What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Post a Commment to the FAA on Sport Pilot training.

The sport pilot concept has been a failure. However, I do agree with the proposed changes in the link provided.
 
The concept is not a failure, it is the lack of instructors and available aircraft rentals that keep it from growing. I am wanting to start training soon. There are two local flight schools, one of them highly discouraged me from sport pilot and pushed private lessons. I could not even get a discovery flight in their light sport plane, only in their 172. The other did not show any intrest when I went in, they seem to be intrested in only training full time students. The failure seems to be more a lack of support in the GA community than a flawed concept.
 
I strongly disagree with the premise that the sport pilot cert is a failure of a program. I am a fairly newly minted sport pilot and RV-12 builder. I have no desire to fly at night and really don't want to carry the whole family in a plane so one passenger works fine. I flew a Gobosh 700 up to Oshkosh this year in a flight of two with three of the pilots being sport pilots. It was a great experience. I trained at a flight school in Denver that specializes in LSA's and sport pilot certs. They do PPL as well but they have 6 LSA's in two locations in the Denver area. These planes are all near to new and in great shape with highly modern avionics. Our SP students and pilots hold their own every day at Centennial airport, one of the busiest GA airports in the U.S.

My instructor was awesome with no pressure to do PPL if I didn't want to. At the same time, she is a CFII with well over 2000 hours and probably close to 900 in LSA's. So I got exposed to the level of PPL training I wanted and even did some night flying with her as well as some VOR training. If I choose to go PPL, I will finish with her and the same school, they have been awesome.

Carl
 
AOPA was against Sport Pilot from the very beginning. They thought the old Recreational Pilot rating was good enough, and if you could not get a medical you should not be able to fly. Now they submit a petition to modify the rules? Seems to me they should have put more effort in designing and crafting the rules to begin with rather than standing in the way to try and stop it.

I agree, sport pilot is a success. AOPA is the only failure I can see.

Without EAA, Sport Pilot would have never gotten off the ground. There would be no RV-12, and you must always have a 3rd class medical to fly.
 
Last edited:
From what I've seen, both Joe and Carl are correct...but so's Ron. It's surely fair to say that - so far - the SP license is an all but still-borne initiative. (The SP licenses issued over the past 6+ years are only a few thousand in number). And Joe's description of how potential SP students are treated at many flight schools is spot on. If in doubt, prowl thru the threads at sportpilottalk.com. There are not many schools with LSA training a/c in large parts of the U.S. - not at all like Carl's description of Denver - and many schools and instructors are not embracing the SP curriculum (less financial incentive probably plays a role in these tough times). There is often a pejorative ('not invented here') view of the whole SP/LSA concept at these schools, and because the S-LSA's chosen by schools for instruction are often of the 'high end' type (because the 'training centers' are retailers for that brand of S-LSA), hourly rates remain expensive. It's all a real shame given that GA needs new students of all stripes, let alone for us older pilots to stick around under SP rules without a medical.

Over here at VAF, we're spoiled with the hearty dialogue about & and the visible, commercial success of the RV-12. Most folks don't realize that, in the time the -12 kits have been available, it has sold in almost the same numbers as ALL 120 approved S-LSA models in the USA, combined.

But back to Mike's entry post: There's a bias, I suppose, that anything that makes GA enticing will serve a higher purpose and should be supported. But I'm not so sure this 'count all hours' approach fits the nature of the instruction some SP students are receiving...or the quality of instruction some CFIS's (SP CFI's) are providing. IMO the FAA isn't incorrect when they stated in their July, 2009 letter of interpretation that:
"...allowing time logged with an instructor with a sport pilot rating to count toward a private pilot certificate would be ?the functional equivalent of permitting that instructor to provide flight training for the issuance of the private pilot certificate.?
It's hard to fault their logic, even if you don't like the consequences of their interpretation.

Write the letter? Before supporting (or opposing) such an initiative, it might be a good idea to become familiar with what's happening out there with your local SP training facility.

Jack
 
One Experience

Here's one person's experience. Here in central Indiana flight training of ANY kind is just about dead. Airports that used to be busy don't even have FBOs anymore. Rentals are a hit or miss proposition. So I started asking around about interest in sport pilot training and rentals. The interest was immediate and repeated both by existing pilots and new people who "always wanted to learn to fly" and were intrigued when I described what they could do as sport pilots.

So I did a whole lot of research and planning to start a SP club -- Midwest Sport Fliers Association. Went so far as to create the legal entity.

Then ran into the reality of getting a loan and putting a $140,000 plane on the line for club rentals at a price point that my admittedly home grown research seemed to show that pilots would support. I could have done it, but it never looked to be more than a marginal proposition financially and in the end I just felt like I couldnt take the risk. If i could have put one or two RV-12s out for rental as club planes it might have worked but as well know that isn't legal.

So I tend to agree that the concept has merit. The supply of planes and instructors isn't there. It would take a major marketing push to sell the concept and then to build viable flying clubs around the concept.

So, I tend to agree that
 
I am a Sport Pilot by Choice, and this is also why i am actively putting together an LSA only flight school in AZ, I can no longer find a plane to rent.
 
"According to www.bydanjohnson.com there are 2086 FAA registrations of the 120 approved S-LSA's."

Yup, but that's total S-LSA sales to date in the USA from 2005 forward (including a few 'good years' before the GFC), not total sales for the period the RV-12 kits have been available. (In pre-GFC 2007 alone, 720 S-LSA sales were registered). Also, let's remember that DJ's market data reflects registrations when a distributor or retailer takes delivery. We don't know what the current unsold S-LSA inventory is, but with 120 models being marketed it must be significant.

It appears Vans has been shipping RV-12 kits for ~ 3 years (http://vansaircraft.com/public/rv-12int1.htm). Total S-LSA sales from August, 2008 thru June, 2011 nationwide is 657, not all that far ahead of RV-12 sales alone (tho' Vans numbers include international sales, I believe). If you noticed in Ranier's comments today in another thread, even a single S-LSA builder in South Africa (The Airplane Factory) is selling at least as many S-LSA's, on a per capita basis, as all the USA S-LSA resellers are managing (50 Sling-2 sales in less than one year for a (less affluent) country population of 50 million).

Despite its promise - and therefore its potential for contributing to a healthier (or at least less ill) GA industry as a whole - both the SP license and LSA marketplace have been really struggling to find a foothold in our country. And with a very small number of (SP/LSA) training a/c available, it's hard to see how this is going to change significantly in the short term.

When viewed from this perspective, Vans' RV-12 sales is really quite extraordinary.

Jack
 
Last edited:
Sport is a Failure

You can thank Uncle Sugar for the lack of "Sport" aircraft available for you to train with. While you're talking to him, ask him why he decided to cut the Sport eligibility line just short of the Cessna 150. Maybe you could also ask him for some financial assistance on that $100000.00+ loan you need to buy your new Sport plane....the same plane you might have bought for a third or maybe a quarter of the cost of the one you've got your eye on today. Oh, and don't think he gave you the drivers license medical choice because he's a nice guy. He gave that one up to quell the massive resistance to Sport from the renegade "Fat" Ultralight boys. Sorry, but Sport, like Recreational, has never really taken off, nor will it, and will eventually die on the bud despite all the cheerleaders still out there singing it's praises. The good old days, the days before Sport were special. Lots on innovation and experimentation, new materials, new techniques, and lots of people everywhere having fun flying, all gone. Thanks for the memories.
 
A couple more thoughts on SP

I guess I see a point of LSA's being expensive at ~100-200K a piece. That is for a new aircraft though. Compare this to new GA planes. I see the attractiveness of the C-150 if it were allowed but you are talking a fairly old aircraft right? I am not saying that everyone can afford the new LSA price tag. There are however used LSA's just starting to hit the market now and prices are coming down for those. This was part of my reason for building the RV-12. It allows me to get a new LSA for a reasonable price. Would I like it to be cheaper.. sure.

As for the segment being dead. I just don't agree. I see new excited SP students on a regular basis. I have friends who initially said but those aren't real airplanes. Well flying to Oshkosh in a not real aircraft sure was a great experience. Once there I walked through the LSA mall and homebuilders LSA vendors booths and saw very crowded areas. I can't say for sure how many planes they sold but they had a large number of people climbing through their planes. My personal favorites are still the Van's and RANS varieties but all the vendors I saw were quite busy. I volunteered to work the booth for our sport aviation club at the Rocky Mountain Air Show this past weekend and we had numerous people coming by to talk about getting their SP certs. These ranged from kids with their parents wondering how old they had to be to get started, to middle age folks to older GA pilots. Literally as soon as I landed in the Gobosh 700, I had people approaching the plane to ask me what it was, how it flew, how they could get into SP. I was actually sort of taken aback as I spent the first 30 mins at the show answering these questions. These were not just "old" guys out of their medicals either. We had a Piper Sport at the booth and had constant traffic looking at that plane. There is a plane with a beautiful view from the cockpit, glass avionics, autopilot and a ballistic recovery chute.

I know I don't have the experience of SP and LSA for the whole country but based on OSH and my experiences, I see quite a bit of interest in the space.

Carl
 
Please read post 1.

The idea here is to get folks to post a comment on the site linked in the first post--------
 
Maybe the reason for lack of training facilities is the economic situation here in the US. Surely it's having an impact. Many training schools have been struggling for years. Unless I am reading the wrong data new pilots numbers have been in decline for some time. For my part I would guess that another reason is the school operator's are thinking what the heck most LSA pilots are licsenced private pilots swinging to LSA for economy of build, operation, and the absence of the 3rd class medical, and guess what(?) they already know how to fly. Apparently there are not a lot of youngsters out there who want LSA training when they can just go for the Private Pilot. I personally believe LSA is a good thing and is here to stay, but I don't see it creating a burgoning growth market in general aviation. More likely it is a shift from one type of aircraft to another within the existing market.
Dick Seiders
 
Mike,

I sense a hesitancy to do so. Part of it may be Larry's point, AOPA and GAMA have a different agenda than most of us. Yes, we would all like to see it easier and cheaper to gain flying credentials. AOPA and GAMA are dependent upon future Commercial/ATP's etc to survive. Most of us simply want to fly either a quality ELSA such as the RV12 or the higher performance RV's. A sport pilot license or private will take care of that.
AOPA and GAMA and NAFI want to promote the higher ratings etc to allow them to sell the King-Airs and Citations that appear so often in AOPA Pilot. The EAA is our lobbyist and while they support this endeavor as well, I don't remember anyone in the beginning promoting it as a "pre-logged hours" stepping stone to the higher certificates. Now they are making a back door attempt to say it was accidentally left out. In fact, the "expensive" aircraft sales business has a dim future. And lack of qualified pilots in the future has not been overlooked. If this is the extent of their innovation, they are in big trouble. As Jack mentioned, Van's has had no problem selling RV12's (and they aren't cheap) because they took advantage of the ELSA opportunity. Has any other manufacturer made any attempt to follow their successful lead...of course not. No, the LSA program has not failed, the demand is obviously there...the equipment is not.
AOPA, GAMA and NAFI need to come up with another program to further their ends.

Pete
 
Back to post #1

It matters not whether you learn to fly and solo in an ultralight or a Bonanza.

Landing an airplane is basically the same for my -10 or an Airbus. The landing flare and the principle thereof, don't distinguish between airplanes, except carrier landings/impacts:)

Making level flight 360's all require the same basic techniques, regardless of which airplane it is.

So yes, the time spent acquiring a Sport Pilot's license should absolutely be counted toward higher ratings.

Best,
 
We ALL benefit

It matters not whether you learn to fly and solo in an ultralight or a Bonanza.

Landing an airplane is basically the same for my -10 or an Airbus. The landing flare and the principle thereof, don't distinguish between airplanes, except carrier landings/impacts:)

Making level flight 360's all require the same basic techniques, regardless of which airplane it is.

So yes, the time spent acquiring a Sport Pilot's license should absolutely be counted toward higher ratings.

Best,

Pierre hit the nail on the head. And following on that. For the guy (gal) who becomes a sport pilot... why should they have to start over and pay for 40 more hours of flight training. Let them build on what they have learned. Develop a transition curriculum that takes everything learned and add the required PPL components.

Ultimately I don't care if they go on to fly a shiny jet. I want to do anything I can to support ALL of aviation so that a system continues to exist so that I get to fly. They will get my affirmative comments.

DJ
 
Agree DJ - What's the difference in taking 25 hours of instruction in a C-152 with a 250 hr CFI or taking 25 hours of instruction in a Skycatcher with a CFI-S? Answer - the CFI had to have an IFR rating and a Commercial and 10 hours in a Piper Arrow before he could start teaching in the 152. Don't see that as a big enough advantage to require the CFI-S's student to start all over.
 
Back
Top