FAA Approves Sport Pilot License

steveha writes "The FAA has just approved regulations creating a new class of pilot's license. (FAA press release here). The Sport Pilot license allows you to fly Light-Sport planes. It is much, much easier to get than a normal pilot's license; for example, you don't need to get a medical exam, and the training requirements are minimal." Read this overview, as well as some more details below.

"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."

Comments

ugh..

[Anonymous Coward]

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*

ultralights

[dncsky1530]

ultralights don't require a license if they meet certain requirements:

"(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."

Hope Europe takes notice

[MetaMarty]

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.

Access to Aviation

[salesgeek]

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.

Cheaper training?

[lasindi]

Actually owning or renting the aircraft may be cheaper, but will it be cheaper to learn to fly? It costs several thousand dollars just to get a Private Pilot's License; such costs also cause prospective pilots to shy away from flying.

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?

Re:Good overview

[Coz]

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.

The downsides of this

[MobyDisk]

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.

Re:Why do we need licenses at all?

[dpm]

Until now, light sport plane pilots were fully licensed. The new license is easier to obtain, meaning that "casual" pilots won't need to demonstrate that they're medically capable of flying a passenger- or commercial-aircraft.

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.

MOD PARENT UP

[delcielo]

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.

Aleady there!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm already finishing up my http://www.zenithair.com/ Zodiac 601 just in time. She should be flying in the spring.

Mind you, I'm in Canada and we already have something like this called an advanced ultralight since the early 90s.

Re:I think the Zodiac is such an example...

[Tassach]

In fact, expect a lot of kit plane manufacturer's to target this specification.

That's exactly the first thing I thought of when I saw this. For those who didn't RTFA, the specifications for aircraft under these rules are:

• 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.

Re:This being slashdot

[DuckDuckBOOM!]

On a happier note, an ultralight P-51 Mustang (or other WWII warbird) might actually be possible.

Like this? It's homebuilt, but the specs are such that a commercial version would probably qualify for Light Sport category.