Sport Pilot inconsistency

[frustrated flier]

I am unclear on two Sport Pilot issues: First, a new pilot may qualify
for a Sport Pilot ticket even though he or she takes a medication that
would preclude a 3rd class medical. However, an experienced pilot with
a higher ticket may not operate as a Sport Pilot if he lost a medical
last year for taking the same medication. In other words, both pilots
have exactly the same medical history: One is allowed to fly as a
Sport Pilot and the other is not.

For the second issue, let's assume the medication is an SSRI where the
preponderance of medical opinion is that the medication does not
impair a pilot and makes them less of a risk if they need it. This is
the same medication that has been commonly prescribed to combat Navy
carrier pilots and Canadian fliers for years without issues. The same
medication that was prescribed for the ATP who will fly your family
home for Christmas but he cannot take it out of fear of losing his
medical.

[G.R. Patterson III]

frustrated flier wrote:
>
> I am unclear on two Sport Pilot issues:

Sounds to me that you have a very clear understanding of the situation.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

[Cub Driver]

>I am unclear on two Sport Pilot issues: First, a new pilot may qualify
>for a Sport Pilot ticket even though he or she takes a medication that
>would preclude a 3rd class medical. However, an experienced pilot with
>a higher ticket may not operate as a Sport Pilot if he lost a medical
>last year for taking the same medication. In other words, both pilots
>have exactly the same medical history: One is allowed to fly as a
>Sport Pilot and the other is not.

Correct. Of course there is a big difference between a Piper Cub and a
Bonanza.

Sport Pilot is a Junior Birdman license--what Recreational Pilot was
meant to be, but got wrapped up in some many qualifications that it
never got off the ground.

>For the second issue, let's assume the medication is an SSRI where the
>preponderance of medical opinion is that the medication does not
>impair a pilot and makes them less of a risk if they need it. This is
>the same medication that has been commonly prescribed to combat Navy
>carrier pilots and Canadian fliers for years without issues. The same
>medication that was prescribed for the ATP who will fly your family
>home for Christmas but he cannot take it out of fear of losing his
>medical.

Okay, that's either a reason to go for Sport Pilot or an issue to take
up with the FAA. But why is it an inconsistency?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Captain Wubba]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >I am unclear on two Sport Pilot issues: First, a new pilot may qualify
> >for a Sport Pilot ticket even though he or she takes a medication that
> >would preclude a 3rd class medical. However, an experienced pilot with
> >a higher ticket may not operate as a Sport Pilot if he lost a medical
> >last year for taking the same medication. In other words, both pilots
> >have exactly the same medical history: One is allowed to fly as a
> >Sport Pilot and the other is not.
>
> Correct. Of course there is a big difference between a Piper Cub and a
> Bonanza.
>
> Sport Pilot is a Junior Birdman license--what Recreational Pilot was
> meant to be, but got wrapped up in some many qualifications that it
> never got off the ground.
>

Oh I disagree strongly. Most private pilots I know rarely fly with
more than one other person on board, rarely fly at night, and (even if
IFR rated) very rarely fly 'real' IFR. Heck, many Commercial pilots do
the same. I asked several of my private or higher rated freinds to
look at their last 100 hours of flight time and tell me what % could
have been accomplished under Sport Pilot rules. The average was about
85%. I'm a CFI, and, excluding instructional flight, about 80% of my
last 100 hours could have been done in a LSP with Sport Pilot
priveleges.

It seems that it provides about 4/5ths of the utility of a Private
tickt for about 1/3 of the aquisition costs, and about 2/3rds (or
less) of the ongoing costs. Hardly a 'Junior Birdman' license.

Cheers,

Cap

[C Kingsbury]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...

> >I am unclear on two Sport Pilot issues: First, a new pilot may qualify
> >for a Sport Pilot ticket even though he or she takes a medication that
> >would preclude a 3rd class medical. However, an experienced pilot with
> >a higher ticket may not operate as a Sport Pilot if he lost a medical
> >last year for taking the same medication. In other words, both pilots
> >have exactly the same medical history: One is allowed to fly as a
> >Sport Pilot and the other is not.

Think of it from the FAA's perspective: You have a license that has no
medical paper trail requirement, it just says, "don't be stupid and
fly if you can't," just like a 50' speedboat that can go 100MPH. A guy
who shouldn't be flying does, and crashes into a playground. Tragedy,
but not the FAA's fault. A second pilot is *on record* with the FAA as
being medically "unfit to fly," and the same accident happens.
Disregard the fine print of what can lead to a rejection for a moment
and imagine how that one will play on the evening news. There's your
explanation.

> Sport Pilot is a Junior Birdman license--what Recreational Pilot was
> meant to be, but got wrapped up in some many qualifications that it
> never got off the ground.

It's natural that existing pilots grounded by senseless medical issues
focus so narrowly on the license aspect, but it's the new ways of
certifying, manufacturing, and maintaining aircraft that will make
Sport Pilot revolutionary. And as flying becomes more accessible in
terms of cost, more people will get into it, creating larger and more
powerful lobbies to increase medical options.

> >For the second issue, let's assume the medication is an SSRI where the
> >preponderance of medical opinion is that the medication does not
> >impair a pilot and makes them less of a risk if they need it.

AFAICT the FAA's concern is not so much with direct physiological
effects of the meds, but with the fact that the pilot's mental state
is such that they are necessary. Now, this raises the question of
whather you're better off with a cheerful Zoloft-ed captain or a
depressed and completely untreated one. As a layman this looks like a
real minefield no matter which way you go. Again putting myself in the
bureaucrat's seat, I'm thinking about how to make sure I don't get
blamed if something awful happens. That's who the current system
protects.

> >This is
> >the same medication that has been commonly prescribed to combat Navy
> >carrier pilots and Canadian fliers for years without issues.

If the government has spent years and millions of dollars training a
pilot, they're not going to kick him to a desk job without a damn good
reason. Plus they can invest a lot more effort in individual
evaluations of cases.

***

The truth is, the FAA is far more progressive about medical issues
than pretty much the rest of the world, and can reasonably argue that
it is truly trying to certify as many pilots as possible. Diabetes and
any kind of heart problems were once utterly unthinkable, and now
there are tens of thousands of pilots all the way up through 1st Class
flying with those. The pace of change is of course never fast enough
for those who have problems that remain off-limits, but medical
certification is one area where common sense seems to have prevailed
over the years.

Pharmaceutical treatment of minor depression is still a somewhat new
thing in many ways, but it's becoming so widespread I can't see the
FAA's more or less blanket ban on it lasting another decade. Pilots,
existing or would-be, who take these medications need to get together
and work with groups like AOPA and ALPA to figure out what the FAA
needs see to change course.

Best,
-cwk.

[Cub Driver]

On 3 Sep 2004 11:28:55 -0700, (Captain Wubba)
wrote:

>last 100 hours of flight time and tell me what % could
>have been accomplished under Sport Pilot rules. The average was about
>85%

One of the rules has to do with weight. 1300 lbs, is it? Either you
know a lot of Cub drivers, or they couldn't in fact have done their
flying under Sport Pilot rules.

The Cub was "the plane that can almost kill you." The same is true of
most ultralights. I have a friend who once flew into a tree, climbed
down, got a chainsaw, cut the tree down, and flew the ultralight home.

Note that bicycles can use most of the same roads that cars and trucks
do, but are seldom registered nor their operators licensed. It's just
harder to kill yourself (or more important, someone else) on a
bicycle.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[David Johnson]

Cub Driver > wrote in message
> Note that bicycles can use most of the same roads that cars and trucks
> do, but are seldom registered nor their operators licensed. It's just
> harder to kill yourself (or more important, someone else) on a
> bicycle.
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

It's not hard to kill yourself on a bicycle. My first cousin
did do about 20 years ago - riding his bike home from work in
the rain. About two years ago a prominent local M.D. and
fitness nut (who also often rode his bike to work) did himself
in. His body was found alongside the bike path. No one saw the
accident, so the cause is only speculation. However, he suffered
severe head trauma - and the helmet he was wearing didn't save
him. Another well to do citizen rode into the back of a parked
delivery truck - and likewise did not survive. All of these
were one-vehicle accidents.

I think that there would be a lot less of these accidents if
all bikes were recumbents (but probably more cases of being
run down by drivers who never saw the bicycle).

David Johnson

[Captain Wubba]

The flying that was done did not require a plane weighing more than
1320 lbs. It was VFR day flight with none or one passenger. Several of
the new LSPs have very impressive useful loads. One, in fact has a
useful load of over 700 lbs, and burns 4 GPH. Rather a useful amount
to be able to carry.
Cap


Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> On 3 Sep 2004 11:28:55 -0700, (Captain Wubba)
> wrote:
>
> >last 100 hours of flight time and tell me what % could
> >have been accomplished under Sport Pilot rules. The average was about
> >85%
>
> One of the rules has to do with weight. 1300 lbs, is it? Either you
> know a lot of Cub drivers, or they couldn't in fact have done their
> flying under Sport Pilot rules.
>
> The Cub was "the plane that can almost kill you." The same is true of
> most ultralights. I have a friend who once flew into a tree, climbed
> down, got a chainsaw, cut the tree down, and flew the ultralight home.
>
> Note that bicycles can use most of the same roads that cars and trucks
> do, but are seldom registered nor their operators licensed. It's just
> harder to kill yourself (or more important, someone else) on a
> bicycle.
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 05:46:50 -0400, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>The Cub was "the plane that can almost kill you." The same is true of
>most ultralights. I have a friend who once flew into a tree, climbed
>down, got a chainsaw, cut the tree down, and flew the ultralight home.

I felt a bit guilty about this post. I should have added that he also
got some medical attention, between the climbing down and the
chainsawyering. When he told me the story he still had a bandage
across his nose.

Still, he fared better than if he had pulled the same trick in a
Bonanza.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Cub Driver]

On 4 Sep 2004 20:58:05 -0700, (Captain Wubba)
wrote:

>The flying that was done did not require a plane weighing more than
>1320 lbs. It was VFR day flight with none or one passenger.

It's still a very different kind of flying, if you are in a heavy
plane with a powerful engine, an adjustable-pitch propeller, and
retractable landing gear.

This is precisely the notion that the Recreational Pilot cert was
supposed to address, years ago. I can't fly any of those things (250
hp, constant speed prop, retractable gear), or at night, or (until
Monday) in ATC airspace. My opportunities for getting into mischief
are much less than they would be if I had a Private Pilot cert.

With Sport Pilot rules, one has even fewer opportunities, thus more
latitude in who can fly.

At the same time, the FAA has brought scads of ultra-lighters into the
certification system, presumably making them a bit safer, and making
them susceptible to disciplinary action.




all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Captain Wubba]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> On 4 Sep 2004 20:58:05 -0700, (Captain Wubba)
> wrote:
>
> >The flying that was done did not require a plane weighing more than
> >1320 lbs. It was VFR day flight with none or one passenger.
>
> It's still a very different kind of flying, if you are in a heavy
> plane with a powerful engine, an adjustable-pitch propeller, and
> retractable landing gear.

Absolutely. But I know plenty of PP-ASELs who ahev (literally) never
flown anything bigger than a Cessna 172. We had club members who
*owned* their share of a Cessna 206, but chose not to fly it. Plenty
of highly skilled PP-ASELs only want to fly what they want to fly. And
these people are wonderful candidates for operating sport planes.

>
> This is precisely the notion that the Recreational Pilot cert was
> supposed to address, years ago. I can't fly any of those things (250
> hp, constant speed prop, retractable gear), or at night, or (until
> Monday) in ATC airspace. My opportunities for getting into mischief
> are much less than they would be if I had a Private Pilot cert.
>
> With Sport Pilot rules, one has even fewer opportunities, thus more
> latitude in who can fly.
>

Actually, the Sport Pilot has more privileges in many ways...unlimited
cross country flight (with one-time logbook endorsement), able to talk
to ATC (with endorsement). Still plenty of mischief to be had. And the
20 hours FAA minimum sems awfully low to me, as a CFI.

> At the same time, the FAA has brought scads of ultra-lighters into the
> certification system, presumably making them a bit safer, and making
> them susceptible to disciplinary action.
>
>
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

Cheers,

Cap

[C J Campbell]

"frustrated flier" > wrote in message
om...
> I am unclear on two Sport Pilot issues: First, a new pilot may qualify
> for a Sport Pilot ticket even though he or she takes a medication that
> would preclude a 3rd class medical.

Actually, I don't think that is the case. The only thing that the Sport
Pilot certificate requires is that you certify yourself as being fit to fly.
I think the FAA intends to enforce the rule as saying that if you would not
qualify for a 3rd class medical then you are unfit to fly anyway. This
greatly reduces the utility of the Sport Pilot rules overall -- to the point
where it appears a huge amount of time and money were wasted on a fruitless
rules writing exercise.

[C J Campbell]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" >
> wrote:
>
> >I think the FAA intends to enforce the rule as saying that if you would
not
> >qualify for a 3rd class medical then you are unfit to fly anyway.
>
> This is absolutely NOT true. The FAA has made it very clear
> that being able to qualify for a 3rd class medical for your
> 2 year period and being safe to fly on a specific flight as
> a Sport Pilot/glider pilot/balloon pilot are NOT the same
> thing. This position is long standing and unchanged. It
> appears in FAQ's, regulatory preambles, NPRM's,
> administrative decisions and Chief Counsel interpretations.

Yeah, I know it has. It just seems to me that someone in the FAA is trying
to reverse all that.

[Morgans]

"Captain Wubba" > wrote

> Actually, the Sport Pilot has more privileges in many ways...unlimited
> cross country flight (with one-time logbook endorsement), able to talk
> to ATC (with endorsement). Still plenty of mischief to be had. And the
> 20 hours FAA minimum sems awfully low to me, as a CFI.

The CFI still is the one to keep teaching until the student is ready to go
to the examiner. Just like now, few are ready after only 40 hours.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 9/3/2004

[Dave Stadt]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" >
> wrote:
>
> >I think the FAA intends to enforce the rule as saying that if you would
not
> >qualify for a 3rd class medical then you are unfit to fly anyway.
>
> This is absolutely NOT true. The FAA has made it very clear
> that being able to qualify for a 3rd class medical for your
> 2 year period and being safe to fly on a specific flight as
> a Sport Pilot/glider pilot/balloon pilot are NOT the same
> thing. This position is long standing and unchanged. It
> appears in FAQ's, regulatory preambles, NPRM's,
> administrative decisions and Chief Counsel interpretations.
>
> Todd Pattist
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> ___
> Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> Share what you learn.

Problem is the FAA can and will interpret as they see fit with no
consistency. What is true today probably will not be true tomorrow.

[Dave Stadt]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Captain Wubba" > wrote
>
> > Actually, the Sport Pilot has more privileges in many ways...unlimited
> > cross country flight (with one-time logbook endorsement), able to talk
> > to ATC (with endorsement). Still plenty of mischief to be had. And the
> > 20 hours FAA minimum sems awfully low to me, as a CFI.
>
> The CFI still is the one to keep teaching until the student is ready to go
> to the examiner. Just like now, few are ready after only 40 hours.
> --
> Jim in NC

Plus the insurance companies can force higher standards.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
> Plus the insurance companies can force higher standards.

Only for those pilots who choose to carry insurance. Sport planes will be
significantly less expensive than the current crop of production
Normal/Utility category airplanes, and thus there will likely be a higher
proportion of pilot/owners in the sport pilot group, none of whom will be
required to carry insurance (though, of course, most will).

Unfortunately, if it's anything like the automotive world, the worst pilots
will also be the ones who choose not to carry insurance.

Pete

[Cub Driver]

On 8 Sep 2004 05:59:08 -0700, (Captain Wubba)
wrote:

>Absolutely. But I know plenty of PP-ASELs who ahev (literally) never
>flown anything bigger than a Cessna 172.

A 172 seems like heavy metal to me, and the J-3s I fly are on the
upper edge of the Light Sport Aircraft weight limit.

Even a Super Cub doesn't qualify!

Cub Crafters claims to have built a PA-11 lookalike that does, but I
wonder about the Piper-built PA-11s that are still around. Planes seem
to gain weight over the years, just like people.

I weigh 180 pounds equipped for flying, and the J-3 I generally fly
gives me only 360 pounds for pilot and passenger with a full tank of
gasoline. Most of my friends weigh more than 180 pounds even when they
lying about it.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Cub Driver]

On 8 Sep 2004 05:59:08 -0700, (Captain Wubba)
wrote:

>Actually, the Sport Pilot has more privileges in many ways...unlimited
>cross country flight (with one-time logbook endorsement), able to talk
>to ATC (with endorsement). Still plenty of mischief to be had. And the
>20 hours FAA minimum sems awfully low to me, as a CFI.

That's not more privileges but the same privileges, sasme
requirements. I got the XC sign-off (three stop & go's at
Moultonborough NH) before getting my Recreational cert, and I have the
ATC endorsement as of Monday.

I am now legal to fly to LAX by way of BOS, JFK, DCA, ORD, and DIA. My
wife paled visibly when she heard. (I would have to check out in that
heavy-metal 172 first, however, since the Cub has no transponder.)

It all makes perfectly good sense to me. The Sport Pilot can't fly the
172, and I as a Recreational Pilot can't fly a 210. It's like having
distinct licenses for bicycles, motor scooters, and automobiles.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> Planes seem
> to gain weight over the years, just like people.

It doesn't matter if they do. If the aircraft has been certified with a max gross
weight of 1,320 lbs or less, it's legal. If you have a PA-11 that has "gained weight"
to the point that it weighs more than its max gross takeoff weight, it really
shouldn't be flying in any category. But still, it's the certified weight that
counts, not the actual weight.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.