Has "Sport Pilot" Worked?

I'm really glad that it's working for new starts. Congratulations to all of you who have used this avenue as a means to the most wonderful experience known to mankind (well, almost!).

As a retired Private Pilot who's been flying since 1964 but sold his airplane ten years ago,  I'm disappointed that not only hasn't it made flying less expensive, but actually MORE expensive.  As stated in a post above, it's MORE expensive to rent one of the new LSA's, and the cost of existing type-certificated aircraft that fit the bill have doubled in price because of it (largely due to the high cost of the new ones).  So either way you lose if you want to fly without the medical.  I certainly can't afford to rent at those rates!  A friend of mine, who is a well-respected instructor and had been in business 25 years (ultralights, then LSA's) here in the Socal area, recently closed down due to the high cost and lack of business, thanks to the economic downturn.

Cessna quit making the 152 when they were selling for $35.000 because they were too expensive.  Take away the medical requirement and they have orders for over 1000 at three to four times that price!  Go figure.  Do you think Cessna would like to see the weight limit raised to include all the old trainers?  NO WAY!  It ain't gonna happen.

In spite of myself, and all the negativity I've espoused, am I happy about, and appreciative of EAA's efforts in bringing about the LSA/SP regs?  YOU BETCHA!

Frank Gaggia, Jr.

EAA 11549

My problem with Sport Pilot is the rules governing Sport Planes. Only our U.S. government would pass legislation insuring the majority of Sport Planes originate off shore. The existing rules were tailor made for European aircraft manufacturers. Can you imagine the sales of Rotax engines that this rule has spawned?

Arbitrary weight and performance limits exclude almost all existing and currently manufactured aircraft by Cessna, Piper, Maule, American Champion, Aviat, and engines by Continental and Lycoming. Again, imagine the economic impact to those and other U.S. companies and the increased value of the existing U.S. fleet of single engine aircraft (for example, but not limited to 152s, 172s, 182s) if Sport Pilots were able to fly these aircraft? American workers would be busy refurbishing these airframes.

Sport Planes rules apparently indicate that a Sport Pilot would not be safe in a 1670 lb Cessna 152 produced in America but is safe in a 1320 lb Cessna Skycatcher from China. You will never convince me that the current offering of Sport Planes is as safe as those in our existing U.S. fleet. Can someone prove there is a safety factor introduced by these rules?

Ridiculous Ultralight regulations meant that most were flying illegally; because to meet a 254 lb. weight limit you had to fly little more than a lawn chair powered by a lightweight, unreliable two stroke engine. Sport Plane regulations promise a useful plane but many are finding out how little they actually get for a $100,000 plus airplane.

The Sport Plane rule is an example of another failure of our government. It makes absolutely no economic sense to American aircraft owners and pilots, American citizens, American workers, and to the American aviation worker. Would you like to know the amount of dollars that have flowed out of America because of these arbitrary rules?

Remember the FAA is here to help; that is if you are from Austria, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Brazil, or Germany.

No,... it is not! The reason being that there are no Light Sport Aircraft available within 50 miles of me. I can't afford to buy one, must go the rental route. There are plenty of C-150's, Pa-38's, and other venerable trainers available but the FAA deliberately excluded them from the class with the weight restrictions. Why did they do this? My guess would be to benefit the manufacturers,.... not the students.

Bob Prior

EAA #777238

AOPA #01180518

To expand on my last post,.. a bit of my situation.

In Sept 2006 I had a heart attack resulting in a triple bypass operation. Needless to say, the FAA found out about it and instantly grounded me for all classes of aircraft. Because I was denied,....stepping down to sport pilot was not an option!

Regaining my Class 3 medical, by way of the "Special Issuance" route, was the only way back into the air.

I am happy to report that I have been successful and have a current Special Issuance Class 3 Medical Cert. All it took was dedication, hard work (exercise) and a LOT of money. I currently have $13,000 invested in stress tests just to appease the FAA! I think it's time to get rid of the 3rd class medical for private pilots!

EAA and AOPA medical services were a big help also!

All I want to do is put-put around the countryside in a 2 seater, nothing more. I can now allow my medical to expire and step down to the sport pilot rating,..... if I only had an airplane!

Living here in the land of taxes (NYS), FBO's aren't going to spend the kind of money needed to buy a new light sport aircraft just for me! Anyone got an 'ol J-3 they would like to donate to my cause,.... Lol

Bob Prior

EAA # 777238

AOPA # 01180518

 Did Sport Pilot Work?

Well, that depends on what you wanted it to do. If you wanted Sport Pilot to crush the thriving ultralight industry underneath the smothering hand of FAA regulations, gut their ability to safely train people in two-place trikes and PPCs, and drain their lifeblood so it was no longer vividly clear that those outside the FAA flourish while those underneath it die... by all hearsay and empirical evidence, including the near-abandoned look of the ultralight area at Oshkosh, it certainly seemed to have resounding success. See the USUA and EAA protests at their CFIs being forced out by the requirement to buy a $100,000 trainer for ultralight instruction.

If you wanted sport pilot to allow current pilots to slip the strangling leash of the FAA medical, knowing that its only function is to either permanently ground pilots and smother potential pilots in the cradle or to make people run through thousands of dollars and years in testing and begging for the ability to do something legally on a short choke chain, it appears to be doing tolerably well at that - despite its ingrained catch-22 of grounding people who could fly with the same condition if the paperwork-on-high hadn't decreed it so. Certainly the number of airplanes sold and the market for light-sport planes far outstrips the actual number of sport-pilot-only certificate holders. No hard data tracking number of lapsed-medical flying-sport-pilot available.

If you wanted to artificially prop up the statistics to "hide the decline" in the pilot population by coercing the large numbers of ultralight pilots flying "fat ultralights" to get papers (just like its decision in 2002 that any pilot who also held a glider rating and lost their medical would count until death as an active glider pilot) - it failed. There were 618,633 active pilots in 2004, prior to the start of sport pilot, and in 2009, there are 594,285 active pilots, for a total statistical loss despite new certificates issued, of 24,348 pilots.

If you want to bring new lifeblood into the pilot population by attracting new pilots, in 2008, 628 sport pilot certificates were issued, and in 2009, roughly 625 sport pilot certificates were issued.** If we can assume a two-year trend to be a roughly accurate picture of what the industry is doing, you tell me if 625 new pilots a year is "working." For those of the 625 who are not transitioning ultralight pilots or ultralight instructors trying to jump through all the hoops to give dual training, it certainly worked well.

For the factory-built light-sport aircraft industry, the current customer expectations, additions, and price point seem set by private pilots and up retiring their medical and still wanting $100,000 worth of bells, whistles, and airplane. (Glass cockpits in a cub clone?) These are not the expectations of young or new pilots with accounts freshly drained by training, any more than a sixteen year old or fresh college graduate is likely to buy a Ferrari no matter how much he states he wants one for his first car. The glut of used planes and quick-build kits in the $20-60,000 range is able to absorb years of new sport pilots, so they are unlikely to be a significant percentage of sport pilot plane buyers soon.

For the kit-built light-sport aircraft that used to be "fat ultralights", removing their ability to be used as trainers and by the ultralight crowd, coupled with the dearth of ultralight trainers inevitably shrinking the pool of ultralight pilots, has sport pilot worked? Is their enough demand for their designs now as Experimental Ameteur Built that they weren't negatively impacted? I don't know; I'd like to hear what they have to say. Anyone going to Sun N' Fun?

In summary, I regard "Has Sport Pilot Worked?" as the same type of question as "What gear for hiking?" The question is too broad for a simple answer, and some of the answers conflict.
___

All data from the FAA US Civil Airmen Statistics as available on their website (through 2008) and the 2009 General Aviation Manufacturer's Association Statistical Databook, which draws on FAA statistics not yet released to the general public on the FAA site.

**This number achieved taking 2009 total sport certificates minus 2008 total sport certificates. Number may actually be slightly larger, given any deaths or revocations in the sport pilot

Dorothy, you have some interesting ideas, not sure if I understand all of it.

As for "you" who do you mean? I certainly did not "want" the sport pilot reg to do anything in the sense you use. I did not create it in any way, I just asked if it is working in the sense that I understand the objective of trying to find a cheaper way to bring new people into aviation.

Maybe you are using the word for the FAA, or in a general sense of the public, it's hard to tell.

As for the ultralights, especially the heavier two place ones used for training, I don't have any axe to grind one way or the other. . I am sorry to see any segment of sport aviation have a set back. I don't know much about them or their safety record or the quality of their training. I have had a few rides at Osh or Sun N Fun, some seemed good, some less so. Some guys took the time to reach out and make friends, but others seem to care very little about the public and stayed mostly in their own clique, unless they could smell a checkbook.  I do know when I last visited the small field an runway at the south end at Osh ,it was sparse. In the past I have enjoyed seeing them fly as we come in in the morning.

I think that many student pilots coming into training are not thinking primarily about learning in an ultralight, when they have the idea of  becoming a pilot., and they are thinking more of some form of airplane, more like the traditional trainers, but perhaps smaller and newer.Where is the grey area between a two place machine that is kin to a hang glider and the LSA that is closer to a Cub or Cessna?

Apparently you think someone has targeted eliminating 2 place ultralight type trainers. Who would that be? Perhaps the FAA? I think the idea of Sport Pilot came from the EAA, with restrictions from the FAA. I don't know the rationale behind not allowing these 2 place types to be used for paid training. Perhaps they are built to a lower standard or at least the FAA thinks that. Maybe there could be some limited type of training allowed in these, and the student might get something like a special rating that allows them to only fly these types of planes.

I agree that many of these new designs may  have more expensive electronics and panels than necessary, but probably market research says that is what sells to the new customer.

One other point. If you look at the Sport Pilot or any other issue from the perspective of person in the FAA it is different than yours or mine or the EAA or AOPA or Cessna or someone like that.

All of us in aviation and Sport Aviation and general aviation may want to see new students and expanded flying.

That is not really the goal of the person working for the FAA or the govt. Their goal is not to make a mistake, and that is the nature or their job. They are not likely to be promoted or to be given more funds by Congress because more new students come into flight training.

But if they make a mistake, if they stand up for allowing training different than in the past and it proves to be unsafe, then their career may suffer.

For many in the FAA, their position is all one of risk; if everything works our well, fine, but they can be on the hot seat if things do not work out.Not much extra reward for going out on a limb.

This was made clear to us by someone who used to be the second ranked person in the FAA.

Is Sport Pilot Working?

It sure is for me!  I'm a 76 year old commercial pilot with about 4400 hours. About 10 years ago I reolized that because of a minor health problem passing the physical would be complicated. So I decided my flying days were over. Because of the LSA program I have been able to fly again. I just took my grandson and granddoughter (12 and 14) for their first ride. They loved it and can't wait to start takeing their first flying lessons which I will happyly pay for. For me Sport Flying has allowed me to enjoy a dream I thought was lost. To all who worked so hard on this,  THANK YOU..... Bob Jerauld, EAA 301754

It would be cool if some of the ideas in this thread happened.   One, to abandon the class 3 medical and 2 to increase the weight of the LSA to 1670.  I hope those things happen.

Given the low numbers of Sports pilots I would say that while it is a nice program it hasn't had a lot of impact on flying.

I belong to a Light Flyers club with about 50 members. We all bring guests to the meetings and this month we had several younger people attending. I am close to 60 and most of our members are my age or older. Several of our older members are at a decision time to sell their 152s, small Pipers,Maules and Beechcrafts rather than continue with the hassle of a medical. They can not replace their aircraft with a light sport eligible plane for the money they have in their current aircraft. Most indicate they will probably sell their aircraft and quit flying because of the financial burden to continue in a Sport Plane. The younger guests indicated that the Sport Pilot rule had no benefit to them because there are no trainers available in our area for instruction or rent. The cost of a new Sport Plane is prohibitive for them to purchase and since they can probably qualify for a medical for years to come, would go the Private Pilot route.

I realize the FAA had to draw a line in the sand somewhere to define a Light Sport Plane. My objection is where they chose to draw the line; excluding the majority of the current U.S. aircraft fleet and opening the door to so many foreign manufacturers that happened to have planes that met the arbitrary definition. I think it is the duty of our government to promote American interest unless there are safety considerations. Where is the evidence that suggest these Sport Planes are actually safer than airplanes in our existing fleet.

I am waiting, someone please prove to me the safety benefits of the rules that define a Sport Plane!

Bill, 

I assume that you are connected with EAA  by the use of your flag.  Have you read the Sport Aviation article  in June 2010 on page 107; Sport Pilot is Working for Me? 

I could have written the article since the description of his history matches my situation exactly, but I believe that the FAA regulations on the Sport Pilot medical descriptions do not allow the very thing he and many of your respondents are reporting.  What say you?

Ralph H, janhhudson@isp.com

Are you people forgetting about some of the certificated LSA qualified "affordable" planes out there? You can buy a T-Craft, aeronca Cheif, Luscombe or something similar for under $20K ..jeez.. people spend $12K on snowmobiles and UTV's these days....so go buy a plane...hire an instructor and get your Sport Pilot License....It will work. Buying your own plane will give you incentive to complete what you've started. I just got my CFI-SP...but just because I'm a new sport pilot CFI don't let that scare you....I have thousands of hours in Taildraggers, floatplanes, and skiplanes. Someone said I'm not a "real" instructor.....so...is the 20 year old "new CFII with a few hundred hours a "real"instructor....you bet.....will he make  better,safer pilots out of his students....I'm not sure....but I'm a Private Pilot with 25+ yrs of experience ...I went and got a CFI-SP rating and I believe I have some good skills and experience to pass along....I learned in a cub and I'm an avid seaplane and skiplane pilot....I have a private grass strip that I built and I have a strong desire to pass along what I know. The new Sport Pilot rules gave me the opportunity to become a CFI without having to get an Instrument and commercial rating.....I have no need of either,,,,I fly a 1946 T-Craft for heavens sake. I do know that I can train someone to pilot an airplane and I can also teach them how to keep it  flying cheaply. I'll try and do my part to make sure Sport Pilot works.

Hi Daniel,  I like your attitude and your experience.  Just curious, in case someone is looking for a good instructor, where are you located?

I,m in the U.P. of Michigan. Iron River.

Bob,

There is a nice CGS Hawk for sale the I think may meet your requirements. It is my favorite Light Sport and a reasonable price. It is the factory Army Hawk, has a new rebuild and is not expensive. Send me a message and I will call with more info. I call it the poor mans super cub. It is the two seat model but the rear seat has not been installed. A great performing aircraft.

Grant Smith CFIG1467368@yahoo.com former CGS demo pilot.

 All, I think this is a fascinating thread on Sport Pilot certificate.   My opinion is that we're not really addressing some of the big issues.  It's not just "it works for me".

I think it's a travesty that the weight limit of the a/c is chosen to exclude existing "old" planes like the Cessna 150.   I find it very hard to believe that someone just happened to draw the line at a point that forces these new pilots to purchase expensive new a/c (or an old Ercoupe).   Did someone find that the weight limit of the Cessna 150 was unsafe for these pilots?   Or was it the new aircraft lobby?  This is about pilot safety, not saving the economy!

Second, so many people are in favor of being able to fly using a driver's license in lieu of a flight physical.   OK, again, what is this trying to do?   Does someone flying an LSA not need the same medical requirements as a Cessna 150?   Look, you either need to pass a flight physical or you don't and that ability isn't strongly coupled to the a/c weight.   That is, I believe I should be able to fly either an LSA or a Cessna 172 with the same level of medical testing.   I think we're looking at the elephant in the living room and not acknowledging it.

Using Sport Pilot as an entry point into aviation sounds fine.  Allow people limited privileges with less training.  OK, then focus on the training requirements and privileges.   Perhaps a suitable weight limit as well (something like a Cessna 180 or so?).

Consider the medical needs.   Who are these people that can't pass a Class 3 flight physical?   If they can drive a car, what type of airplane can they safely fly?   If I can self-certify to fly an LSA, then I believe I should be able to self-certify a Cessna 150 (or larger?).   My gut tells me that this group of people are older pilots who don't believe they can pass the flight physical.  Let's just say it out loud and pick suitable requirements.   Having them downsize into smaller, lighter aircraft doesn't seem to me to be the solution.   Everyone knows if they fail the physical, they're out.  So they let the medical lapse and then need to transition to new light a/c (they might have been safer flying their old Piper!).   Perhaps they should have slower, less HP (so these older folks have more time entering the traffic pattern) but still have privileges as they had when they were younger?   But isn't that what the biennial flight review is required for?

In conclusion, I don't see the combination of flight physical, a/c weight, training, and privileges logically bound up in the Sport Pilot certificate.   We should go back and decide what this is trying to address and build up logical requirements.  Perhaps let Private Pilots self-certify?   Or force Sport Pilots to take a reduced physical?   And don't let the a/c makers dictate the weight limit.  The new "budget minded" SP's should be able to buy a Cessna 150 on the cheap if that's what this is about (or a new LSA if they have a huge wad of money).  I'm very confused planning my own flying career as I age and what I'll be able to afford.

Tim