Sport pilot question

[[email protected]]

The Sport Pilot regs say that a Private Pilot acting as a Sport Pilot
must have a current Bi-annual flight review, but I cannot find anything
in the Sport Pilot regs. that states that a Sport Pilot must have a
flight review of any kind after he/she gets the initial license. If
that is the case, why can't a Private Pilot act as a Sport Pilot
without having to have the Bi-annual flight review?

Neal

[gilan]

Have you asked your question on the Light-Sport Aircraft group?
--
Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/






> wrote ...
> The Sport Pilot regs say that a Private Pilot acting as a Sport Pilot
> must have a current Bi-annual flight review, but I cannot find anything
> in the Sport Pilot regs. that states that a Sport Pilot must have a
> flight review of any kind after he/she gets the initial license. If
> that is the case, why can't a Private Pilot act as a Sport Pilot
> without having to have the Bi-annual flight review?
>
> Neal
>

[UltraJohn]

one possiblilty is that a PPL flying under SP doesn't need to be signed off
for each airplane make and model that he flys. A SP that is not a PPL needs
signed off and tested for each!
John

[Morgans]

"UltraJohn" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> one possiblilty is that a PPL flying under SP doesn't need to be signed
off
> for each airplane make and model that he flys. A SP that is not a PPL
needs
> signed off and tested for each!
> John


You need to research that further, with EAA. The interpretation is that if
you hold a single engine land SP, you are good to go on all sp SEL. if you
want to fly a seaplane, you can, if you get a signoff for that one model.
Same for a twin.

It closes the loophole that has allowed a SEL PP fly an experimental
seaplane or twin, with no checkouts or controls. No longer, with a SP.
--
Jim in NC

[W P Dixon]

Hi Gang,
Well from the way I am seeing it, it mentions recreational and private
pilots..but never a sport pilot. Could this be because sport pilots can not
fly twin engines, retracts, etc. so there is no need to be included in the
new rule. A sport pilot must be signed off to fly w/floats, trikes, powered
parachutes, gliders. Seems the new sport pilot rule pretty much already has
it covered as far as getting endorsements to fly other aircraft, in their
category. Seems like what is mentioned in this new rule are pretty much
planes sport pilots can not legally fly anyway? Of course I am sure the FAA
rule is about 3,907,268 pages long and I have not read the official
document, but that is what I am getting from what I am reading on the news
websites.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[UltraJohn]

>
>
> You need to research that further, with EAA. The interpretation is that
> if
> you hold a single engine land SP, you are good to go on all sp SEL. if
> you want to fly a seaplane, you can, if you get a signoff for that one
> model. Same for a twin.
>
> It closes the loophole that has allowed a SEL PP fly an experimental
> seaplane or twin, with no checkouts or controls. No longer, with a SP.


I'll look later when I have more time buttttt. I think I'm right.
A SP from scratch gets endorsed for his make and model and must be
checked/tested for additionals. I may be wrong (I thought I was wrong once,
but I was mistaken!).
John

[W P Dixon]

John,
Sport Pilots can not fly twin engine aircraft, they would be required to
"move up" in certificate . As for float planes , that is still being debated
by higher folks than myself. I think the meaning of sport pilot floats ,
means just floats, not amphibious ( that means retracts, which are against
sport pilot rules) I just do not see this affecting sport pilots at all,
just rec and PPL's that have been flying twins with no rating for them
because they were homebuilts or what have you.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"UltraJohn" > wrote in message
k.net...
>>
>>
>> You need to research that further, with EAA. The interpretation is that
>> if
>> you hold a single engine land SP, you are good to go on all sp SEL. if
>> you want to fly a seaplane, you can, if you get a signoff for that one
>> model. Same for a twin.
>>

[Morgans]

"UltraJohn" > wrote in message
k.net...
> >
> >
> > You need to research that further, with EAA. The interpretation is
that
> > if
> > you hold a single engine land SP, you are good to go on all sp SEL. if
> > you want to fly a seaplane, you can, if you get a signoff for that one
> > model. Same for a twin.
> >
> > It closes the loophole that has allowed a SEL PP fly an experimental
> > seaplane or twin, with no checkouts or controls. No longer, with a SP.
>
>
> I'll look later when I have more time buttttt. I think I'm right.
> A SP from scratch gets endorsed for his make and model and must be
> checked/tested for additionals. I may be wrong (I thought I was wrong
once,
> but I was mistaken!).
> John

I'll have to double check, myself.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> John,
> Sport Pilots can not fly twin engine aircraft, they would be required to
> "move up" in certificate . As for float planes , that is still being
debated
> by higher folks than myself. I think the meaning of sport pilot floats ,
> means just floats, not amphibious ( that means retracts, which are against
> sport pilot rules) I just do not see this affecting sport pilots at all,
> just rec and PPL's that have been flying twins with no rating for them
> because they were homebuilts or what have you.

SP allows for repositionable gear for amphibians. Just what that means, is
still out for debate. The one time ruling I saw was that the flight had to
originate and end from water, or start and end from land. Kinda defeats the
purpose of an amphibian, doesn't it? I hope it gets changed. That is
stupid.
--
Jim in NC

[W P Dixon]

You are correct there Jim, and I agree it sure needs to be "fixed" on the
amphibs. I read the FAA SP notice today on the site and it says a
proficiency check is required for a sport pilot to go from SEL to
weight-shift or glider . I think originally it was just going to be a CFI
endorsement. Let me stress this came from the Sport Pilot FAA website,...had
nothing to do with PPL's. Amazing how a rule that could be so simple has to
be made so dern complicated by people in suits that have nothing better to
do ! I guess what I read was what the aveb news and all was talking about.
It is all I saw on the official site.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John,
>> Sport Pilots can not fly twin engine aircraft, they would be required to
>> "move up" in certificate . As for float planes , that is still being
> debated
>> by higher folks than myself. I think the meaning of sport pilot floats ,
>> means just floats, not amphibious ( that means retracts, which are
>> against
>> sport pilot rules) I just do not see this affecting sport pilots at all,
>> just rec and PPL's that have been flying twins with no rating for them
>> because they were homebuilts or what have you.
>
> SP allows for repositionable gear for amphibians. Just what that means,
> is
> still out for debate. The one time ruling I saw was that the flight had
> to
> originate and end from water, or start and end from land. Kinda defeats
> the
> purpose of an amphibian, doesn't it? I hope it gets changed. That is
> stupid.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Morgans]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> You are correct there Jim, and I agree it sure needs to be "fixed" on the
> amphibs. I read the FAA SP notice today on the site and it says a
> proficiency check is required for a sport pilot to go from SEL to
> weight-shift or glider . I think originally it was just going to be a CFI
> endorsement.

I'm not so sure that a proficiency check is a bad idea, especially going to
weight shift, from what I have read. It can be disaster, if you do a
negative g pushover, in a weight shift wing, I believe.

What would a CFI do an endorsement, anyway? Seems to me you would need to
see they knew what to do, by demonstrating how to fly one, and that sounds
like a proficiency check, doesn't it?

I do agree that things have been made unnecessarily complex, though. If
they keep going, the idea behind the original SP ticket will be useless.

Did you see anything about if a SP will have to get a sign-off on each sport
plane model, even if it is in the same class? (such as SEL)

The whole amphibian issue with not repositioning gear in flight has got me
****ed. My parents live on a lake that would make it ideal to take off from
a nearby airport, then land on the lake to visit. What else would you have
to do? fly to a boat launch ramp, land on the grass, then reposition the
gear for water? Right!
--
Jim in NC

[sleepy6]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
>> You are correct there Jim, and I agree it sure needs to be "fixed" o
>n the
>> amphibs. I read the FAA SP notice today on the site and it says a
>> proficiency check is required for a sport pilot to go from SEL to
>> weight-shift or glider . I think originally it was just going to be
>a CFI
>> endorsement.
>
>I'm not so sure that a proficiency check is a bad idea, especially goi
>ng to
>weight shift, from what I have read. It can be disaster, if you do a
>negative g pushover, in a weight shift wing, I believe.
>
>What would a CFI do an endorsement, anyway? Seems to me you would nee
>d to
>see they knew what to do, by demonstrating how to fly one, and that so
>unds
>like a proficiency check, doesn't it?
>
>I do agree that things have been made unnecessarily complex, though.
>If
>they keep going, the idea behind the original SP ticket will be useles
>s.
>
>Did you see anything about if a SP will have to get a sign-off on each
> sport
>plane model, even if it is in the same class? (such as SEL)
>
>The whole amphibian issue with not repositioning gear in flight has go
>t me
>****ed. My parents live on a lake that would make it ideal to take of
>f from
>a nearby airport, then land on the lake to visit. What else would you
> have
>to do? fly to a boat launch ramp, land on the grass, then reposition t
>he
>gear for water? Right!
>--
>Jim in NC

There was a big deal over the "make and model" requirements. A
committee was formed and it was finally resolved. It wound up that all
fixed wings were considered a "group" and a checkout in any make or
model of that group was good for all planes in the group. Same deal
for all trikes, all gyros, etc. One of the few sensible changes.

The anphibians were allowed to "reposition" their gear once each flight
the last I heard. That solved that problem.

Remember that anything about SP that you see on the net may be outdated
or completely wrong. Even the EAA has been proven wrong on occasion.
The FAA guys giving seminars have given wrong answers too. This thing
is so new that they are still writeing it and things can change
quickly. The best source is probably the FAA document 8130 but even
that has been revised twice recently.

I plan on standing back a year or so until the smoke clears:)

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 20 May 2005 00:01:50 -0400, "Morgans" > wrote:

>The whole amphibian issue with not repositioning gear in flight has got me
>****ed. My parents live on a lake that would make it ideal to take off from
>a nearby airport, then land on the lake to visit. What else would you have
>to do? fly to a boat launch ramp, land on the grass, then reposition the
>gear for water? Right!

Well... I'm not trying to excuse what the FAA is doing, but this is a thorny
issue.

After all, if the FAA eventually says, "retractable gear is OK for amphibians,"
why should it still be banned for landplanes? Both types of planes would have
the same training requirements and both types would have the same level of
mechanical complexity. Why should the presence of floats dictate whether an LSA
is allowed to have retractable gear?

The best solution would be just to eliminate the ban on retractable gear and
depend on the 120 knot max speed limit to keep the rein on things. That would
effectively allow retracts when necessary for operational reasons (e.g., landing
on water) while eliminating implementations where it's used to cut drag....

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/stories/retract.JPG

One factor to consider, though: Allowing retracts will make maintenance on
these things a bit more complex, and training for the LSA Maintenance Repairman
Certificate is going to have to reflect that. There's only so much you can
learn in 120 hours....

Ron Wanttaja

[Morgans]

"sleepy6" > wrote
>
> There was a big deal over the "make and model" requirements. A
> committee was formed and it was finally resolved. It wound up that all
> fixed wings were considered a "group" and a checkout in any make or
> model of that group was good for all planes in the group. Same deal
> for all trikes, all gyros, etc. One of the few sensible changes.

I thought I had seen that somewhere. Good.

> The anphibians were allowed to "reposition" their gear once each flight
> the last I heard. That solved that problem.

I had not seen that one. Very good! Do you remember where you saw that
one?

> Remember that anything about SP that you see on the net may be outdated
> or completely wrong. Even the EAA has been proven wrong on occasion.
> The FAA guys giving seminars have given wrong answers too. This thing
> is so new that they are still writeing it and things can change
> quickly. The best source is probably the FAA document 8130 but even
> that has been revised twice recently.
>
> I plan on standing back a year or so until the smoke clears:)

Wise. I have to do that too, but I still like to dream, so every little bit
helps! :-)
--
Jim in NC

[W P Dixon]

Jim,
There are no sign offs for each fixed wing airplane, just the check for
fixed wing! Now to fly with floats you will have to get signed off for that,
just as you would for weight shift, etc.
I agree it's not a bad idea to have these extra sign offs for different
types,...but geesh look at the confusion being caused . Especially with the
float situation! Simple is better, and if it takes a lawyer and judge to
read a rule then it probably is unnecessary.
I know you can't wait to get signed off in a Rotax powered trike! ;)
But for some good news there is a new Sport Pilot Examiner in Morgantown, NC
and Mt Juliet, TN. So at least we are making some progress in this regard,
slowly but surely!
For the floats I think it will end up where you just have a water based
plane on floats , if you want to land on terra firma, you will have to take
the floats off and put the gear back on. I agree with Ron on this one, you
have to keep the operation simple for the new category...and any kind of
retracts would make it "not simple".
I may have to design 2 kinds of floats, already working on a set with
pnuematic retracts. May have to design a set with smaller volume for even
smaller aircraft, like the ultralight scene.
Hope I can get down your way and do some flying in NC, just trying to
see what kind of plane they will be using for training.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[Morgans]

"W P Dixon" wrote

> I know you can't wait to get signed off in a Rotax powered trike! ;)

That'll be a cold day in the very hot nether regions! ;-)

The trike sounds OK, but can it be rubber band powered, instead? <g>

> But for some good news there is a new Sport Pilot Examiner in Morgantown,
NC

Really! Great! Who is it? That is *very* close to me,and I might even
know him?her. If you don't feel it is appropriate to share it here, how
about sending me an E-mail? De-bug the usual junk, first.


> For the floats I think it will end up where you just have a water based
> plane on floats , if you want to land on terra firma, you will have to
take
> the floats off and put the gear back on.

That would suck. I wonder if you could make wheels tightly faired, so they
could function on land, and still land and take off from water.

What ever happen to the language that was passed, that said re-positionable
gear was to be allowed on float planes and sail planes? Does that not
matter at all? Of course, I know the answer to that one.

> I may have to design 2 kinds of floats, already working on a set with
> pnuematic retracts. May have to design a set with smaller volume for even
> smaller aircraft, like the ultralight scene.

This is for a business venture, or for a plane (what kind) for you?

> Hope I can get down your way and do some flying in NC, just trying to
> see what kind of plane they will be using for training.

Great! Let me know when (or if) you head this way.
--
Jim in NC

[W P Dixon]

Jim,
The fellows name is Joseph Carswell, I am sure he doesn't mind his name
on here..it's free advertising! As for the sport pilot float rules, the
amphib gear is causing alot of debate in the FAA...as some say retracts on a
float is in fact retracts on an aircraft and not allowable under sport
rules. I hope their will be a compromise and a fix for the problem.
As for the floats I am working on , not really a biz thing, just a hobby
thing!!! now if I could sell a set I would not complain at all mind you!
HAHAHA I am working on a set with 1000 lb volume with pnuematic retracts
that would go nicely with several homebuilt designs..701's , Kitfox etc. I
just sure wish I could get this blasted CAD program figured out!
I thought it would make it easier, but I may have to go back to college
in order to figure out how to work it!!! ;) I guess I got way to spoiled
with people handing me a blueprint and saying "Here build this and tell what
works and what doesn't." I was hoping to use the CAD and do all the
compartment volume numbers and just do adjustments on the CAD..but it may be
faster for my non-CADDING butt to draw them out the old fashioned way!
I pretty much have everything worked out except final dimension numbers
to get the proper volumes. I know what I am using for retracts , and how to
make the deck "universal" for fitting a plane to the float.
I saw a picture of a Volksplane with floats, so I may have to make the
smaller set just for my VP1. If for nothing else so I can get a big laugh
out of it!!! ;) Of course due to circumstances beyond my control, all these
projects take a long time financially ..but I'll do it! ;) Hope to have my
VP1 vertical done this weekend, if the wife can get off work long enough to
watch the wee one so I may enter my dungeon workshop in the basement!
It's slow going, but hey! , this taking flying lessons ain't cheap! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[sleepy6]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>"sleepy6" > wrote
>>
snip
>>
>> The anphibians were allowed to "reposition" their gear once each fli
>ght
>> the last I heard. That solved that problem.
>
>I had not seen that one. Very good! Do you remember where you saw th
>at
>one?

Somewhere in the consensous standards ... I think. There was a big
deal about the word "repositional" must be used instead of
"retractable" to avoid conflicts. Maybe someone still on the
consensous committee can give an update on it. I didn't renew my
membership once I saw where things were headed.


>> Remember that anything about SP that you see on the net may be outda
>ted
>> or completely wrong. Even the EAA has been proven wrong on occasion
>.
>> The FAA guys giving seminars have given wrong answers too. This thi
>ng
>> is so new that they are still writeing it and things can change
>> quickly. The best source is probably the FAA document 8130 but even
>> that has been revised twice recently.
>>
>> I plan on standing back a year or so until the smoke clears:)
>
>Wise. I have to do that too, but I still like to dream, so every litt
>le bit
>helps! :-)
>--
>Jim in NC
>

[UltraJohn]

My recollection is that repositioning is ok but you have to land with what
you take off with.
So what you can do is say fly from a landlock location to an amphib airport
go from land (taxi) to water and fly to a lake somewhere. Kinda sucks I
know!
John

[Jean-Paul Roy]

Mr. Dixon, would you mind telling us what will be used to activate your
retract mechanism? seems very interesting.
I'm actulally Flying with Pudlle Jumper floats. The retract system is
actuated by cables with manual locks (also cables activated.

Jean-Paul Roy
Quebec, Canada
"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Jim,
> The fellows name is Joseph Carswell, I am sure he doesn't mind his name
> on here..it's free advertising! As for the sport pilot float rules, the
> amphib gear is causing alot of debate in the FAA...as some say retracts on
a
> float is in fact retracts on an aircraft and not allowable under sport
> rules. I hope their will be a compromise and a fix for the problem.
> As for the floats I am working on , not really a biz thing, just a
hobby
> thing!!! now if I could sell a set I would not complain at all mind you!
> HAHAHA I am working on a set with 1000 lb volume with pnuematic retracts
> that would go nicely with several homebuilt designs..701's , Kitfox etc. I
> just sure wish I could get this blasted CAD program figured out!
> I thought it would make it easier, but I may have to go back to
college
> in order to figure out how to work it!!! ;) I guess I got way to spoiled
> with people handing me a blueprint and saying "Here build this and tell
what
> works and what doesn't." I was hoping to use the CAD and do all the
> compartment volume numbers and just do adjustments on the CAD..but it may
be
> faster for my non-CADDING butt to draw them out the old fashioned way!
> I pretty much have everything worked out except final dimension
numbers
> to get the proper volumes. I know what I am using for retracts , and how
to
> make the deck "universal" for fitting a plane to the float.
> I saw a picture of a Volksplane with floats, so I may have to make the
> smaller set just for my VP1. If for nothing else so I can get a big laugh
> out of it!!! ;) Of course due to circumstances beyond my control, all
these
> projects take a long time financially ..but I'll do it! ;) Hope to have my
> VP1 vertical done this weekend, if the wife can get off work long enough
to
> watch the wee one so I may enter my dungeon workshop in the basement!
> It's slow going, but hey! , this taking flying lessons ain't cheap! ;)
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
>

[W P Dixon]

Jean-Paul,
I am thinking in two different directions on this...one a pnuematic
lever, one position is gear down ,one is gear up. Second I am talking with
the company that makes the cylinders as they make some with electronic
sensors on them, which to me seems to be a very good way to use them with an
electronic gear up gear down switch , and even have a small LED panel that
lights up for the gear position. By using the later cylinders I believe
using the pneumatic lever "switch" and the LED panel could be the best of
both worlds :) But all of this will have to be tested and I am a long way
from that!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
"Jean-Paul Roy" > wrote in message
...
> Mr. Dixon, would you mind telling us what will be used to activate your
> retract mechanism? seems very interesting.
> I'm actulally Flying with Pudlle Jumper floats. The retract system is
> actuated by cables with manual locks (also cables activated.
>
> Jean-Paul Roy
> Quebec, Canada

[Pat Sweeney]

"UltraJohn" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> My recollection is that repositioning is ok but you have to land with what
> you take off with.
> So what you can do is say fly from a landlock location to an amphib
> airport
> go from land (taxi) to water and fly to a lake somewhere. Kinda sucks I
> know!
> John

Kinda sucks is putting it too gentlemanly . . . it is STUPID to deny a pilot
permission to perform an act in the air that he/she is permitted to perform
on the ground!
Pat

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:59:56 -0800, "Pat Sweeney" > wrote:

>Kinda sucks is putting it too gentlemanly . . . it is STUPID to deny a pilot
>permission to perform an act in the air that he/she is permitted to perform
>on the ground!

Like stepping outside the aircraft? :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Pat Sweeney]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:59:56 -0800, "Pat Sweeney" >
> wrote:
>
>>Kinda sucks is putting it too gentlemanly . . . it is STUPID to deny a
>>pilot
>>permission to perform an act in the air that he/she is permitted to
>>perform
>>on the ground!
>
> Like stepping outside the aircraft? :-)
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Since stepping outside the aircraft is not prohibited, airborne or
otherwise, it is permitted. I rest my case.

Pat

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Tue, 24 May 2005 19:55:33 -0800, "Pat Sweeney" > wrote:

>
>"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:59:56 -0800, "Pat Sweeney" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Kinda sucks is putting it too gentlemanly . . . it is STUPID to deny a
>>>pilot
>>>permission to perform an act in the air that he/she is permitted to
>>>perform
>>>on the ground!
>>
>> Like stepping outside the aircraft? :-)
>
>Since stepping outside the aircraft is not prohibited, airborne or
>otherwise, it is permitted. I rest my case.

Better wake it up again, unless you've got a verrrryy long seat belt in your
airplane (14CFR 91.105). :-)

Ron "One heck of an inertia reel" Wanttaja

[Peter Wendell]

Morgans wrote:

>
> It closes the loophole that has allowed a SEL PP fly an experimental
> seaplane or twin, with no checkouts or controls. No longer, with a SP.

Just to clarify this, a PP with ANY category/class rating is still
permitted to fly ANY experimental aircraft SOLO with no signoff. In
order to carry a passenger the pilot requires the appropriate
category/class rating or endorsement. In other words, it is still
perfectly legal for a PP-ASEL to jump in a Rotorway exec and try to take
off with no training. It is also legal for me, who only holds a
Rotorcraft-Gyroplane rating to jump in an RV8 and (try to) fly it away.
Legal, not smart.

[[email protected]]

Are you sure about this? Or am I confusing a "sign-off" with a "flight
review." I had a Quickie ( single place, not an ultralight ) and I
always made sure I had a current Bi-annual flight review before I flew.
One of the original replies, ( which, as it appears wasn't archived
because the post doesn't appear anymore ) quoted the FAA rule that says
any pilot, other than ultralight must have a current Bi-annual flight
review and it makes no difference whether they are flying as a PP, Rec
Pilot or SP., they still must have it. The rule made no mention
regarding flying solo or not.

Neal

Peter Wendell wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>
> >
> > It closes the loophole that has allowed a SEL PP fly an experimental
> > seaplane or twin, with no checkouts or controls. No longer, with a SP.
>
> Just to clarify this, a PP with ANY category/class rating is still
> permitted to fly ANY experimental aircraft SOLO with no signoff. In
> order to carry a passenger the pilot requires the appropriate
> category/class rating or endorsement. In other words, it is still
> perfectly legal for a PP-ASEL to jump in a Rotorway exec and try to take
> off with no training. It is also legal for me, who only holds a
> Rotorcraft-Gyroplane rating to jump in an RV8 and (try to) fly it away.
> Legal, not smart.

[Peter Wendell]

wrote:
> Are you sure about this? Or am I confusing a "sign-off" with a "flight
> review."
> Neal

Yes you are. Everyone needs a BFR. I was talking about the fact the PP
can still fly Experimental aircraft without a category/class rating as
long as they are solo. SPs have to signed-off for every type of aircraft
they fly, even if it is experimental.