own work
and repairs on it, so it has to go to an AP, again increasing costs to
the BFI, and thence to the student. Too high a cost is what has shrunk
the American flying public from about 800,000 at it's peak down to the
current 500,00 or so.

Hrm, I know you can take a course for 2 levels of maint for LSA, I dunno
about the differing requirements for trainers though.

From what I can see, a training airplane has to be serviced by an AP. $$$
And they probably don't know as much about servicing my Hawk as I do.
Hell, I'm not sure I can fly into our fancy county airport where the AP's
are based without getting insurance to make the county manager happy. I'd
have to find an AP who makes housecalls. That's not gonna be cheap. And
they may not want the liability of working on that class of unfamiliar
aircraft. What if I can't find an AP who will service my plane? Do the
new rules *compel* AP's to work on UL's? I doubt it.


It is my expectation (although I cannot back this expectation up with
any facts whatsoever)..., that the planned obsolesence of these trainers
may be overturned, either by the final rule or an amendment later on....

That's my hope also, but generally speaking, whenever the government
'helps' me, I lose. EIther money or rights, and usually both, I lose. So
I don't have high hopes.


Most of my focus in sport pilot is on the new class of license created,
rather than the restrictions on existing UL's that are imposed.

But then it's "I got mine" at the expense of all those other folks who
were here before you. Eye's on the prize, and the heck with who gets
trampled in the process? :-)

Again, I don't mind them creating a new class. I very much mind them
breaking the ones that already exist. There are a lot more UL and fat UL
pilots at risk than the number of new LSA's who will be created. Look at
the recreational pilot license - there's how many of those, a few
hundred? Worth breaking the UL system as it works now for say 2000-3000
new pilots who could achieve much of what they want now just flying under
a loosely enforced part 103? Not in my book.



For me,
I expect it will allow me to get a SP lic for "about" half the cost of a
PPL and fly pretty much the way I would use a PPL anyway.... For my
father, who bought a high doller plane, only to have a minor medical
event that cause him to have to quit flying less than 30 days later :-(
it's an opportunity to fly, period.

He could fly a UL, either part 103 legal or a 'fat' one. Many of the UL
pilots in the air today either got medical'd out, or priced out, of GA
and have moved to UL's in response. If it's a high dollar airplane, it's
probably something more complicated or heavier/faster than a champ or cub
class anyway, and won't be available to him under LSA privileges. If it's
not, then a UL will give him a similar performance envelope at much lower
cost. And with a lot less fuss.


I believe OMB's 90 days was yesterday.... of course we would have all
fallen over dead in surprise if they had acted within the deadline...

And isn't that just an eloquent comment on the quality of government and
it's systems. We don't even expect it to obey the rules any more, and
would be surprised if they did.

Kevin

For those wishing to read the latest Sport Pilot Temporairy Proposal Retract
by the FAA, go to
http://www.eaa.org/communications/ea...040325_sp.html

Bart

"Ron" no one @home.com wrote in message
...
Current online message from EAA :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FAA TEMPORARILY RETRACTS SPORT PILOT PROPOSAL
Action Allows FAA to Answer OMB Questions


March 25, 2004 - FAA Administrator Marion Blakey ordered an
administrative move on Wednesday, March 24, that keeps the sport
pilot/light-sport aircraft rule on track for final approval this spring.
She
withdrew the proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
answer several final questions about the rulemaking package.
That maneuver saves the rule from facing a potential significant
delay
in its approval. By bringing the proposal back to FAA, Blakey can address
OMB's questions in the most expeditious manner and return it quickly for
final approval. FAA will return the rulemaking package directly to OMB
without another complete review by the Department of Transportation.

March 24 marked the end of OMB's 90-day review period. Had FAA not
retracted the rule, OMB could have rejected it, severely delaying issuance
of a final rule.

While expressing disappointment in the 11th-hour development, EAA
President Tom Poberezny commended FAA's decision and acknowledged it as
the
best way for the agency to address OMB's questions and secure a final rule
as quickly as possible.

"This is a temporary timing setback," he said. "EAA continues to
champion and support the sport pilot/light-sport aircraft rule, as
evidenced
by the considerable resources we've dedicated to developing programs and
services for our members, including the introduction this week of EAA
Sport
Pilot & Light-Sport Aircraft magazine." Poberezny also noted an upcoming
announcement regarding a major sport pilot and instructor training
program.

FAA officials confirmed to EAA that answering OMB's questions about
the proposed rule is a top priority.





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Gilan" wrote in message
.net...

Only 24 days, 1 hours, 56 minutes, and 59 seconds left until Sun n Fun
I wonder if Sport Pilot will ever come out???

--
You may be an Ultralighter if........
http://www.flyinggators.com/news/Bill%20Cook/Bill.htm

--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

For me,
I expect it will allow me to get a SP lic for "about" half the cost of a
PPL and fly pretty much the way I would use a PPL anyway.... For my
father, who bought a high doller plane, only to have a minor medical
event that cause him to have to quit flying less than 30 days later :-(
it's an opportunity to fly, period.

He could fly a UL, either part 103 legal or a 'fat' one. Many of the UL
pilots in the air today either got medical'd out, or priced out, of GA
and have moved to UL's in response. If it's a high dollar airplane, it's
probably something more complicated or heavier/faster than a champ or cub
class anyway, and won't be available to him under LSA privileges. If it's
not, then a UL will give him a similar performance envelope at much lower
cost. And with a lot less fuss.


I believe OMB's 90 days was yesterday.... of course we would have all
fallen over dead in surprise if they had acted within the deadline...

And isn't that just an eloquent comment on the quality of government and
it's systems. We don't even expect it to obey the rules any more, and
would be surprised if they did.

Kevin



There is a considerable difference between an UL and a SP aircraft
performance. 130+mph flying can get you most anywhere which I would not
even try in an UL. I lost my medical and am working to get it back now
(probably will) but it is a hastle. It would be a lot more convienient to
go the SP route with the drivers license medical than going through annual
expensive testing/paperwork to maintain a medical than is dictated by a
bunch of old school government doctors.

John

So does anybody know how long it will be retracted before it goes back
to the OMB? Also, will it go to the OMB where it left off or will
they get another 90 days?

Dennis.


"SadlerVampire18" wrote:

For those wishing to read the latest Sport Pilot Temporairy Proposal Retract
by the FAA, go to
http://www.eaa.org/communications/ea...040325_sp.html

Bart

Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

I read about another concern with the Sport Pilot. Home land security is
worried about "fat" ultralights being used by terrorists. Another knee jerk
reaction by the feds that haven't a clue and want to keep their "fat"
salaries.


wrote in message
...

So does anybody know how long it will be retracted before it goes back
to the OMB? Also, will it go to the OMB where it left off or will
they get another 90 days?

Dennis.


"SadlerVampire18" wrote:

For those wishing to read the latest Sport Pilot Temporairy Proposal
Retract
by the FAA, go to
http://www.eaa.org/communications/ea...040325_sp.html

Bart

Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

Especially considering that a fat ultralight would do little more than
be a bug splat on a skyscraper's window.

Dennis H.

"Cy Galley" wrote:

I read about another concern with the Sport Pilot. Home land security is
worried about "fat" ultralights being used by terrorists. Another knee jerk
reaction by the feds that haven't a clue and want to keep their "fat"
salaries.

Dennis Hawkins
n4mwd AT amsat DOT org (humans know what to do)

"A RECESSION is when you know somebody who is out of work.
A DEPRESSION is when YOU are out of work.
A RECOVERY is when all the H-1B's are out of work."

To find out what an H-1B is and how Congress is using
them to put Americans out of work, visit the following
web site and click on the "Exporting America" CNN news
video: http://zazona.com/ShameH1B/MediaClips.htm

"www.JimWilliamson.net" wrote in message
...
"Skyking" wrote:
No, I haven't heard of any GA comment against
Sport..
Most of the negative Sport people are pure ULers.
Many don't want to loose the 2 place exemption.

Hey, it's too late for official comment anyway.

If you would, clue me in on something. I consider myself a pure UL'er -
103 is not going away is it? If not why as a pure ul'er would I care?

I am somewhat interested in moving to SP when it happens tho.

Thanks,
Jim

No, 103 isn't going away but the 2 place training exemption is going away if
Sport becomes reality.

Please don't misunderstand, I was not making pro or con statement about
Sport, just speculating on who
the Anti-Sport group consisted of. I did use the
wrong label when I said pure ULer because I was
referring to the "Outlaw ULers".

All that we can do is wait because I believe even
Congress bows to OMB.

Skyking

....Or a great way to deliver Bio-Chemical Warfare agents, Dirty
Bombs.....etc.

Don't think the Feds collectively are not nervous about all these
unregistered airplane thingies...

Bart


wrote in message
...

Especially considering that a fat ultralight would do little more than
be a bug splat on a skyscraper's window.

Dennis H.

"Cy Galley" wrote: