Sport Pilot license

[keepitrunning]

Has anyone come up with an estimated cost of a sport pilot license versus a
regular pilot's license. Then would it be reasonable to add the
requirements for a pilot's license later?

Any thoughts and comments are appreciated.

Gary

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"keepitrunning" > wrote in message
...
> Has anyone come up with an estimated cost of a sport pilot license versus
> a regular pilot's license. Then would it be reasonable to add the
> requirements for a pilot's license later?
>
> Any thoughts and comments are appreciated.
>
> Gary


As far as flight time you have 1/2 the required hours so you should have 1/2
the cost. Also, subtract the cost of the AME physical.

There is no reason not to get the SP on the way to a PP. But unless you have
a LSA sitting around you want to fly there is no real reason to either.

[W P Dixon]

The one great thing about getting the sport pilot first is you would be able
to fly , carry a passenger in a light sport plane..and most important I
would think is practice for your PPL. I guess we don't know for sure yet
because no one has done it...but it makes good sense to say that by
obtaining a SPL, and flying, may actually speed up the process for getting
the PPL when you are ready for it. Extra practice sure can't hurt, and it's
alot cheaper to fly by yourself than having a CFI on board.
There's been many a PPL trained in Cubs and Champs, get your SPL in one
and get a head start!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[Vaughn]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:G2_te.32637$DC2.26552@okepread01...
>
> As far as flight time you have 1/2 the required hours so you should have 1/2
> the cost.

As Todd pointed out, this is unlikely, but will vary greatly with the
individual. IMO, flight training should not be rushed. The instructor is the
cheapest part of flying.

> Also, subtract the cost of the AME physical.

But don't forget to add in the cost of an extra flight test.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> The one great thing about getting the sport pilot first is you would be
> able to fly , carry a passenger in a light sport plane..and most important
> I would think is practice for your PPL. I guess we don't know for sure yet
> because no one has done it...but it makes good sense to say that by
> obtaining a SPL, and flying, may actually speed up the process for getting
> the PPL when you are ready for it. Extra practice sure can't hurt, and
> it's alot cheaper to fly by yourself than having a CFI on board.
> There's been many a PPL trained in Cubs and Champs, get your SPL in one
> and get a head start!
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>

Again, as I mentioned in my post I have no problem with someone taking the
SP test during the PP process. but don't think for a second it is going to
save you any money.

Your thought that it will allow you to fly passengers while continueing to
train for a PP will, if done, increase the cost of the PP because the last
thing you need in the airplane while practicing for your PP is a none pilot
passenger. Flight time during the PP process should be used for practice for
the test and you shouldn't be doing those manuvers with a victim.... I mean
passenger.

GigG

[W P Dixon]

Gig,
Well I did not mean that everytime you fly you take a passenger with you,
I just meant that you "could" while you were working on the PPL. For those
without alot of money to sink into the PPL at one time, it could be a great
option...they could fly, and though maybe not practicing the PPL flight
manuvers "all the time" they would be gaining valuable experience in the
air.
As for the cost, well I didn't say the process would be cheaper,...just
the flying as a sport pilot versus just staying in a PPL training mode. Do
alittle PPL training here and there as your money allows. May even take
longer in the long run to get the PPL, but who knows you may have 100-150
hours with the training and flying as a sport pilot.
It does stand to reason the more experience in the air you have the better
you will do on the PPL, be it practicing for the PPL checkride or just
flying SP.
The whole thing is really hard to judge as to who could save what as far
as money...we all know that the minimums for training are not the standard
times. I sure do not expect a SPL to be done in the 20 hours! Well maybe if
they are flying those "flying weedeaters" I think it is more reasonable to
think in the 30 hour range. Then you have all the "region" factors. Like the
cost in the Northeast of renting a cub for 80 plus an hour, versus most
around here that rent for 40 ! Just really hard to say exactly "how much" it
will cost everyone, just to many variables.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:uudue.32666$DC2.27435@okepread01...
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The one great thing about getting the sport pilot first is you would be
>> able to fly , carry a passenger in a light sport plane..and most
>> important I would think is practice for your PPL. I guess we don't know
>> for sure yet because no one has done it...but it makes good sense to say
>> that by obtaining a SPL, and flying, may actually speed up the process
>> for getting the PPL when you are ready for it. Extra practice sure can't
>> hurt, and it's alot cheaper to fly by yourself than having a CFI on
>> board.
>> There's been many a PPL trained in Cubs and Champs, get your SPL in
>> one and get a head start!
>>
>> Patrick
>> student SPL
>> aircraft structural mech
>>
>
> Again, as I mentioned in my post I have no problem with someone taking the
> SP test during the PP process. but don't think for a second it is going to
> save you any money.
>
> Your thought that it will allow you to fly passengers while continueing to
> train for a PP will, if done, increase the cost of the PP because the last
> thing you need in the airplane while practicing for your PP is a none
> pilot passenger. Flight time during the PP process should be used for
> practice for the test and you shouldn't be doing those manuvers with a
> victim.... I mean passenger.
>
> GigG
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

The OP question was 100% about money. To paraphrase my answer I said half
the requirement should come to have the cost. I stand by that If it takes
longer to get the PP it will probably take longer to get the SP.

I also added that if a PP was what the OP wanted that there was no reason
NOT to take the check ride for an SP while continuing but if he didn't have
a LSA aircraft to fly there was no reason to either.

As to my response to your post I truly believe that, if PP is your target,
you'd be better off spending the flying time and money on finishing the PP
instead of burning another (as in your example) 60 to 90 hours flying your
friends around. Again, if you are going to get the PP you'll have plenty of
time to do that after you finish the PP and you will be a more experienced
pilot before you start flying your pals.

Now, let me tell you where I'm coming from here. I took two PP check rides.
First from the guy the FAA said could certify me as a pilot. It was a breeze
with 42 logged hours. I literally grew up at the airport and was able to
take-off, navigate and fly and airplane before the state thought I was old
enough to get a learners permit for a car.

The reason for this is I was incredibly lucky to have a Grandfather that
learned to fly before WWII, flew in the war, and, until the day he chose to
hand back his medical when he decided he wasn't capable anymore of safe
flight at age 64, flew as a professional pilot in every thing from Cubs to
Lears. (He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's later that same month).

I was well into elementary school before I figured out everybody didn't fly.
I mean all my neighborhood friends did they flew with my grandfather.

Enough of that, my second check ride was with him. He was well into
Alzheimer's by the time I got my certificate but he was having a good day
and I took him up the day after my check ride. He had me do a couple of
maneuvers and landings. After we got back to the airport he said, practice
this week and we'll do that again but don't fly with any non-pilots until
then. That week turned into a couple because of his health. In that time I
put another 20 hours of practice in. We flew and when we landed he said
that's good, fly like that from now on and you'll be OK.

The point of all this is to say just because the FAA says it don't make it
so. They have a minimum standard. If you go by that standard you will be
just as good a the WORST legal pilot out there. In life and especially
flying you might want to set your standard a little higher than the worst
you can get away with at least if you are going to put somebody else's ass
on the line.

I mentioned I had 42 logged hours when I passed my PP exam. In reality I
probably had 2 or 3 hundred sitting in the right seat with not just my
Grandfather but other very experienced pilots. NOBODY knows how to fly with
less than a couple of hundred hours and maybe not even then. (I know that's
gonna stir some crap up.)

I would hope that those that get the SP are made up of a pilots that for
some nit-picky reason can't get a medical anymore and pilots that will have
the brains to fly alone long after they got the rating alone and really
learn how to fly.



GigG


"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Gig,
> Well I did not mean that everytime you fly you take a passenger with
> you, I just meant that you "could" while you were working on the PPL. For
> those without alot of money to sink into the PPL at one time, it could be
> a great option...they could fly, and though maybe not practicing the PPL
> flight manuvers "all the time" they would be gaining valuable experience
> in the air.
> As for the cost, well I didn't say the process would be cheaper,...just
> the flying as a sport pilot versus just staying in a PPL training mode. Do
> alittle PPL training here and there as your money allows. May even take
> longer in the long run to get the PPL, but who knows you may have 100-150
> hours with the training and flying as a sport pilot.
> It does stand to reason the more experience in the air you have the better
> you will do on the PPL, be it practicing for the PPL checkride or just
> flying SP.
> The whole thing is really hard to judge as to who could save what as
> far as money...we all know that the minimums for training are not the
> standard times. I sure do not expect a SPL to be done in the 20 hours!
> Well maybe if they are flying those "flying weedeaters" I think it is more
> reasonable to think in the 30 hour range. Then you have all the "region"
> factors. Like the cost in the Northeast of renting a cub for 80 plus an
> hour, versus most around here that rent for 40 ! Just really hard to say
> exactly "how much" it will cost everyone, just to many variables.
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:uudue.32666$DC2.27435@okepread01...
>>
>> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> The one great thing about getting the sport pilot first is you would be
>>> able to fly , carry a passenger in a light sport plane..and most
>>> important I would think is practice for your PPL. I guess we don't know
>>> for sure yet because no one has done it...but it makes good sense to say
>>> that by obtaining a SPL, and flying, may actually speed up the process
>>> for getting the PPL when you are ready for it. Extra practice sure can't
>>> hurt, and it's alot cheaper to fly by yourself than having a CFI on
>>> board.
>>> There's been many a PPL trained in Cubs and Champs, get your SPL in
>>> one and get a head start!
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>> student SPL
>>> aircraft structural mech
>>>
>>
>> Again, as I mentioned in my post I have no problem with someone taking
>> the SP test during the PP process. but don't think for a second it is
>> going to save you any money.
>>
>> Your thought that it will allow you to fly passengers while continueing
>> to train for a PP will, if done, increase the cost of the PP because the
>> last thing you need in the airplane while practicing for your PP is a
>> none pilot passenger. Flight time during the PP process should be used
>> for practice for the test and you shouldn't be doing those manuvers with
>> a victim.... I mean passenger.
>>
>> GigG
>>
>

[W P Dixon]

Well I can say I would agree with that! :) But I did not say fly around with
your friends for 90 hours. I do agree to get the time in by your lonesome ,
but if every great once in awhile you want to take a friend , then by the
regs for SP you can. I think it's great you grew up around airplanes, I did
not get involved with them until I was 18. Finally now at 40 I am flying one
instead of just fixing them for the Marines, airlines and such ! I'm having
a blast with the old planes, flying and getting to tinker on them as well.
Myself I won't be able to get a PPL due to one of those nit picky
reasons you mention,... but I can promise you I will be a good pilot ;) And
I know I will have to be very very comfie with my skills before I consider
taking anyone up with me. By the way how's the 601 coming along? Are you
going with the Rotax or some other powerplant?

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Well I can say I would agree with that! :) But I did not say fly around
> with your friends for 90 hours. I do agree to get the time in by your
> lonesome , but if every great once in awhile you want to take a friend ,
> then by the regs for SP you can. I think it's great you grew up around
> airplanes, I did not get involved with them until I was 18. Finally now at
> 40 I am flying one instead of just fixing them for the Marines, airlines
> and such ! I'm having a blast with the old planes, flying and getting to
> tinker on them as well.
> Myself I won't be able to get a PPL due to one of those nit picky
> reasons you mention,... but I can promise you I will be a good pilot ;)
> And I know I will have to be very very comfie with my skills before I
> consider taking anyone up with me. By the way how's the 601 coming along?
> Are you going with the Rotax or some other powerplant?
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>

Great... glad to hear it.

The 601 has been on hold waithing for me to complete the hanger which in now
finished and just about moved into. Visit www.peoamerica.net/N601WR for
photos. Feel free to drop by I'm SURE I could find something for an
ex-Marine mech to do.

[[email protected]]

I just saw the FAA presentation at '04 OshKosh on DVD, and they stated
very clearly, several times, that you CANNOT get a SPL if you've failed
a medical, until you get a successful medical. If that is so, WTF is
the SPL for, anyway????

Drew

[Gig 601XL Builder]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I just saw the FAA presentation at '04 OshKosh on DVD, and they stated
> very clearly, several times, that you CANNOT get a SPL if you've failed
> a medical, until you get a successful medical. If that is so, WTF is
> the SPL for, anyway????
>
> Drew
>

The key is FAILED a medical. Think about it.

I, for example, had a mild heart attack 11 years ago and lost my medical. I
then got a special issuance that has now expired. I can fly LSA with my Ark
DL.

[W P Dixon]

I like the hangar!,
I like the Zenith planes myself, 601's and 701's..but Lord that Rotax is
just EXPENSIVE!!! I am not having any luck finding decent wood for the
Volksplane :( And if I were out your way or you out mine I'd be happy to
help. Though I couldn't fly it I have thought about building an RV because
they have so many rivets in them! I sure wish I had a nickel for every rivet
I have shot! HAHAHA
The 601 has the pop type rivets doesn't it( if I remember correctly.)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:FQkue.32678$DC2.16403@okepread01...
>
>
> The 601 has been on hold waithing for me to complete the hanger which in
> now finished and just about moved into. Visit www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
> for photos. Feel free to drop by I'm SURE I could find something for an
> ex-Marine mech to do.
>

[gilan]

Good question to ask 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/







"keepitrunning" wrote ...
> Has anyone come up with an estimated cost of a sport pilot license versus
> a regular pilot's license. Then would it be reasonable to add the
> requirements for a pilot's license later?
>
> Any thoughts and comments are appreciated.
>
> Gary
>

[COLIN LAMB]

Hello Patrick:

You probably already know it is possible to fly a twin engine aircraft
without a medical - or a jet? Or fly at 30,000 feet?

Yes, it is possible if you have a self-launch glider rating. I have such a
rating - and an aircraft that allows pilots to fly without a medical. It is
called a motorglider. I do have a medical and a SEL - but if you get a
glider rating with a self launch endorsement, you can fly a number of
different motorgliders. You can use them as regular airplanes. Some are
tail-draggers, some are tricycle gear and some are single wheel with
outriggers when the wing drops. Some go as fast as about 130. One of the
companies is coming out with a single engine jet version. There is a pilot
who has modified a glider with twin jet engines. It is aerobatic. Not bad
for not needing a medical.

I suppose the thinking is that if a motorglider pilot flying a 1700 pound
motorglider has a heart attack and dies, he will not kill as many people as
a pilot flying a Cessna 150 who has a heart attack, or a pilot who is flying
a sport certified plane, who has a bad heart but does not need to take a
physical. Makes a lot of sense.

I think the weight limit is about 1800 pounds and it needs long wings and be
certified as a glider. They fly great and are very efficient. About the
only down side is on the ground as many have wings longer than 50 feet. Some
have folding wings, for hanger storage.

As for instruments, I have CAS, Comm and Mode C transponder in the
motorglider.

And, with a motorglider, and not being instrument rated, you can get in a
mountain wave, shut the motor down. grab some oxygen get a prior wave
clearance and soar to 30,000 feet or more. In essence, the sky is the
limit. All without a medical.

Good luck, Colin

[W P Dixon]

Colin,
Yes I was aware of the no med glider rating. Have thought about maybe
checking into that alittle more once I get this SPL done,...can always use
another endorsement huh? ;) Sadly being medically retired does not allow
alot of funds to buy a motorglider , from the prices I have seen. And I
really have not come across any plans for building one , maybe you have a
suggestion?

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
"COLIN LAMB" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Hello Patrick:
>
> You probably already know it is possible to fly a twin engine aircraft
> without a medical - or a jet? Or fly at 30,000 feet?
>
> Yes, it is possible if you have a self-launch glider rating. I have such
> a rating - and an aircraft that allows pilots to fly without a medical.
> It is called a motorglider. I do have a medical and a SEL - but if you
> get a glider rating with a self launch endorsement, you can fly a number
> of different motorgliders. You can use them as regular airplanes. Some
> are tail-draggers, some are tricycle gear and some are single wheel with
> outriggers when the wing drops. Some go as fast as about 130. One of the
> companies is coming out with a single engine jet version. There is a
> pilot who has modified a glider with twin jet engines. It is aerobatic.
> Not bad for not needing a medical.
>
> I suppose the thinking is that if a motorglider pilot flying a 1700 pound
> motorglider has a heart attack and dies, he will not kill as many people
> as a pilot flying a Cessna 150 who has a heart attack, or a pilot who is
> flying a sport certified plane, who has a bad heart but does not need to
> take a physical. Makes a lot of sense.
>
> I think the weight limit is about 1800 pounds and it needs long wings and
> be certified as a glider. They fly great and are very efficient. About
> the only down side is on the ground as many have wings longer than 50
> feet. Some have folding wings, for hanger storage.
>
> As for instruments, I have CAS, Comm and Mode C transponder in the
> motorglider.
>
> And, with a motorglider, and not being instrument rated, you can get in a
> mountain wave, shut the motor down. grab some oxygen get a prior wave
> clearance and soar to 30,000 feet or more. In essence, the sky is the
> limit. All without a medical.
>
> Good luck, Colin
>
>

[COLIN LAMB]

There is a motorglider kit that uses a VW engine. I do not know much about
it. It is only about a 20:1 glide ratio, I recall.

You can also buy a motorglider that needs restoration - which is sort of
like building your own.

Colin

[UltraJohn]

W P Dixon wrote:

> Colin,
> Yes I was aware of the no med glider rating. Have thought about maybe
> checking into that alittle more once I get this SPL done,...can always use
> another endorsement huh? ;) Sadly being medically retired does not allow
> alot of funds to buy a motorglider , from the prices I have seen. And I
> really have not come across any plans for building one , maybe you have a
> suggestion?

Below copied and pasted from their web site, The plane won't meet SP
criterial because of it's speed but the motor glider version will. The two
are the same except the outer wing panels which you can build both and use
either as a motor glider or higher performance single seater if you have a
PPL.
John



http://www.fly-kr.com/
The KR-1 is the single seat low wing retractable monoplane which is
typically powered by smaller VW engines, up to the VW 2100. The KR-1B
motorglider is a standard KR-1 with modified outer wing sections. With this
simple wing conversion, the original KR-1 becomes an excellent self-powered
glider.

[COLIN LAMB]

With regard to the aircraft that changes wings to move from an airplane to a
motorglider, beware that the original classification is what the aircraft
stays at in the eyes of the FAA.

Thus, if you add longer wings to a airplane, it cannot become a glider. It
has to have been originally licensed as a glider.

Not sure about the other way around, though. If you have a licensed glider
and you put short wings on it, maybe it cannot be a glider, but it would not
be an airplane.

Colin

[Gig 601XL Builder]

I never really wanted to go for the Rotax. I did consider the Jab 3300 but
now I have pretty much decided on a Wynne built Corvair. What did it for me
was a the price, less than $7000, and the fact that Falcon will insure the
the plane on first flight.



"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
>I like the hangar!,
> I like the Zenith planes myself, 601's and 701's..but Lord that Rotax
> is just EXPENSIVE!!! I am not having any luck finding decent wood for the
> Volksplane :( And if I were out your way or you out mine I'd be happy to
> help. Though I couldn't fly it I have thought about building an RV because
> they have so many rivets in them! I sure wish I had a nickel for every
> rivet I have shot! HAHAHA
> The 601 has the pop type rivets doesn't it( if I remember correctly.)
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:FQkue.32678$DC2.16403@okepread01...
>>
>>
>> The 601 has been on hold waithing for me to complete the hanger which in
>> now finished and just about moved into. Visit www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
>> for photos. Feel free to drop by I'm SURE I could find something for an
>> ex-Marine mech to do.
>>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
>
> The 601 has the pop type rivets doesn't it( if I remember correctly.)
>

Yes it does, Gog love 'em

[W P Dixon]

Hey Ultra!,
I like those KR's, but I have had the same concern about it that Colin
had. I sure wish there was a Sport Pilot version of a KR. Maybe a KR 1/2 !
HAHA But I have to admit I hate fiberglass type stuff...it just eats me up.
With a total lack of decent wood available, I may have to change plans and
go with a metal plane. I still think the Mini-Coupe is kinda neat. And plans
are cheap! The Thatcher CX-4 is WAYYYY cool, but plans are expensive ( for
my poor butt anyway!).
But back to the gliders, have you seen the free glider plans on the net?
I wonder if a small engine could be mounted to that thing?

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"UltraJohn" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> Below copied and pasted from their web site, The plane won't meet SP
> criterial because of it's speed but the motor glider version will. The two
> are the same except the outer wing panels which you can build both and use
> either as a motor glider or higher performance single seater if you have a
> PPL.
> John
>
>
>
> http://www.fly-kr.com/
> The KR-1 is the single seat low wing retractable monoplane which is
> typically powered by smaller VW engines, up to the VW 2100. The KR-1B
> motorglider is a standard KR-1 with modified outer wing sections. With
> this
> simple wing conversion, the original KR-1 becomes an excellent
> self-powered
> glider.

[UltraJohn]

W P Dixon wrote:

> Hey Ultra!,
> I like those KR's, but I have had the same concern about it that Colin
> had. I sure wish there was a Sport Pilot version of a KR. Maybe a KR 1/2 !
> HAHA But I have to admit I hate fiberglass type stuff...it just eats me
> up. With a total lack of decent wood available, I may have to change plans
> and go with a metal plane. I still think the Mini-Coupe is kinda neat. And
> plans are cheap! The Thatcher CX-4 is WAYYYY cool, but plans are expensive
> ( for my poor butt anyway!).
> But back to the gliders, have you seen the free glider plans on the
> net?
> I wonder if a small engine could be mounted to that thing?
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
Patrick
I did a little checking and the KR-1B appears to meet the SP requirements.
They not only have an approximately 6 foot longer wingspan it is also a
different shape. The max cruise speed is 130 mph with a VW 1600 and the
stall speed is lower also bringing it within range. Doesn't help you any
with the fiberglass problem though! ;-)
John

[W P Dixon]

Hey,
I may have to check into that. I believe the free plans I was speaking of
is called a GOAT or something like that. I do wish a KR2 was a SP, I do like
it!!!!!!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"UltraJohn" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>W P Dixon wrote:
>
>> Hey Ultra!,
>> I like those KR's, but I have had the same concern about it that Colin
>> had. I sure wish there was a Sport Pilot version of a KR. Maybe a KR 1/2
>> !
>> HAHA But I have to admit I hate fiberglass type stuff...it just eats me
>> up. With a total lack of decent wood available, I may have to change
>> plans
>> and go with a metal plane. I still think the Mini-Coupe is kinda neat.
>> And
>> plans are cheap! The Thatcher CX-4 is WAYYYY cool, but plans are
>> expensive
>> ( for my poor butt anyway!).
>> But back to the gliders, have you seen the free glider plans on the
>> net?
>> I wonder if a small engine could be mounted to that thing?
>>
>> Patrick
>> student SPL
>> aircraft structural mech
>>
> Patrick
> I did a little checking and the KR-1B appears to meet the SP requirements.
> They not only have an approximately 6 foot longer wingspan it is also a
> different shape. The max cruise speed is 130 mph with a VW 1600 and the
> stall speed is lower also bringing it within range. Doesn't help you any
> with the fiberglass problem though! ;-)
> John
>

[Rick Pellicciotti]

When our airplanes get here next month, we will be charging $69/hr wet
for our S-LSA airplane (Aerostar Festival). Our instructors get $30/hr
so your dual time will be $99/hr. Figure 30 hours for the average
person and the cost for a Sport Pilot license will be $3,000.00.

Since we only use CFI's for your training, all of the dual that you do
for your Sport Pilot license will count towards a Private later if you
choose to go for it.

Rick Pellicciotti
http://www.lightsportflying.com


keepitrunning wrote:

> Has anyone come up with an estimated cost of a sport pilot license versus a
> regular pilot's license. Then would it be reasonable to add the
> requirements for a pilot's license later?
>
> Any thoughts and comments are appreciated.
>
> Gary
>
>
>

[dje]

Maybe this is it:

http://home.att.net/~m--sandlin/bug.htm

David


"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Hey,
> I may have to check into that. I believe the free plans I was speaking
of
> is called a GOAT or something like that. I do wish a KR2 was a SP, I do
like
> it!!!!!!
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
> "UltraJohn" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >W P Dixon wrote:
> >
> >> Hey Ultra!,
> >> I like those KR's, but I have had the same concern about it that
Colin
> >> had. I sure wish there was a Sport Pilot version of a KR. Maybe a KR
1/2
> >> !
> >> HAHA But I have to admit I hate fiberglass type stuff...it just eats me
> >> up. With a total lack of decent wood available, I may have to change
> >> plans
> >> and go with a metal plane. I still think the Mini-Coupe is kinda neat.
> >> And
> >> plans are cheap! The Thatcher CX-4 is WAYYYY cool, but plans are
> >> expensive
> >> ( for my poor butt anyway!).
> >> But back to the gliders, have you seen the free glider plans on the
> >> net?
> >> I wonder if a small engine could be mounted to that thing?
> >>
> >> Patrick
> >> student SPL
> >> aircraft structural mech
> >>
> > Patrick
> > I did a little checking and the KR-1B appears to meet the SP
requirements.
> > They not only have an approximately 6 foot longer wingspan it is also a
> > different shape. The max cruise speed is 130 mph with a VW 1600 and the
> > stall speed is lower also bringing it within range. Doesn't help you any
> > with the fiberglass problem though! ;-)
> > John
> >
>

[W P Dixon]

Hey Rick,
I sure wish you could sell a few of those planes over here in east TN. I
may have to come over to Memphis and take one for a ride! Lord that's a
longgg drive! ;) I need a plane and cert to go fly a plane and get a
cert!!!!! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Rick Pellicciotti" > wrote in message
...
> When our airplanes get here next month, we will be charging $69/hr wet for
> our S-LSA airplane (Aerostar Festival). Our instructors get $30/hr so
> your dual time will be $99/hr. Figure 30 hours for the average person and
> the cost for a Sport Pilot license will be $3,000.00.
>
> Since we only use CFI's for your training, all of the dual that you do for
> your Sport Pilot license will count towards a Private later if you choose
> to go for it.
>
> Rick Pellicciotti
> http://www.lightsportflying.com
>
>
> keepitrunning wrote:
>
>> Has anyone come up with an estimated cost of a sport pilot license versus
>> a regular pilot's license. Then would it be reasonable to add the
>> requirements for a pilot's license later?
>>
>> Any thoughts and comments are appreciated.
>>
>> Gary
>

[W P Dixon]

Yep!
That's the one David, Does that little critter just look like alot of
fun or what? May be just to light to hold any type of engine. Maybe one of
those small government surplus things?

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech


"dje" > wrote in message
...
> Maybe this is it:
>
> http://home.att.net/~m--sandlin/bug.htm
>
> David
>
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hey,
>> I may have to check into that. I believe the free plans I was speaking
> of
>> is called a GOAT or something like that. I do wish a KR2 was a SP, I do
> like
>> it!!!!!!
>>
>> Patrick
>> student SPL
>> aircraft structural mech
>>
>> "UltraJohn" > wrote in message
>> hlink.net...
>> >W P Dixon wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hey Ultra!,
>> >> I like those KR's, but I have had the same concern about it that
> Colin
>> >> had. I sure wish there was a Sport Pilot version of a KR. Maybe a KR
> 1/2
>> >> !
>> >> HAHA But I have to admit I hate fiberglass type stuff...it just eats
>> >> me
>> >> up. With a total lack of decent wood available, I may have to change
>> >> plans
>> >> and go with a metal plane. I still think the Mini-Coupe is kinda neat.
>> >> And
>> >> plans are cheap! The Thatcher CX-4 is WAYYYY cool, but plans are
>> >> expensive
>> >> ( for my poor butt anyway!).
>> >> But back to the gliders, have you seen the free glider plans on
>> >> the
>> >> net?
>> >> I wonder if a small engine could be mounted to that thing?
>> >>
>> >> Patrick
>> >> student SPL
>> >> aircraft structural mech
>> >>
>> > Patrick
>> > I did a little checking and the KR-1B appears to meet the SP
> requirements.
>> > They not only have an approximately 6 foot longer wingspan it is also a
>> > different shape. The max cruise speed is 130 mph with a VW 1600 and the
>> > stall speed is lower also bringing it within range. Doesn't help you
>> > any
>> > with the fiberglass problem though! ;-)
>> > John
>> >
>>
>
>

[Scott]

So, if you are ever suspicious that you might fail your NEXT physical,
don't go. Just let it expire and then get your Sport Plane Rating. If
I recall, they do offer a one-time waiver, but that just sounds like the
same red tape as if you fail a physical or have a problem like a heart
attack, kidney stones, etc.

Scott


T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> wrote:
>
>
>>I just saw the FAA presentation at '04 OshKosh on DVD, and they stated
>>very clearly, several times, that you CANNOT get a SPL if you've failed
>>a medical, until you get a successful medical. If that is so, WTF is
>>the SPL for, anyway????
>
>
> It's for all those who haven't failed.
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> ___
> Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> Share what you learn.

[LCT Paintball]

>I never really wanted to go for the Rotax. I did consider the Jab 3300 but
>now I have pretty much decided on a Wynne built Corvair. What did it for me
>was a the price, less than $7000, and the fact that Falcon will insure the
>the plane on first flight.


Are Corvair engines and parts getting hard to find yet?
I used to have a corvair. There was an old corvair junkyard (that's all they
had) near me at the time, but I don't know if it's still there.

[[email protected]]

Rick Pellicciotti > wrote:

>Since we only use CFI's for your training, all of the dual that you do
>for your Sport Pilot license will count towards a Private later if you
>choose to go for it.
>
>Rick Pellicciotti

Rick,

When you say "we only use CFI's for your training" do you
mean you use only Subpart H CFI's? I thought Subpart K
Flight Instructors were CFI's too. Am I wrong?

And when you say "all of the dual that you do for your Sport
Pilot license will count towards a Private" are you saying
that dual with Subpart K Instructors can't be used later to
meet instruction requirements for a Private? Can you point
me to the relevant part of the FARs that applies?

Thanks.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"LCT Paintball" > wrote in message
news:moSue.99714$xm3.36468@attbi_s21...
> >I never really wanted to go for the Rotax. I did consider the Jab 3300
> >but now I have pretty much decided on a Wynne built Corvair. What did it
> >for me was a the price, less than $7000, and the fact that Falcon will
> >insure the the plane on first flight.
>
>
> Are Corvair engines and parts getting hard to find yet?
> I used to have a corvair. There was an old corvair junkyard (that's all
> they had) near me at the time, but I don't know if it's still there.

According to William Wynne, THE Corvair Guru www.flycorvair.com/, they are
widely available. I've done some searching and made a few calls and it looks
like everything is in pretty damn good supply.

What seems to have happened is that all the parts that are out there have
migrated to centralized locations. As you know the Corvair car has quite the
following. This is exampled by one I saw in Little Rock AR with the plates
that said "FUNADER". I laughed so hard I almot slammed into the back of him
at a stop sign.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:04:28 +0000, Scott > wrote:

>So, if you are ever suspicious that you might fail your NEXT physical,
>don't go. Just let it expire and then get your Sport Plane Rating.

Actually, if you have your traditional pilot license (Rec., Private, Commercial,
etc.) already, you don't need to get a "rating." You can exercise SP privileges
without any interface with the Feds.

That's what I'm doing...I just let my medical expire last fall. It was a bit
awkward at the FBO at BFR time, and I'm waiting to see if my insurance agent can
find a company that'll renew my policy in August, but the FAA is taken care of.

Ron Wanttaja

[Richard Isakson]

"Scott" wrote ...
> So, if you are ever suspicious that you might fail your NEXT physical,
> don't go. Just let it expire and then get your Sport Plane Rating.

Not exactly. If you have at least a recreational certificate and a current
and valid drivers license, no additional ratings are required. You can
continue to operate any aircraft that meets the light sport aircraft
criteria as long as you hold a catagory and class rating for that airplane.
See 14CFR61.303.

Rich

[OtisWinslow]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:ARfue.32671$DC2.22728@okepread01...
> I mentioned I had 42 logged hours when I passed my PP exam. GigG

I had 40.0 when I passed mine. And I had to go flying before the
test to get an extra .5 hr to have enough. I didn't fly with anyone
before I started. I thought it was easy.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:ARfue.32671$DC2.22728@okepread01...
>> I mentioned I had 42 logged hours when I passed my PP exam. GigG
>
> I had 40.0 when I passed mine. And I had to go flying before the
> test to get an extra .5 hr to have enough. I didn't fly with anyone
> before I started. I thought it was easy.
>
>

I was rained out the first week I was going to test and I had to fly 45
minutes where the exam was being given.

[UltraJohn]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> wrote:
>
>>I just saw the FAA presentation at '04 OshKosh on DVD, and they stated
>>very clearly, several times, that you CANNOT get a SPL if you've failed
>>a medical, until you get a successful medical. If that is so, WTF is
>>the SPL for, anyway????
>
> It's for all those who haven't failed.
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> ___
> Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
> Share what you learn.
Actually if you lose your medical from having a condition and have it
treated such as and angioplasty or bypass then get a waiver (which is only
good for a year) you let the waiver expire and continue flying SP.
That is what I'm doing. I can get a yearly waiver my average time to get it
has been 6 months leaving my only 6 months a year to fly. This is why I'll
let it expire this time and fly SP.
John

[Jerry Springer]

UltraJohn wrote:
> T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I just saw the FAA presentation at '04 OshKosh on DVD, and they stated
>>>very clearly, several times, that you CANNOT get a SPL if you've failed
>>>a medical, until you get a successful medical. If that is so, WTF is
>>>the SPL for, anyway????
>>
>>It's for all those who haven't failed.
>>
>>T o d d P a t t i s t
>>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>>___
>>Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
>>Share what you learn.
>
> Actually if you lose your medical from having a condition and have it
> treated such as and angioplasty or bypass then get a waiver (which is only
> good for a year) you let the waiver expire and continue flying SP.
> That is what I'm doing. I can get a yearly waiver my average time to get it
> has been 6 months leaving my only 6 months a year to fly. This is why I'll
> let it expire this time and fly SP.
> John
>
Which is what is totally stupid about the SPL. Not picking on you
UltraJohn but why would you be safer flying now that you have
let the waiver expire? Why not just just create another class of medical
say a 4th class. At least there is still some monitoring of a persons
physical condition. It sure does not make me feel warm and fuzzy knowing
that there are a lot of people flying overhead that have had heart
attacks etc. and no one is monitoring their physical condition. Let them
keep flying but at least have an AME give them a "4th class" physical
every two years with basically the same restrictions as the currnet SPL.
Also if a person can fly for example a Taylorcraft why not let them
continue to fly a two place RV? The end result are going to be pretty
much the same if either aircraft comes down on top of a house or school etc.

Jerry

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:55:43 -0700, Jerry Springer > wrote:

> Let them
>keep flying but at least have an AME give them a "4th class" physical
>every two years with basically the same restrictions as the currnet SPL.

The medical requirements haven't changed, only the documentation. The same
conditions that make you ineligible for a third class medical *also* disqualify
you for Sport Pilot. It isn't a "Fourth Class," it's just the ability to
self-certify like glider pilots.

The main point to look at is what is truly gained by the third class medical.
You look at the eye chart, you pee in the cup, you listen to the whispered
voice. It's certainly not a thorough check. And lots of ATPs suffer heart
attacks, so even First Class medicals are fallible.

The requirement for a formal medical examination dates from the 30s, when the
CAA regulated only commercial and inter-state aviation. When states started
requiring that all pilots hold a CAA license, the pilots had to take the same
medicals the commercial folks did.

I prefer a solution that's a reaction to a recognized problem rather than "let's
have a rule just it case it ever happens." I suspect a lot of folks will be
watching the accident rate, to see if pilot incapacitation becomes more
frequent.

In any case, Sport Pilot basically formalizes something that's been going on for
a long time: pilots with disqualifying medical conditions continuing to fly.
Personally, I feel far more endangered by the guy in the huge Canyonero SUV in
the lane next to me on I-5 than by a J-3 popping by overhead.

>Also if a person can fly for example a Taylorcraft why not let them
>continue to fly a two place RV? The end result are going to be pretty
>much the same if either aircraft comes down on top of a house or school etc.

Energy = Mass times velocity squared. That 1300-lbs T-Cart at 130 MPH has less
than a third of the kinetic energy of a 1800lb/200 MPH RV. That should make a
significant difference to the house or school. Not to the pilots, of
course...but that's their decision.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jerry Springer]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:55:43 -0700, Jerry Springer > wrote:
>
>
>>Let them
>>keep flying but at least have an AME give them a "4th class" physical
>>every two years with basically the same restrictions as the currnet SPL.
>
>
> The medical requirements haven't changed, only the documentation. The same
> conditions that make you ineligible for a third class medical *also* disqualify
> you for Sport Pilot. It isn't a "Fourth Class," it's just the ability to
> self-certify like glider pilots.

Hi Ron, your points are well taken. Do you really believe that a lot
of people that are not accountable to anyone but themselves for their
medical conditions are really going to ground themselves when they
should? I understand there is not a "4th class medical" but there should
be a monitoring system to watch people that are flying with known
physical conditions.

>
> The main point to look at is what is truly gained by the third class medical.
> You look at the eye chart, you pee in the cup, you listen to the whispered
> voice. It's certainly not a thorough check. And lots of ATPs suffer heart
> attacks, so even First Class medicals are fallible.
>
> The requirement for a formal medical examination dates from the 30s, when the
> CAA regulated only commercial and inter-state aviation. When states started
> requiring that all pilots hold a CAA license, the pilots had to take the same
> medicals the commercial folks did.

> I prefer a solution that's a reaction to a recognized problem rather than "let's
> have a rule just it case it ever happens." I suspect a lot of folks will be
> watching the accident rate, to see if pilot incapacitation becomes more
> frequent.
>
> In any case, Sport Pilot basically formalizes something that's been going on for
> a long time: pilots with disqualifying medical conditions continuing to fly.
> Personally, I feel far more endangered by the guy in the huge Canyonero SUV in
> the lane next to me on I-5 than by a J-3 popping by overhead

I agree with you about driving next to the guy on the freeway with
medical conditions, but if he has a problem and takes me out there won't
be much of an outcry. If an airplane takes out some people
and it comes out that they were flying with a medical condition
you know what the media well do with that.

>
>>Also if a person can fly for example a Taylorcraft why not let them
>>continue to fly a two place RV? The end result are going to be pretty
>>much the same if either aircraft comes down on top of a house or school etc.
>
>
> Energy = Mass times velocity squared. That 1300-lbs T-Cart at 130 MPH has less
> than a third of the kinetic energy of a 1800lb/200 MPH RV. That should make a
> significant difference to the house or school. Not to the pilots, of
> course...but that's their decision.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Once again it won't make a bit of difference if it is a Taylorcraft or
an RV that hits something with people in it, the "sky is falling"
syndrome from the media is and always well be the same.

Jerry

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:40:31 -0700, Jerry Springer > wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>>
>> The medical requirements haven't changed, only the documentation. The same
>> conditions that make you ineligible for a third class medical *also* disqualify
>> you for Sport Pilot. It isn't a "Fourth Class," it's just the ability to
>> self-certify like glider pilots.
>
>Hi Ron, your points are well taken. Do you really believe that a lot
>of people that are not accountable to anyone but themselves for their
>medical conditions are really going to ground themselves when they
>should?

Jerry, what grounds them *now*?

Just sitting here and thinking a moment, I came up with the names of five guys
who continued/are still continuing to fly with conditions that would prevent
them from receiving an FAA medical. Cataracts, heart problems, diabetes, kidney
stones, and I forget what the fifth one was. Ironic, really, 'cause he was the
only one that was caught by the FAA.

How? His engine failed on takeoff and he crashed. No injuries, but wasn't able
to produce his medical certificate to the accident investigator, who
subsequently determined he'd been denied renewal.

In the 20 or so years I've owned airplanes, I've never had to show my medical
except during BFRs. All the guys I mention above own their own planes...and I
bet they don't get BFRs, either.

Your points about public perception are certainly valid, but in truth, there's
nothing that prevents *anyone* from flying a personally-owned aircraft without a
medical. They can dodge it completely...or pencil whip their way through it.
Other than the few physical items that are checked during the examination, the
only way the FAA finds out whether an applicant has a invalidating condition is
if the person admits it on the application form. Yes, it's perjury. But the
FAA isn't likely to find out.

People don't ground themselves now, and I don't believe Sport Pilot is going to
make things any worse.

Ron Wanttaja

[Vaughn]

"Jerry Springer" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:55:43 -0700, Jerry Springer >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Let them keep flying but at least have an AME give them a "4th class"
>>>physical every two years with basically the same restrictions as the currnet
>>>SPL.
>>
>>
>> The medical requirements haven't changed, only the documentation. The same
>> conditions that make you ineligible for a third class medical *also*
>> disqualify
>> you for Sport Pilot. It isn't a "Fourth Class," it's just the ability to
>> self-certify like glider pilots.
>
> Hi Ron, your points are well taken. Do you really believe that a lot
> of people that are not accountable to anyone but themselves for their medical
> conditions are really going to ground themselves when they should? I
> understand there is not a "4th class medical" but there should
> be a monitoring system to watch people that are flying with known physical
> conditions.
>
There is a monitoring system today; it is the pilots around you and the
people who rent you planes. Sure, you can own your own plane and fly it out of
your own pasture and nobody will ever know, but those lucky people are a tiny
minority. The simple fact is that the statistics do not support medical
certification. A visit to the AME once every two years does virtually nothing
to screen you for medical incapacitation over the following two years,
particularly sudden incapacitation.

There is also a large "test population" (glider pilots) that has been
flying around for decades without medical screening that shows no statistical
difference in medically related accidents compared to the general population of
pilots. Do glider pilots always stop flying when they should? No,
unfortunately they don't. But those people go through the same peer pressure
that you see at your local airport when a pilot starts to decline. Declining
"senior" pilots are encouraged to fly with a friend, encouraged to choose a new
licensed pilot for "co-mentoring", and if all else fails, they are encouraged to
leave, first subtly, and finally bluntly. I have seen the painful process
unfold several times.

Vaughn

[John Ammeter]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:21:37 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:


>
>In any case, Sport Pilot basically formalizes something that's been going on for
>a long time: pilots with disqualifying medical conditions continuing to fly.
>Personally, I feel far more endangered by the guy in the huge Canyonero SUV in
>the lane next to me on I-5 than by a J-3 popping by overhead.
>.
>
>Ron Wanttaja

Ron,

I flew next to a guy that literally couldn't find the runway
unless his co-pilot pointed it out to him. He needed a
magnifying glass to read a restaurant menu. I didn't
realize how bad he was until it was too late and we were
already well into our long trip back east.

He kept flying even though he was obviously ready for a
white cane...

You probably know him, too... is he still flying??

John

[Wayne Paul]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> There is also a large "test population" (glider pilots) that has been
> flying around for decades without medical screening that shows no
statistical
> difference in medically related accidents compared to the general
population of
> pilots. Do glider pilots always stop flying when they should? No,
> unfortunately they don't. But those people go through the same peer
pressure
> that you see at your local airport when a pilot starts to decline.
Declining
> "senior" pilots are encouraged to fly with a friend, encouraged to choose
a new
> licensed pilot for "co-mentoring", and if all else fails, they are
encouraged to
> leave, first subtly, and finally bluntly. I have seen the painful
process
> unfold several times.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
On the other side of the coin I have observed glider pilots recognize their
limitations and stop flying when they realized their skills were declining.

One example is a pilot in his early 80s who after successfully completing a
500 km triangle flight out of Sun Valley, ID landed and stated: "That was a
great flight! It is the way I want to remember soaring." He immediately
put his glider on the market and cancelled his life time membership in the
Soaring Society of American. He still is actively involved in hiking, cross
country skiing and attends the local soaring social events.

I hope I am that wise and recognize when my vision, reflexes, etc endanger
myself and those around me.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 09:06:10 -0700, John Ammeter >
wrote:

>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:21:37 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
> wrote:
>
>>In any case, Sport Pilot basically formalizes something that's been going on for
>>a long time: pilots with disqualifying medical conditions continuing to fly.
>>Personally, I feel far more endangered by the guy in the huge Canyonero SUV in
>>the lane next to me on I-5 than by a J-3 popping by overhead.
>
>I flew next to a guy that literally couldn't find the runway
>unless his co-pilot pointed it out to him. He needed a
>magnifying glass to read a restaurant menu. I didn't
>realize how bad he was until it was too late and we were
>already well into our long trip back east.
>
>He kept flying even though he was obviously ready for a
>white cane...
>
>You probably know him, too... is he still flying??

Yep...he's the "eye condition" guy I mentioned. His field of vision was so bad
that he always lined up on the left edge of the runway, because he could make
out the asphalt/grass interface easier than trying to center himself. He'd slip
the plane to the right as he crossed the fence. As you say, a bit of a shock if
you didn't know about it. I half-slid up the back of the seat as my legs
involuntarily stiffened the first time I flew with him, saying "we're off to the
left, we're off to the left" while I watched us close in on the edge lighting.

He actually had surgery a while back, and I believe he's a lot better. He did
marvel at how much better he could see, now.

Ron Wanttaja

[John Ammeter]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:21:44 -0700, "Rich S."
> wrote:

>"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I flew next to a guy that literally couldn't find the runway
>> unless his co-pilot pointed it out to him. He needed a
>> magnifying glass to read a restaurant menu. I didn't
>> realize how bad he was until it was too late and we were
>> already well into our long trip back east.
>>
>> He kept flying even though he was obviously ready for a
>> white cane...
>>
>> You probably know him, too... is he still flying??
>
>Dammit, John - you promised. Zip the lip! 8-)
>
>Rich "Which way did he go??" S.
>


No, No.... you're the one that gets short of breath lifting
a beer mug off the table..

John

[rpellicciotti]

Patrick,
I hope to get an airplane or two placed up there soon. Come down and
fly with us after Airventure.

Rick

W P Dixon wrote:
> Hey Rick,
> I sure wish you could sell a few of those planes over here in east TN. I
> may have to come over to Memphis and take one for a ride! Lord that's a
> longgg drive! ;) I need a plane and cert to go fly a plane and get a
> cert!!!!! ;)
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>
> "Rick Pellicciotti" > wrote in message
> ...
> > When our airplanes get here next month, we will be charging $69/hr wet for
> > our S-LSA airplane (Aerostar Festival). Our instructors get $30/hr so
> > your dual time will be $99/hr. Figure 30 hours for the average person and
> > the cost for a Sport Pilot license will be $3,000.00.
> >
> > Since we only use CFI's for your training, all of the dual that you do for
> > your Sport Pilot license will count towards a Private later if you choose
> > to go for it.
> >
> > Rick Pellicciotti
> > http://www.lightsportflying.com
> >
> >
> > keepitrunning wrote:
> >
> >> Has anyone come up with an estimated cost of a sport pilot license versus
> >> a regular pilot's license. Then would it be reasonable to add the
> >> requirements for a pilot's license later?
> >>
> >> Any thoughts and comments are appreciated.
> >>
> >> Gary
> >

[rpellicciotti]

I will research this later when I have a little more time and give the
specific FARs. In the meantime, I will clarify this by saying that I
had a conversation with my FSDO about this and the consensus was that
the language in the FARs states that instruction for a private pilot
certificate can only be given by an instructor that is authorized to
give it. A flight instructor/Sport Pilot is indeed a Certified Flight
Instructor - Sport Pilot. There is no authorization for a CFI-SP to
give instruction for a rating or certificate above the level of Sport
Pilot. Therefore, it is the interpretation of my FSDO that cross
country dual given by a CFI-SP does not count toward the requirement
for cross country dual when going for a Private certificate.

The FSDO does agree that all solo time counts. By using "conventional'
or 'pre-sport pilot" CFI's for your Sport Pilot training, they are
authorized to give dual instruction toward the Private certificate and
therefore your dual that you receive during Sport Pilot training can be
counted towards your future Private certificate.

Again, this my FSDO's interpretation. I am travelling and when I get
home, I will get out my notes from the meeting and write more about it
including FAR references.

Perhaps somone from NAFI will jump in here and clarify this more.

Rick Pellicciotti
http://www.lightsportflying.com

[ls]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:40:31 -0700, Jerry Springer > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>>
>>>The medical requirements haven't changed, only the documentation. The same
>>>conditions that make you ineligible for a third class medical *also* disqualify
>>>you for Sport Pilot. It isn't a "Fourth Class," it's just the ability to
>>>self-certify like glider pilots.
>>
>>Hi Ron, your points are well taken. Do you really believe that a lot
>>of people that are not accountable to anyone but themselves for their
>>medical conditions are really going to ground themselves when they
>>should?
>
>
> Jerry, what grounds them *now*?
>
> Just sitting here and thinking a moment, I came up with the names of five guys
> who continued/are still continuing to fly with conditions that would prevent
> them from receiving an FAA medical. Cataracts, heart problems, diabetes, kidney
> stones, and I forget what the fifth one was. Ironic, really, 'cause he was the
> only one that was caught by the FAA.
>
> How? His engine failed on takeoff and he crashed. No injuries, but wasn't able
> to produce his medical certificate to the accident investigator, who
> subsequently determined he'd been denied renewal.
>
> In the 20 or so years I've owned airplanes, I've never had to show my medical
> except during BFRs. All the guys I mention above own their own planes...and I
> bet they don't get BFRs, either.
>
> Your points about public perception are certainly valid, but in truth, there's
> nothing that prevents *anyone* from flying a personally-owned aircraft without a
> medical. They can dodge it completely...or pencil whip their way through it.
> Other than the few physical items that are checked during the examination, the
> only way the FAA finds out whether an applicant has a invalidating condition is
> if the person admits it on the application form. Yes, it's perjury. But the
> FAA isn't likely to find out.
>
> People don't ground themselves now, and I don't believe Sport Pilot is going to
> make things any worse.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I think I may be the only recorded case of grounding myself for a
disqualifying condition that I know of..... ;)

I came down with an inner ear problem in Aug. 2000 which badly affected
my balance, caused dizziness and so on. I grounded myself for about 6
mos. I actually started flying again before I should have, but I did
ground myself at first ;).

I let the medical expire and, due to the immense paper trail left by
doctors who didn't know what the hell they were doing with my case, the
prudent thing to do was to not try to renew it.

My current plane fits well within the LSA limitations, so I'm currently
flying under the SP rule with my private certificate and drivers license.

Otherwise, there are things about my physical condition that the FAA
would ground me for that I know conclusively do not interefere with my
flying, so I make that judgement (and not them).

And if I owned an Rv7 or something, would I fly it? well, for that kind
of cash, you bet ;)

LS
N646F

[Rich S.]

"John Ammeter" > wrote in message
...
>
> I flew next to a guy that literally couldn't find the runway
> unless his co-pilot pointed it out to him. He needed a
> magnifying glass to read a restaurant menu. I didn't
> realize how bad he was until it was too late and we were
> already well into our long trip back east.
>
> He kept flying even though he was obviously ready for a
> white cane...
>
> You probably know him, too... is he still flying??

Dammit, John - you promised. Zip the lip! 8-)

Rich "Which way did he go??" S.