Slashdot Mirror
FAA Approves Sport Pilot License
"Light-Sport airplanes will be limited in size and power: maximum weight 1,320 pounds, maximum two seats, maximum airspeed 120 knots, single non-turbine engine, fixed landing gear. If it's a Light-Sport, it should be one of the easiest planes to fly."
This has the potential to dramatically increase the number of people owning and flying planes. Not only is it easier for a person to become a Sport Pilot, it is easier and cheaper for a company to sell a Light-Sport airplane. (For years, people have been building "kit" airplanes just so they will fall under the looser "homebuilt" rules. Now, there will be no need to build a plane unless you actually want to do so.) Several airplane companies have promised to produce Light-Sport planes that will cost no more than a luxury car."
I've seen photos of light (half-ton or less) planes that have hit buildings. Even in the case of small office buildings, they generally stick like a raisin in bread. I've seen worse done by cars & trucks hitting buildings; they weigh more.
good luck bouncing off of buildings with your propeller-powered parachute.
I'm imagining the high rise parking of the future.
Why do we need licenses at all for light sport planes? There have been light sport planes on the market for years.
-- SKYKING, SKYKING, DO NOT ANSWER.
How long before we see F22 Raptor mods for the garage built kit plane ? (I say F22 because the first Enterprise or X-Wing/TIE mod attempts will likely see a Darwin award winner)
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
...now we'll have wave upon wave of ultralights smearing themselves ineffectively across the sides of NYC skyscrapers.
Who knows, this may cause thousands of dollars of damages to our nation's economy through skyrocketing window cleaning costs.
As for fears that small planes might be used to carry weapons of mass destruction, I can't imagine any hostile states currently having the technology to produce a nuke weighing under a ton. I have a mental image of a fanatic-piloted sport plane hopping along a runway, frantically trying to get airborne despite the huge black ovoid labelled "ACME BOMB" in bright red letters, before plummeting dramatically off the side of a cliff. "Allah Ackbar, take off you piece of s***!" *Boom*
Wile E. Coyote, eat your little heart out.
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
I don't know, after making it easier for people to fly the small, non-dangerous type of planes, maybe it will be made *much* harder to learn to fly the big ones...
"Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-my-own-Grandpa." - Dr Hubert Farnsworth
Terrorists fly planes, not you
"-Who said sit down?!"
-- S. Ballmer @ MSDC 2003.
It is nice that the FAA is going to treat ultralights in a more formal way, but then I am not sure it is a good thing. Now I must have a licence to fly them, where as before you just hoped on one and Up, Up and Away.
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
Another good overview can be found at http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID= 65261609-3814-42c0-979d-a77f9b8c10f8&
This new category bridges the gap between the relatively uncontrolled (US) ultralights and the standard airplane. If I understand correctly (correct me If I'm wrong), it may allow European 'ultralights' (which can be larger than their US cousins) to be flown in the US without meeting all the standard airplane rules.
I sometimes wonder how did certain people managed to get their driver's licence at all.. and most importantly, from WHO ;-) I just shiver at the thought that pilot license could be obtained much easier from now on.. I know people who I wouldn't give the license to use a computer, yet alone something else, with much more devastating crashing effect.
*sigh*
But the brighter side is ofcourse, no more flat tires, unless someone manages to get one while landing/taking-off.
My flying car has been sat in the impound since I was caught flying without a license!
liqbase
It seems to me that the article is making a distinction between sport-light and ultralight. As far as I knew, you never needed any kind of license at all for an ultralight. Are sport-light planes in a class heavier than ultralight?
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
How many people can fly in an aircraft built to these specifications? I know a few years back I took a flight with a friend in his Ultralight (sp?) and he had a lot harder time getting it off the ground (we both way around 150 pounds) than he usually did.
"(d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or (e) If powered: (1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation;"
Certification:
"(a) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of aircraft or their parts or equipment, ultralight vehicles and their component parts and equipment are not required to meet the airworthiness certification standards specified for aircraft or to have certificates of air-worthiness."
no deathstar?
This oughtta be cool if you want to add a little more fun to wardriving. Easy medical tests should allow every geek to get a license like this, grab a fellow geek, and start flying around the city, just surfing the web :)
What exactly is Light sport plane?
Any picture available? ( None on the article )
Why does yahoo do this
> just so they will fall under the *loser* "homebuilt" rules.
I was about to complain about the editorializing in the article summary until I realized that I should probably be wearing my glasses.
heh...
The FAA tried something like this years ago with the Recreational Pilot Certificate - however, the requirements were almost the same as the full private (still need a full class 3 medical, nearly as many hours needed to qualify), and the rec. license was 'crippled' in features compared to the full private. It was hardly surprising that almost no one bothered with it.
On the second attempt, they seem to have got it right. The class of plane the Sport Pilot license addresses are non-complex, easily maintained and things happen slowly enough that even very green pilots shouldn't have a hard time handling them. Over-regulation has been killing general aviation for years so let's hope this gives the recreational end of it a good boost.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
From the pilots I've talked to, flying any plane is cake during VFR.
It's the take off and landing that's somewhat challenging.
Since the previous terrorists didn't worry about taking off, and the landing didn't have to be perfect, I don't think it really required much special skill.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I wish more states would follow this trend in the other direction with cars. I remember renewing my license at 21, the lady asked me to read the 2nd or 3rd line down in the eye chart, no prob, done. Expecting her to ask me to read the next line, or maybe a few down, she says thanks and stamps off my renewal. wow.
That is all the better I have to see to be licensed to drive a 3500 pound automobile that will go 165 mph? In the Army, when I got my hummer license, at least they made me take a test that measured my reaction times and depth perception.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
...dirigble, blimp, etc.
I don't know, after making it easier for people to fly the small, non-dangerous type of planes, maybe it will be made *much* harder to learn to fly the big ones...
Probably not. All planes operate on the same general principles; if you learn to fly on a small plane with yoke and pedals, it wouldn't be too hard to translate that up to an airliner (that's what the 9/11 terrorists did).
The only effect that I can see from making it more difficult to get a commercial multi-engine rating would be less pilots for the industry, and therefore higher ticket prices.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
I know that ultralights, balloons and blimps fall under this category, per the AOPA Online Regulatory Brief, but what about the other types?
I am interested in seeing what the designs look like...
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
In Europe, the medical requirements (JAR-FCL) are horrible. You need to be superman to be allowed even the most simple license. I've been fighting the rules for some years now. One requirement is that there can no be more than 5 dioptry between both eyes. My left eye is slightly over +5 and my right eye is normal. Although my optometrist has confirmed that my vision is normal and my stereopsis is normal, I'm out. If my right eye would get worse to, say, +2, I would be allowed to fly.
One other issue that needs adressing is anti depressants. I'm not sure if this new law covers anti depressants in the US, but I know there's talk about legalising their usage for pilots. Many modern antidepressants cause no threat to your flying abbilities. What does cause a threat is pilots flying around with untreated depressions because they will be grounded if they seek help. I've been on paxil for over 5 years and I never ever noticed any change in my abbilities to fly or drive.
Really, these regulations should be relaxed. I accept being picky about choosing people to fly +400 people airliners, but please leave people alone who want to have some fun in a tiny 152.
Being a private pilot myself, I can see why one wants to reduce costs. It does take an awful lot of both money and time to get a PPL. However, never forget that flying can be very unforgiving if you do something you shouldn't. I just hope that what little requirements are left, are rigid enough to not cause danger to others. _ /Bjorn.
The FAA and aviation community has made access to aviation too costly for most people. The cost of mandated repairs/upgrades/maintenance and the cost of licensing really is prohibitive and limits the market for aircraft. A new class of less regulated, easier to maintain planes and easier to get licenses would go a long way towards ending this problem... Even a two seat puddle jumper with a 200 MPH speed and 600 mile range would be a huge improvement over the car.
-- $G
I'm not talking from personal knowledge, just piecing together what I think I've heard, but ... Before this new class was invented, wouldn't these craft have fit under the 'ultralight' heading, which does not require licensing?
Could this be intended to help HomeSec track these "potential weapon" vehicles?
Here I come.
Seriously, the E.III and D.VIII made with modern construction techniques and materials would make a wonderful basis for this catagory of aeroplane.
White silk scarf optional.
KFG
It's Light sport propeller-powered parachute, you insensitive clod.
The training goes sometning like this:
If you push the stick forward, the houses get bigger. If you pull the stick back they get smaller. If you keep pulling the stick for too long, they get bigger really fast!
This is a welcome move as many enthusiasts who have their own small planes will be able to use them. The regulation also mentions specifics as to valid requirements for flight instructors,air worthiness et al. This should spill over to countries like india where sports aviation is at a nascent state.
This is good news for people like me who used to fly but had to give up our licenses due to overly restrictive Third Class Medical requirements.
...
I know there will be lot's of critics here, all spouting off about 9/11, but that's nonsense. Flying a small aircraft into a target does not cause similar damage. That was proven shortly after 9/11 when a teenager in Florida killed himself after trying to duplicate the events of 9/11, and it was a bigger plane than what is permitted by this new class of license.
As for using it to carry a bomb, another criticism frequently heard, this also is of no merit. The original World Trade Center attack was done with explosives in a van, similar to the Oklahoma City event. You can bring an explosive in a briefcase as well, possibly even a small nuclear device. You don't need an aircraft for that.
Finally, passing legislation allowing the FAA to oversee ultralights is a good thing. Previously, it was self regulated, with almost nothing in the FAR about them. This now allows the agency to oversee safety where there was previously no one there to do so. This may be bad, as well as good, because the FAA is not known for its speed when it comes to certification, but will help the general aviation industry and sport pilots in the long run.
As for pilot training for terrorists, I don't see anyone chasing after Microsoft for Flight Simulator
Yes airship as in US Airships International
the licence to kill...
I also wonder if health insurance companies will treat sport pilots differently. My insurance specifically excludes flights in private aircraft that aren't scheduled commercial carriers. Would insurance companies start covering this if lots people begin to use it?
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
...And in an apparent act of copycat terrorism, the Polish Terrorist Organization has hijacked the Goodyear blimp. They have been bouncing off buildings in downtown Manhatten for the past 2 hours.
- "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
No. He wasn't.
Nor was his crash in any way due to the "flimsyness" of his aircraft. It stemmed primarily from pilot error before he left the ground.
He was so anxious to fly his new plane that he did not do a proper preflight to familiarize himself with it.
Anxiousness to get home is probably the number one killer of general aviation pilots.
KFG
I'm a private pilot with about ~100 hours. From what I've seen, a huge percentage of pilots in the air today could have benefitted from *more* training, not less.
Sad, but this will increase the accident rate in an activity that is already screwed over fairly substantially by the insurance industry. Not to mention that the rest of us pilots are at greater risk flying around already crowded skies with folks with less training. Yikes.
Pilots (which I assume you are) need to take their superiority complex down a notch. Really, you're no better than anyone else, on the ground or the sky.
And getting your license may not be "really that difficult", but it's also not really that affordable either.
Great, now the skies will be full of bloated fuel-guzzling monstrosities that somehow barely manage to scrape inside the rules that define their category, driven by cellphone-using mothers flying a quarter of a mile to drop their kid off at daycare!
... used market, like does a cessna 150 qualify? Any pilots off the top of their head care to run a short list of planes that might qualify for this new license? Reason I am asking is I might have cheap/free access to one........ ;)
Side note, I always thought those one seater crop duster type planes would make nice small planes for joe cheap user, because the tanks that normally hold the spray could be modded into just a decent sized fuel tank, giving good flying range.
This should allow the Moller Skycar to be flown without a full license now.
And there already was something like this in Canada. I could have got it starting at fourteen, and been flying by myself by now. I chose to wait until next summer, when I'll be 16, to start on the actual private pilots license. Why, you ask? Because I'll invariably want to move up to the next level (I'm even considering an aviaton career). Flying is so fun that this is like the free sample of crack given by a drug dealer.
Or you could say overly demanding wives are the number one killer of gen. aviation pilots.
"Where were you? You said you'd be back an hour ago. That plane does 150 knots and you can't make it back for dinner on time?" Heck, I'd rather die than live like that, too.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Too lazy to create a sig...
Pilots (which I assume you are) need to take their superiority complex down a notch. Really, you're no better than anyone else, on the ground or the sky.
I beg to differ. I would argue that anyone who can pass his private pilot training is statistically less likely to kill himself and others while piloting an airplane. In that sense, pilots are "better". If you're talking about "better" in some other context, go play that game with someone else since you're obviously trolling.
And getting your license may not be "really that difficult", but it's also not really that affordable either.
I'm all for making it more affordable. Making it substantially less safe is not the right solution to that problem.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
It sounds like enabling legislation for a new category of Darwin Awards: Ex-Sport Pilot.
Planes in the sport pilot category will actually be stronger than airliners - IIRC, airliners are only certified for +2.5G loading, I believe sport planes will usually be in the 'utility' category - certified to +4.2G.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Well, I would argue that he was killed by poor instrument panel design.
The fuel tank switch was behind him. He had to turn around to switch from one fuel tank to the other. While doing so, his plane went in a nose dive.
Who here hasn't looked in the back seat while driving and swerved off the road? Same thing.
Now, you could argue that he should have known how to turn around and switch fuel tanks better, ie familiarize himself, but to me, there's a clear responsibility of the plane manufacturer to make sure obvious accidents such as these are at least minimized.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
IAHGP? (I am a hang glider pilot)
The US Hang Gliding Association (USHGA) had/has many concerns regarding the sport pilot program. Currently, hang glider and paraglider pilots fly under FAA part 103 which grants very liberal self-regulation to these pilots. One concern is that the sport pilot license is the beginning of the end to self-regulated hang glider/paraglider flight. The other problem is that it add stricter regulation for tow-parks such as Kitty Hawk Kites who tow hang gliders, which might hurt these outfits since they already have a tough time making money. There's also an often-ignored group of powered hang-glider's and powered paragliders that are like ultra-ultralights (sometimes <100lbs), who typically fly unregulated who may now need to have a sport pilot license, along with annual flight inspections, etc. That's a pain for something that fits in your trunk.
It is a double-edged sword, because some of these above groups fell into loopholes in the regulations, so the FAA's handling of thse groups may determine if the sport pilot license is a good thing or a bad thing.
The original builder of the aircraft decided he didn't like the position of the fuel tank switch as designed and moved it to the more inaccessible position behind the pilot.
John Denver screwed up when he didn't sufficiently familiarize himself with the aircraft prior to flying it.
Just what we need, more clueless rich people bored with their hummers looking for another way to endanger the rest of us...
Excellent display of ignorance. Bravo!
Any other nationalities you would like to slander?
...is one of the most safest aircraft ever built. It'll just barely kill you.
Or so the aviation joke has always been told. Any aircraft can kill its occupants if operated incorrectly. So can a car, motorcycle, or a skateboard.
WRT a light plane getting off the ground with two heavy people aboard, yes there are some designs that are better than others. What all aircraft designs have in common is that there is some max gross weight figure that cannot be exceeded or the thing will not fly well (or safely). Just don't exceed that weight limit, and fly the thing within its design and operational parameter limits, and it'll do just fine.
I am a private pilot and own a Piper Cherokee 4-seater. I think the new Sport Pilot certificate (nitpick: it's not a "license", it's a "certificate", there is a significant difference that laypersons just can't seem to ever grasp) will do a lot to help revitalize General Aviation. General Aviation has been under political and economical assault for decades and was/is in danger of perhaps even becoming extinct. What has been needed for about the past 20 years is something to help put the entry into the world of aviation closer to the reach of the average enthusiast who wishes to fly. Hopefully the osmosis of aviation knowledge from the Sport Pilot initiative will ultimately spread more thru the general population too, as greater numbers of people are actually learning the truths about flying aircraft, instead of only hearing such rubbish like what stupid news reporters spew (i.e. that all light planes are "Cessnas" and the engine "stalls" so the thing immediately plumments out of the sky like a rock, and other such nonsense)
Newsflash!
The Belgian Terrorist Organization just attacked the French Eiffel Tower on a ultraglide.
One person is reported to be seriously injured.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
...the eventual build-up of static electricity caused them to helplessly cling to one of them until they could be rescued by noticably giggling members of the NY fire department.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Note that homebuilt aircraft do not have "looser" rules than certified aircraft, just different ones. The owner can do maintenance on a homebuilt, which is not the case for certified, but the owner cannot fly the homebuilt for pay (commercial operations) and a conservative reading of the FAA regs indicates that homebuilt aircraft are not allowed to be flown over dense metropolitan areas, although this does not seem to be enforced.
I'm sorry, I have to comment on this...
From FAR's:
"Sec. 91.3
Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.
(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft."
It is ALWAYS the pilots responsibility for safe operation of the aircraft, it's his/her life on the line every time he/she takes off, as well as the lives of passengers and people on the ground. This accident was a failing of pilot, not equipment, if the pilot was not familiar with the aircraft and relevant procedures, he should have made himself aware *before* takeoff.
I am a pilot (although in the UK, so we are governed by the CAA, soon to be merged into the EASA), and every time I strap in, it's *my* responsibility to ensure I have all the possible eventualities accounted for and am familiar with any peculiarites of the aircraft (e.g. it's not uncommon for trim controls in old foreign designed aircraft to go the opposite way to what UK and US pilots may be used to). Provided the aircraft functioned as designed and described in the flight manual, that no leavers broke, no instruments failed, it is entirely the pilots responsibility to follow safe procedure (e.g. look where you're going whilst flying a few feet of the ground!).
A P
http://www.zenithair.com/
There are others. In fact, expect a lot of kit plane manufacturer's to target this specification.
I think the SeaRay Amphibian might qualify as well, but I don't have the website offhand so I'm not sure. [just have to google I guess]
A goal is a dream with a deadline
I recently obtained a Private Pilots license so the training is fresh in my head. I can't think of anything I studied or learned that would be a waste of time for light sport pilots.
As for the third class medical certificate required for Private Pilots, I really don't see what the big deal is. If you have a pulse and can see three feet in front of you can easily obtain one. Perhaps it is the cost? ($80)
I think what the FAA is saying with this designation is that since you will be flying a light aircraft that can do little damage to others - feel free to take your own risks.
Yeah. Right.
So instead we should be restricting freedoms, making it damn near impossible to get a pilot's license.
Never mind that it's terribly easy and more effective to get a truck and load it up with explosives than fly a small plane anywhere.
The aircraft John Denver was flying was too fast and had too high a stall speed if I recall correctly. It also had a retractable nose gear which would also make it unqualified as a light-sport, but I'd need to check the most current regs on that.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
weather phenomena known as "Cumulus Granite"
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Is an AEROPLANE something you fly in the aero?
>
>Newsflash!
>The Belgian Terrorist Organization just attacked the French Eiffel Tower on a ultraglide.
> One person is reported to be seriously injured.
Easy. I'm Polish and I thought this was hilarious. Is this better for your tender sensibilities? ...And in an apparent act of copycat terrorism, the Terrorist Organization has hijacked the Goodyear blimp. They have been bouncing off buildings in downtown Manhatten for the past 2 hours.
God I hate PC language Nazis.
You gotta be nuts to go up in a plane that has only 1 engine... How many of those things do you hear fall out of the sky on the news every week?
I wish I had mod points today. You're absolutely correct.
After 15 years of flying I decided to get my CFI (Certificated Flight Instructor) rating. I was amazed at the amount of knowledge involved that I had come to take for granted.
Pilots do indeed learn a lot. They are more informed and skilled that non-pilots who fly other types of aircraft.
As for the expense, you'll spend about $4k to get your Private Pilot's license. How many slashdotters have spent that much on a computer or big-screen television? In the long run, that's not that much money. And you can keep current without breaking the bank.
The things you learn getting your private will be beneficial when flying a sport plane or ultralight.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
http://www.aircraft.com/listings/searchredirect.as p?bcatid=13&etid=1&FTS=Y&setype=1&fulltext=Aeronic a+Champ
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
Denver's plane was a used white box, not a new Dell. It makes a tremendous difference in liability.
And it is always, always, always the pilot's responsibility to determine the the basic airworthiness of his craft. Denver violated good practice in several respects, including relying on his reserve tank. In an aircraft the reserve tank is emergency safety gear. Any pilot who relies on the reserve fuel capacity to make his destination is knowingly taking a possibly fatal risk. Especially on a shakedown flight in an unfamiliar craft.
KFG
Simply not true - in fact I attended a talk by one of the investigators who was contracted by the NTSB.
John was flying a LongEZ - which is certainly not in the light sport plane class. It is a pretty spiffy plane in the high performance general aviation class (though homebuilt).
The initial cause of failure was running one tank dry at low altitude (bad).
The tank selector valve is normally controlled by a pushrod, however that was disconnected in John's plane. Instead he had vice grips cliped to the valve which was now unreachable in flight (bad).
John apparently disconnected his seat belt/harness so he could reach the fuel selector by diving over the back seat (bad).
Sudden shift to an aft CG (bad).
Steep decent into water without a seat belt (bad). (At this point the plane was still perfectly okay, no structural failures occured until impact.)
When John ran out of gas at low altitude over water by a beach, he should have ditched. Ditching is normally not the best choice for emergency landings, but this particular design floats and does not tend to flip over. At low altitude he should not have tried to fix all his mistakes, he should just land the plane.
I've flown in a number of LongEZs and they are great planes. Designed sold/by Burt Rutan (of Spaceship One/Voyager fame).
The parent poster knows not of what he speaks.
If you are curious about homebuilt aircraft (not light sport aircraft) check out my builders log: http://www.geeksville.com/plane
Mind you, I'm in Canada and we already have something like this called an advanced ultralight since the early 90s.
Perhaps this is the first step on the road to air-cars? First one with a flying Delorean wins.
Do not touch -Willie
In outrage at such a blatant terrorist act by the Belgians, the US response is to invade Norway. :)
The rule gives you a max certificated gross weight of 1320 lbs, not an actual weight of the aircraft.
The max certificated gross weight of a C150 is 1600 lbs. What the aircraft would actually weigh if you set in on a scale and measured it is irrelevant for the legal definition of a light sport plane. It's what the manufacturer states in the paperwork under which the aircraft is certified that actually matters. Also the stall speed of a C150 is too high. According to discussions with our local FAA FSDO chief, specifically the C150 was excluded in the specs because this aircraft and others with similar performance numbers have the capability for longer cross-country flying that would put an inexperienced pilot in too much chances to encounter weather in unfamiliar areas, for which they wish a pilot to have much more training (i.e. preferrable a full private pilot). The C150 was chosen at the point at which the line would be drawn.... below the 150. They did want planes like Cubs, Champs, Taylorcraft, Ercoupes, to be inclused as "LSA" (Light Sport Aircraft) but they felt that the C150 was just a wee bit "too much airplane".
You'd think that in these days the Ministry of Home Defense (zieg heil!) this kind of thing wouldn't come to pass.
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
Exactly right. These are real planes, just small ones...
My rapid examination concludes that the Cessna 150/152 fits the bill.
The 152 is one of (the?) most popular training aircraft in the states, and are widely available (75% of all 150/152s ever built are still flying, and can be had used for under $25,000).
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Here's a good page of information from the Experimental Aircraft Association
QUICK ANSWERS TO COMMON QUESTIONS
July 20, 2004 - Here is a collection of answers to some of the more common Sport Pilot questions:
Gross weight = 1,320 pounds (600 kilograms)
Floatplanes = 1,430 (650 kilograms)
Maximum Full Power Speed = 120 knots (138 mph)
Stall Speed = 45 knots (52 mph) no more dual stall speeds
Fixed Prop - may be ground adjustable
Fixed Gear - amphibians allowed "repositionable" gear
Two Place - pilot and one passenger
Day VFR
Driver's License Medical Approved - however, if you have received a letter with the word "denied" from FAA, not from your doctor, you must get a one-time special issuance or FAA authorization even if you have been denied in the past, you can try again for special issuance (medicines have changed, for example) more on this as EAA continues to analyze the new rule
Owner Maintenance Approved on ELSAs - no changes - if you are operating an Amateur-Built or Standard category as an LSA, maintenance remains as it was without change
No Recertification of aircraft required or permitted (this means ultralights are converted to ELSAs; all other aircraft certification and maintenance remain the same)
Rule Effective Date = 9/1/04
Well at least one person is paying attention!
It just doesn't make sense to me that in a time when website operators are charged with terrorism that we should only further enable terrorists by making it even easier for them to get a license - especially in light of the manner in which 9/11 was carried out.
Now you might reasonably argue that sport planes don't represent a terrorist threat, and you'd be mostly right. It would take a real stretch to repeat anything even remotely close to 9/11 with a sport plane. However, this adminstration is so paranoid that they're charging website operators with terrorism, and after that whole WMD flap, can you really expect them to know the difference between an ultralight and a 747?
Kudos for the FAA - they still know what freedom is. But this is surprising, coming from a government that considers encryption a weapon, and computers a terrorist tool.
That's all I wanted to point out - the apparent disconnect between government agencies is still alive and well, and the only thing different now is that we have fewer freedoms and more government.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
God I hate PC language Nazis.
I'm a Nazi you racist!!!
I thought we were supposed to invade normandy? http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/reference/normandy/norm andy.htm
Is an AEROPLANE something you fly in the aero?
Is an aeronautical engineer someone who designs aeronauts?
Is a cellular phone made from cells?
Is an aeroplane a large, flat surface made from aeros?
The answer to all of these is no. This is why we have dictionaries.
As someone who has just recently started flying training this is very interesting.
Back in 1999 the EEC member countries merged all the disparate national aviation regs into the common Joint Aviation Regulations (JAR) - this means (among other things) that you can get your PPL in any member country and fly all over europe without any other formalities.
The UK has since introduced a less stringent National PPL - limiting you to fly a single engine plane in VFR and only within UK airspace. But this can be achieved with a minimum 32 hours training and just a self-certified medical! After which you can climb into a 4 Seater Cessna 172 and fly off into the sunset, no questions asked.
The FAA's sport-license seems to be a step along these lines although a little more limiting as to choice of bird.
IMHO easing off the stringent regulations for purely recreational flyers who want to potter about in the sky on a sunny day is great news.
The terrorist arguments seem to me to be way off the mark.
BTW - Flying training this side of the pond is roughly twice as expensive as in the US. I reckon my full JAR-PPL will end up costing me close to 8,000 of our english pounds - thats around 14,000 USD - ouch !!!
I'm surprised if nobody has asked this question yet -- there seem to be a lot of rural geeks -- but are this class of planes appropriate for commuting?
I live 60 miles from my work, an hour and a half or more each way in Dallas traffic. But my office just happens to be right off the north end of Addison Airport, and I've got eight acres of very flat land that could probably be converted into a short landing strip.
We're going to need a new car soon... why not buy a plane instead? Is this even remotely worth considering? Or will the cost of jet fuel make it just an expensive hobby? And am I just the sort of wannabe Top Gun that the "real" pilots would just as soon stay on the ground?
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Now that just a driver's license is needed, does this mean that poor souls like me who are color blind will now be able to fly?
You don't need an airplane to cause terrorism. The real terrorists are the people who use the can and take a big dump. Then these people leave with out flushing and leave toilet paper all over the seat. There are also the people who pee on the floors in front of the toliet or pee on the toilet seat. Then there are those people who don't wash their hands and give you food poisoning. (this is not a troll its a joke. if there is something to argue here I'll say you're right so :-p)
Mr. Denver made several mistakes. Like almost all accidents, it was percipitated by a chain of events. If any "link" in the chain had been broken, the accident would not have occurred.
1) He ran one of his wing tanks dry. There is no excuse for running either tank completely dry. He should have had gas put in it before he took off. From the accident report, it appears that he only attempted a tank switch when one tank went dry, and the engine starved.
2) He did not practice switching fuel tanks sufficiently.
3) He did not manage to maintain control of the plane during this routine operation.
If he had not run a tank dry, he likely would not have had to rush and sloppily try to change the tanks, a manuver which he did not know how to do well.
In any case, the PILOT is responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. Not the builder, not the mechanic, not the regulatory agency, not the owner, not the designer, not the flight instructor, not the weather forcaster, the PILOT. If the PILOT can't operate the plane safely, and deal with a design that is not optimal for him, he should not leave the ground. Period. End of Discussion. No excuses.
One of the most important Federal Aviation Regulations (Pilot In Command Responsibility) that is drilled into the head of every single pilot is that there is NO EXCUSE to not operating your craft in a safe manner.
There is NO EXCUSE for one of the fuel tanks running dry. Not even a fuel leak.
There is NO EXCUSE for being unable to operate the tank switch valve. If it wasn't in a position he could safely operate it, he shouldn't have flown the plane.
There is NO EXCUSE for inadverdently pushing the controls in the wrong direction.
He crashed his airplane, and it was nobody's fault but his own.
SirWired
I believe you're referring to airships.
Don't get caught saying the 'B' word to an airship pilot.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Thank you. Prejudice based upon skin color, religion, gender... those are unethical. Prejudice based upon well established safety metrics are just plain smart.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
It doesn't take much.
My old Ford Escort GT could hit 165 (barely, it had a Mazda 185hp engine.) My friend's Ford Thunderbirds could hit it without flinching. (One had a 4 cylinder turbo, the other a 6 cylinder engine.) Most reasonably 'muscley' domestic cars can hit 165. Most import 'sporty' cars can hit 165. (Of the four cars I've owned, the only two that COULDN'T go that fast were the Subaru Justy (a 3-cylinder competitor to the Geo Metro, albiet much better built. It could do 120, and my current 'company car' a Hyundai Accent, which seems to have a limiter at 100. It has plenty of sprinting power accelerating between 90-100, but then it just refuses to go faster.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
One question for the pilots out there: Is stereo vision necessary in this new class? I have vision in both eyes, but unfortunately, I don't have true stereo vision I have lazy-eye and was cross-eyed as a baby, but surgery fixed that part of it. Unfortunately, no surgery would be able to fix the lack of stereo vision.
I seem to be able to judge distance fine, at least in a car, since much distance judging actually involves using relative sizes, but maybe the same isn't true for flying?
Any relaxation of the rules is utterly stupid and criminally irresponsible, and will result in one or more very big disasters.
I hope that the incompetent idiots behind this can be held personally responsible (the charge should be murder, because the outcome is certain) when a 747 crashes having hit one of these, flown by some incompetent idiot.
The FAA has now sunk to below the level of respectability of the USPTO, it can't go much lower.....
That and he forgot to fly the airplane, which is probably the #2 killer of the same pilots.
Once again, the odd contradictions of political correctness Slashdot-style are blind to a VERY FUNNY irony. IT'S NOT FLAMEBAIT, IT'S FUNNY!
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Light and ultra-lite aircraft have very short life in comparison, so the loads can be higher, but unfortunately the probability of structural failure, even within the shorter lifespan, is very much higher because they don't have failsafe structure.
A typical airliner operated by one of the more responsible airlines and excluding terrorism etc is probably 10 to 100 times safer than a light aircraft. but, when it crashes, it gets a lot more publicity.
John Denver also did not have a valid Medical certificate. He was issued a special based on total abstinence from alcohol. He told his doctor he only dreank wine occasionally, which ain't total abstinence. He was dodging the feds who were demanding his revoked medical when he crashed. He was also at the time flying to Clint Eastwood's ranch to buzz him, which is also prohibited.
Ever dream you could fly? Get up from the Flight Sim. I Fly
Nothing prevents my jackass neighbor from building a ramp for his motorsport bike to practice jumping and having him land in my living room. Yes, there are laws against riding ms bikes on city streets, but the sport pilot's license has a law prohibiting flying in heavily populated areas.
Shit happens and you can never regulate it.
Why the hell would terrorists give a damn about pilot certification? They're more likely to get some training and then fake their private pilot's license/med exam so they can fly a bigger plane that can deliver a more substantial payload.
This new rule changes NOTHING. Terrorists could get all the training they need with the already existing recreational license.
While I agree with most of the above arguments, I find it hard to believe that nobody even acknowledges the fact that, while the pilot was at fault, the builder of the plane was at fault too.
If I had to reach under my dash board to turn on my radio, even if I became an expert at doing so, would I probably have an accident once in a while? Yes. Would it require a design change? Yes. Would I still be allowed to drive it? Yes.
If I had an accident, would the accident be my fault? Yes. Would the design be a "signifcant contributing factor" (ie partly at fault)? Yes.
Same case with John Denver's plane. You can blame damn near anything you want on the pilot, but he's human and the design of the plane made sure that he was falible.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The government announced a series of additional "sport" licenses with more lenient prerequisites:
* Sport Coroner
* Sport Patent Attorney
* Sport CPA
* Sport CIA Operative
* Sport Journalist
* Sport Software Engineer
* Sport President
I find it hard to believe that nobody even acknowledges the fact that, while the pilot was at fault, the builder of the plane was at fault too.
No, he wasn't. The builder put the switch where he thought it should go. He had no problem with it. If the pilot couldn't safely operate the aircraft with the switch in that location, he shouldn't have done so. It was his fault. Period.
If I had to reach under my dash board to turn on my radio, even if I became an expert at doing so, would I probably have an accident once in a while? Yes.
You've obviously never flown an aircraft. There is no reason why you cannot reach behind your seat, under your dash, behind your head, etc, and flip a switch while flying. Flying a straight line requires much less concentration than driving a car down a freeway.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
"It made my hair stand on end!!!!"
.
.
.
I know...back to work.....
A goal is a dream with a deadline
This new license should make autogyros much more popular. I want one!
It's not clear from the FAA site if a "sport pilot" certificate lets you fly in controlled airspace. I hope not.
the x43a, b, and c; and connard designs are all using the 'composit' material which is like the 'resins' described.
air boats won't stay airborne long enough.
the faa said under 120 knots, and less than 1350 pounds. to me thats still alot of motor and wingspan to work with.
This "Sport" class license is, indeed, perfect
for those inclined to terrorist acts. Just
imagine: A small, lightweight plane that can
be folded up and stuck in a U-Haul trailer,
powerful enough to carry 2 people (or one with
a WMD payload), with a small enough radar image
to be nearly undetectible, and can take off and
land virtually anywhere. What could be more
perfect for the job?
BTW: After the demise of the USSR, they seem to
have "misplaced" about 80 of the approximately
100 "suitcase nukes". They are about the size
of a small footlocker, weigh about 65 pounds,
and came in a nice olive drab paint scheme.
Yield is about 5 kilotons of TNT, which would
be perfect for an urban or industrial air burst
(about 1000 feet up). The blast wave would
knock buildings down in about a 1/2 mile radius,
and start many buildings on fire in a 2-1/2 mile
radius. The USSR made these things pretty well,
so there wouldn't be an excessive amount of
radiation at ground zero, providing that the
terrorists didn't also make use of some of the
hundreds of cesium-60 seed sterilizers that they
have also lost track of.
Of course, the passanger seat could also be
replaced with an aerosol tank and sprayer for
the other WMD candidates: biological or chemical
agents.
It is inconceivable to me that the TSA, FAA, and
HSA would not have had some overriding logic
against making it even easier for these types
of acts. One must draw the cynical conclusion
that the manufacturers of these ultralights
are big campaign contributors to the Bush/Cheney
reelection effort. Like Ashcroft, Mueller, and
Tenet said numerous times: "It isn't a matter
of IF there will be another terrorist act (in
the USA), but of WHEN." And these fscking
idiots are helping to make it so.
question: is there a ultralite with vtol characteris tics?
jfk jr. proved that ego and clouds don't mix.
also, the winds in the cloud could do some VERY bad things to one's aircraft; it ruin your whole day...
Your flat wrong about John Denver. He was flying a Long-EZ which won't qualify as a LSA. The Long-EZ is not a certificated aircraft but it does enjoy a large following. I personally worked on a project which successfully used Long-EZ as RPVs. They work just fine, even without a pilot.
Whatever happened to John Denver (see www.ntsa.gov) is his own problem and if anything just underscores that aviation is not the place for wishful thinking.
Nobody is making you fly in a ultralight or LSA. But you should learn something about it before being critical.
Kenya, oh Kenya...
The 9/11 hijackers were anything but dumb (evil, suicidal, crazy, whatever else you feel like saying) having trained as pilots for very complex aircraft
Actually, they were pretty dumb for not showing any interest in learning how to take off or land. But fortunately for them, we were dumber for not being suspicious of this.
I can't believe how many post there are from non-aero people! Don't be afraid!
This new catagory makes a lot of sense. The people going for this don't need a medical. You don't need needless extra training for this type of aircraft. Why get cerified for multi-engineed, high horsepower and complex type aircraft if you're going to fly an experimental home built that is just above an ultralight? Some things to remember are that there are a lot of restrictions on this certificate compared to a full private certificate. Aircraft size, weight, passengers, night flying, no towered airports, among others are all regulated and stricter than other certificates.
I have a Quad City Challenger that is almost completed and it does not qualify for an ultralight aircraft. it has a little too much horsepower (55-60 hp), too much fuel capacity (10 gal) and it can handle two people. I was going to get a full private license but might opt for Light Sport instead.
You can always keep building up hours and test for the next higher certificate.
Most of the pilots I know who fly planes like mine already have full private certificates but have "downgraded" to aircraft like mine. The reason is that they are a blast to fly and cost a fraction to maintain compared to larger aircraft. Most of these guys used to own a Cessna 17_ or 18_.
I was actually advised by more than a few light aircraft pilots not to train in a Cessna if all I was going to do was fly my Challenger. The reason is the Cahllenger is a lot more responsive than most other aircraft and many pilots have problems moving "down" to a Challenger. I have found a CFI who is going to train me in a Challenger and I couldn't be more happy.
If this helps curb some fears of the non-aero people posting here, many light aircraft are equipped with ballistic recovery parachutes. It's a parachute for the entire aircraft only to be deployed in the event of a catastophic failure. I have one for mine. Check them out at http://brsparachutes.com/
Remember, it's in the pilot's/builder's best interest to build a plane well and fly it well. You can't just hop out at 10,000 feet and say "Okay, I'm done now. Let's call it off".
As a private pilot who's flown in and out of Addison far too many times, I can tell you that there is no worse airport in Texas to even think you're going to commute out of. It is one of the most constantly busiest general aviation airports in the USA. On any weekday morning or late afternoon, you can expect to wait behind 7 to 10 other aircraft just for your turn to take off, sometimes for a half hour or longer if there's a bunch of incoming traffic. It's a frustrating mess, and really fun to wait on the ground in August summer heat since you've got no air conditioning in a small plane. The only time I care to fly in or out of "KADS" is after 10PM when the tower closes and there's not much traffic, but due to all the buildings around the place, a nighttime forced landing off-airport in that area is certain death.
How old is that Accent? The newer ones are limited at something like 115-125 (I forget which). Also, IIRC, it's just because they don't have long enough gears -- they hit the rev limiter in 5th (or 4th, on the automatic)
I've gone over 100 in my 2003 5-speed Accent.
Of course, 125 is about the limit for the little 104HP engine... thank goodness it handles better than it accelerates!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You'll be able to operate in class E, but not class D,C or B unless you have additional training and endorsements plus your aircraft must be equipped with the appropriate avionics for that airspace. I doubt that any class B's will ever allow LSA ops except in emergencies, and probably most class C's will prohibit LSA ops as well. That decision will be left up to the regional FSDOs.
You need to do a bit more reading. Sport Pilot will NOT effect part 103. It will mean then end of some of the Part 103 tandem exemptions, but not the USHGA exemption. Why? Well, read the rule and you will see that LSA's are defined as having fixed landing gear - foot launched aircraft (hang gliders and paragliders) can't be registered as LSA. The EAA/USUA/ASC exemptions to part 103 will be phased out while the USHGA will keep its tandem exemption. The USPPA (US Powered Paraglider Association) has also petitioned for an exemption for foot launched tandem PPG instruction, since the USHGA exemption specificly excluded powered flying. This will also be a BIG help to the aero-tow operations that were previously flying fat UL's for towing. They can now fly LSA's and be legal.
Now I'll be able to fly that airship I've been trying to build. Well, the smaller version anyway. I don't think my floating taj-mahal airship plan will qualify as a 'light sport plane'.
TallGreen CMS hosting
The slashdot quote says "120 knots" is the maximum speed that these things can be. However, the linked to faa.gov site says a "stall speed of 45 knots". Not being familiar with aviation, this sounds like there's a bit of discrepency. Anyone able to clarify this?
Also, how many mph is 120 knots? or 45?
Two things seem fairly evident to me: I'd still not be able to fly a Curtis P-51 (as it travels at 440MPH, and I doubt a knott is roughly eq to 10mph), and this license wouldn't allow for effective self-transportation, as I suspect the speed of the plane to be closer to that of an automobile. Doesn't seem to be much of a mile/cost benefit there.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Does this mean that one can build a paraplane with a larger fuel tank and/or an essentially ultralight with 2 seats and fly it with the sport pilot license?
I think that the ultralight category limited fuel tank capacity and only allowed one seat.
If the new class eases those restrictions a bit they make those vehicles MUCH more practical.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
It looks like helicopters (and I assume autogyros sort of fall into this area) are not covered, in the regs it says due to additional control complexity.
I could be wrong though, in fact I kind of hope I am.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just last week a drunk pilot crashed on a freeway in S California and was charged with DUI. Presumably he was a properly certificated Pilot (PP-whatever).
So what difference is lowering the medical requirements going to make? People are always hysterical about the propect of airplanes falling from the sky and killing Innocent Young Children (TM), they they hop in their car and driver 30 mph over the speed limit with a back seat full of unbelted IYCs.
This has more of an impact of the aircraft than the pilots. In fact the new regulations might allow some innovation in recreational aircraft design since the cost of flying even the least capable traditionally certificated aircraft has risen to astronomical levels. In the SF Bay area even a minimally equipped 152 is going to cost you in the $50 to $75 per hour range.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Section 91, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph a:
"The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft."
That one regulation gives a pilot great authority, and also great responsibility.
On the one hand, it means that the pilot can almost never place the blame on somebody else in the case of an accident. There are very few accidents that are not caused by pilot error. There are a few exceptions, but those are rare.
On the other hand, just a couple of sentences down in the regs, a pilot is explictly authorized to violate any regulation necessary in an emergency in order to ensure his aircraft can be operated safely. That means that he can ignore air traffic control, exceed his airplane's design limits, land anywhere, shut down his lights, fly right over the White House, and pretty much do anything necessary to prevent an emergency from becoming an accident.
For instance, if a previously uknown design defect causes control surface failure, than the pilot is not considered at fault, as long as there was nothing he could have done to prevent an accident. Accidents do occur. This wasn't one of them.
In this case, the pilot lost control of the aircraft while performing a routine operation. Yes, that operation involved more than flicking a finger, but it was routine, and should have been something he was proficient in before ever leaving the ground. Period. End of story.
(As a side note, in older cars, turning on the heat involved reaching underneath the dash. If you hit somebody while doing this, it would be 100% your fault. A fickle jury might think otherwise, but I guarantee the police report would be unabiguous about it.)
In the Cessna 152 I am training in, there is no place in the front of the plane for me to put the Pilot's Operating Handbook, which contains FAA-sanctioned emergency proceedures (among other things). The book is stored in a pouch behind the right seat. If I get in an accident because I couldn't access those proceedures quickly enough, tough. I should have prepared better by memorizing them in advance, or keeping a copy of the checklists in an easily accessible place. (In fact, I do keep a copy of the emergency checklists on my kneeboard.)
If I take off when the fuel gauge says I have a full load of gas, but I didn't verify it myself and I run out of gas, again, my fault. (And so the NTSB would rule.) I should have checked it by sticking my finger in the tank. No excuse. The fuel gauge maker isn't responsible for making sure I don't run out of gas, I am.
This is the way aviation works. This is the way the laws work. This is how the FAA works. This is the way pilot's think. I expect that if you described this accident to Mr. Denver the day before he bought that plane, he would have agreed with the NTSB.
From the NTSB accident report:
"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause of this accident was the pilot's diversion of attention from the operation of the airplane and his inadvertent application of right rudder that resulted in the loss of airplane control while attempting to manipulate the fuel selector handle. Also, the Board determines that the pilot's inadequate preflight planning and preparations, specifically his failure to refuel the airplane, was causal. The Board determines that the builder's decision to locate the unmarked fuel selector handle in a hard-to-access position, unmarked fuel quantity sight gauges, inadequate transition training by the pilot, and his lack of total experience in this type of airplane were factors in this accident."
In English, it was his fault. He screwed up his flying and took off with inadequate fuel to boot.
The design and location of the fuel selector were part of the accident, but not considered a cause of the accident. That means that if the "factors" were not there, the accident may not have occured, but it was the pilot's responsiblity to mitigate those factors. They were not the responsibility of the trainer, former owner, designer, or builder.
So says the NTSB, and so would agree any pilot I have ever met.
SirWired
To which Bush Jr. replied: "France? Has the Washington police department caught the man on the model airplane yet?"
Karma? What's that again?
I don't object to inexpensive modern, efficient and small aircraft by the way, in fact we may see some real innovative designs here, my entire objection is that it makes way for a lot of inadequately trained pilots to take to the skies. The present training methods in most, propbably all, developed countries ensure that it is fairly hard for the more irresponsible types to get a licence, and it should remain so. But if every aggressive idiot who drives a black BMW (at least that is what the aggressive idiots drive in the UK, it may be different in the US) gets their hands on an aircraft instead, the accident rate is bound to escalate. That is the problem, plus the fact that the air traffic control system does not have sufficient capacity, or controllers, in fact it failed abysmally in the very accident I mentioned, because the controllers were not required to act when a certain alarm sounded.
BTW most of Europe, Australia and a number of other countries regard the FAA as very lax, their standards are not nearly as high as elsewhere in terms of aircraft design for example, it is the fact that most manufacturers do need to sell their aircraft worldwide that keeps standards up. And yes, before you ask, I have been directly involved in getting aircraft systems certified, I do know whose regulations and procedures were the toughest, and whose were simply designed to keep the lawyers busy.
But just watch what happens when the first major disaster happens as a result of this, a smart lawyer will bankrupt the FAA, who AFAIK can be held accountable.
They screwed up the mixture of the chemicals to make the Sarin. It's extremely fortunate that they did, too, because many many more people would have died.
Statistically, mid-airs are almost down in the noise in terms of overall aircraft accidents. Almost all of the mid-airs that occur are between two small aircraft, usually at an uncontrolled airport. The 727 mid-air that you cite is about the only one I know of between a small private aircraft and a large airliner.
Sport Pilot doesn't change that; sport pilot certificate holders aren't allowed to fly in most controlled airspace, especially the type of airspace where there are a lot of airliners.
Outside of controlled airspace, see and avoid is always the rule; keep in mind that out of the nearly 13,000 U.S. airports, only about 600 have control towers.
As far as certification standards, most of the world's aviation authorities have based their standards on the ones created by the FAA, not the other way around. There are some exceptions, mostly to do with noise levels and emissions levels, where European regs are tighter, sometimes to a ridiculous level. The pilot certification standards are pretty ridiculous in most European countries, too; it's more like they're designed to prevent people from becoming pilots than anything else.
He wasn't flying to Clint Eastwood's ranch, he was doing touch-and-goes in the pattern at Monterey Peninsula airport.
In Canada, a similar license is called the RPP
e neral/flttrain /PLANES/Pubs/TP12475/menu.htm
l /circular s/gaac0203.htm
FLIGHTEST:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/g
GAAC:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/genera
"Light-Sport airplanes will be limited in size and power: maximum weight 1,320 pounds, maximum two seats, maximum airspeed 120 knots, single non-turbine engine, fixed landing gear. If it's a Light-Sport, it should be one of the easiest planes to fly."
Sounds like the Canadian RPP (Recreational Pilot Permit)
In Canada http://www.tc.gc.ca/
* no night flying
* one passenger
* maximum four seats
* one engine
* fixed landing gear
* piston engine
* VFR only, no overflight-VFR
* driver's license medical
* no seaplane, floatplane
* no IFR training
...any landing you walk away from is a good landing!
this is a major bennefit to the public. Many kit planes are very expensive untill you get into the lighter craft covered by this. This makes the air more accessable to those who want to fly but were intimidated by the costs of learning (sport pilot liscence should be less expensive than the ppl) or by costs of the kit as the price will probably go down after a bit (yay) Also I stand to make a bit of ca$h off of this in the future as I am a current Avionics student (read airplane geek) and will also be a certificated Airframe and Power plant mechanic (read trogloditic, beer swilling, knuckle dragger who turns the wrench) a lot of them will take these planes to their part 147 repar shop or fbo for the inspections and possibly repairs. Good for the small airport economy. Good for the weekend warrior pilot. And good signs for the future of current students headded for the avaition industry.
So why complain about this?
An excellent post. I am a student pilot, and maybe my training has been unusual, but I doubt it.
When you are training with a flight instructor, one of the very first things that is drilled in to your head repeatedly is that, the pilot in command (YOU!) are responsible for the safe operation of your aircraft. No excuses, no extenuating circumstances. YOU are responsible. That is, I think, why most pilots instinctively blame the PIC for most accidents. It isn't cockeyness...it's the training. And it's good training. As a student pilot, the most important thing I have been taught is that not causing an accident is my own responsibility. Even if something goes horribly wrong with the aircraft, most times, a pilot who truely takes his responsibility to heart, already has an emergency landing site in mind, and is prepared to attempt the safest landing possible there. My flight instructor has, many times, while flying, suddenly said, "Your engine just died...quickly...where can you land?". It's actually quite amazing how you progress from utter panic to calmly and confidently pointing at the best emergency landing site. It's all a matter of expectations and practice. And if my training is anywhere near representative of pilot training in general, non-pilots have no idea how well prepared most pilots are for an emergency. I have no doubt that if I had started my training as a "rich, thrill hungry wanna-be pilot" I would have either learned better, or dropped out, or been dropped by my instructor. I still remember the one and only time he yelled at me in the cockpit. On landing, my hand wasn't on the throttle. (He put his own hand at the throttle, in this case) He told me, "if there is a problem, that two seconds it takes you to reach down for the throttle could be too many seconds. There is no reason for unnecessary risks while flying....and not keeping your hand on the throttle while landing is a a pretty dumb reason."
I guess the point I am trying to make is that flight training isn't taken lightly, because piloting isn't taken lightly. From my experience, anyway, pilots are given all the tools they need to realize what a responsibility they have. And most pilots would probably, simply by virtue of their training, readily admit their responsibility in most accidents, just as the NTSB and the FAA brutally assign responsibility to the pilots most of the time.
You'll be restricted to flying no further than 50 nautical miles from your base airport in a light sport aircraft, with only a sport pilot certificate. You'll also not be allowed to fly in controlled airspace airport areas withour special extra training and a signoff by a CFI. If you want to fly long cross-country flights greater than 50 nautical miles away from your home airport, you'll need the full "private pilot" certificate. Sorry, this new pilot's certificate is solely for the purpose of flying recreationally near your home airport, gaining entry into the world of aviation at a reduced cost, and hopefully inspire you to seek more advanced pilot ratings as your flying experience accumulates.
yoke
Pedantry, but most aircraft that will fit the LSA category are stick and rudder all the way baby.
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
You are woefully ill-informed sir.
LSA, and LSA Pilots are very similar to what most other countries call thier 'ultralight' (or microlight) pilots now, and have done for many years.
Oh, I see, actually, you're in the UK. Do you even know what your own regs are?!?!?!
I suggest you read up on Microlights in your part of the world then you can come back and tell me about all the terrible things these "BMW Drivers" have done in your very own country!
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
But if every aggressive idiot who drives a black BMW (at least that is what the aggressive idiots drive in the UK, it may be different in the US) gets their hands on an aircraft instead,
You know, it sounds to me that your problem isn't so much with airplanes as it is class warfare. You seem to take great pride in using the government to limit the activities of others. The fact is, there is no virtually no danger to people on the ground from light aircraft and there is almost not risk to airliners. You need to get a bloody clue, friend.
BTW most of Europe, Australia and a number of other countries regard the FAA as very lax, their standards are not nearly as high as elsewhere in terms of aircraft design for example, it is the fact that most manufacturers do need to sell their aircraft worldwide that keeps standards up. And yes, before you ask, I have been directly involved in getting aircraft systems certified, I do know whose regulations and procedures were the toughest, and whose were simply designed to keep the lawyers busy.
BTW: You do KNOW that there is a large number of UK pilots (and from other countries) that come to the US for flight training because it has the most free (read: liberty) airspace system in the world, don't you? We don't tax the hell out of it which helps to keep it affordable for more people.
Most airpline pilots in the entire world get their training in the US.
As much as the term may be overused by politicians, freedom is something that we really cherish here. Why not make the sky's free? You've provided no evidence that there is any inherent danger in allowing private pilots (or LSA pilots) to fly their airplanes.
The airspace system has worked quite well and continues to work quite well here. We have more airports here than any other place in the world. Check out this map of all of the airports in the country. It may suprise you.
Oh yeah, you seem to make the assumption that a more restrictive regulations on private aircraft implies better safety. I say more restrictive policies do nothing but provide government employees jobs.
I sincerely hope you weren't trying to be funny, because that was just retardedly stupid. Not funny, not amusing, not interesting or insightful. Just stupid. It's "everyone make fun of the trying-too-hard-to-get-attention loser in the back" stupid.
If you were trying to sound intelligent or insightful, well, you failed miserably there, too.
It's a '99. (The last of the style before yours.)
My wife drives it like it's a Porsche. I'm not into the whole 'import tuning' scene, but it really does need different wheels/tires. I swapped the stock 155/80R13 for 205/55R15 on some very basic 15" rims, then found that 205 is too wide (it rubs on both the inside and the outside of the wheel well.) So I 'downsized' to 195/60. Still rubbed a little. Plus, the 15"ers looked silly, so when those tires wore out, I replaced the wheels back with the stock 13s, and put on 185/60R13s. (I think that's it.) Still handles like a dream, with no more tire-rub! (That sucker can CORNER. Impressive in such a little car, with so llittle hp.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.