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 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*
"(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."
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.
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 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.
One of the better things to come out of this is that folks who already have pilot's licenses can fly this class of plane with just a driver's license. The FAA has a long set of procedures you have to go through to get a medical certificate if you are in anything but great health - chronic conditions like diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, migraines - all these can completely disqualify you from flying unless you get a doctor to help track you for a period of time, fill out a lot of paperwork, and send it in for months of processing by the FAA - and there's no guarantee they'll issue a medical certificate after all that. With this rule, pilots with lapsed medicals can "self-certify" that they're good to fly (blood sugar ok, migraine not happening today) and go buzzing around in a small aircraft that won't dent much should it turn out they goofed.
It's no replacement for a full PP-ASEL, but it's a good start, and probably more generally useful than the almost-never-gotten Recreational Pilot's license.
I love vegetarians - some of my favorite foods are vegetarians.
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.
Not exactly. Both Canada and the U.S. have different classes of medicals for different kinds of flying: a private pilot does not need to meet anywhere near the medical requirements of an airline pilot. In Canada (and I think, in the U.S.), there is also a Recreational Pilot Permit that requires only a note from the family doctor. The U.S. sport pilot license will take that one step further, requiring only that a person be medically qualified to hold a driver's license.
It's hard to say whether this new license will really matter much. People can already fly ultralights without a formal medical, so it will all come down to the people who want to fly something a bit bigger than an ultralight, but not much bigger, and who are medically fit to drive, but not medically fit to get a note from their family doctor for the Recreational Pilot Permit.
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 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!
then try one with no engine, say one of Schempp Hirths Finest ;-) Far more fun and far safer (less bits to blow up or fail and you can land them pretty much anywhere)
Mind you, I'm in Canada and we already have something like this called an advanced ultralight since the early 90s.
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".
I think perhaps your description of the settlement of Israel by many immigrant Jews is a bit biased, perhaps? The settlement of Israel was initiated by Jewish donors who pooled money to buy land legally from Arab owners for building Jewish settlements. It was the poor tenant farmers who got angry about the situation and intiated violence. The kicking people off of land with military forces happened much later as the result of military conflict between several Arab nations and Israel. Face it, Europe kicked the Jews out, the Jews went to Palestine, the British set up a partition, and the Arabs got violent because they didn't want to share. Now, at this point, occupation may not be justified any more, but certainly neither is international terrorism or domestic terrorism, which continues to be the cause of Israeli incursions. The end to occupation was offered prior to the beginning of the Second Intifada, and it was rejected by Arafat.
I am sick and tired of historical revisionism and finger pointing on this issue all over Slashdot. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still going to be wrong, and beyond that it's pointless. Getting to peace agreements is not about pointing fingers and trying to figure out who is originally to "blame". It's about admitting fault on both sides and compromising on the actual issues that are still under legitimate dispute. The people that prevent this from happening are radicals and extremists who seek to prevent compromise because they thrive (financially, socially, in their power and influence) on continued war and strife. If a society doesn't band together to prevent these loons from acting, they all share in some responsibility for the consequences (and yes, we are trying to band together here in the US to throw our particular war-loving loon out of the highest office in the land).
As for the "Arab" vs. "Muslim" source of terror, it's not really relevant. Nobody ever declared war on all followers of Islam, nor of all ethnic Arab peoples. The dispute over land and borders between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples has been cast in both pan-Arab ethnic terms as well as jihad/holy war by Muslim terms to benefit whoever is invoking it at the time. There are certainly instances of non-Arab Muslim terrorists who have been brought into the fold by Islamic extremist organizations. And to the best of my knowledge, the only solid cases of terrorism actually motivated by pan-Arab nationalism are those sponsored by Libya and Qadhafi, and even there, they invoke the rubric of Islamic jihad to justify terrorism against the infidels because the veneer of religious righteousness appeals to a much broader body of people than pure pan-Arab nationalism.
- Maximum weight of 1,320 lbs. [I'm unsure if this is dry weight or maximum takeoff weight]
- Maximum of two occupants
- Single non-turbine engine
- Stall speed of 45 knots [I assume this is the maximum allowed stall speed, lower should be OK]
- Maximum airspeed of 120 knots
- Fixed landing gear
- Not a helicopter or powered lift aircraft
The maximum weight rule is the real big question here. If it's dry weight then it'll be a lot easier to build one that can carry a useful cargo say 500 lbs of people + luggage. If the weight allowance has to include fuel + payload, then you're going to have a lot harder time building something which looks like a real airplane instead of a kite with a leafblower strapped to it.I'm waiting to see what Burt Ruttan comes up with in this category -- if anyone can design a practical aircraft to these specs, he can.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Life is like surrealism: if you have to have it explained to you, you can't afford it.