LSA instructor?

[[email protected]]

I'm just back from OSH late last night as well. Had a good time, got
totally sunburned and enjoyed the show. A couple of questions came up,
and everyone I asked seemed to have a different opinion (which happens
when you don't have the FAR/AIM books at hand out on the Flight
line)....
1. I thought the LSA "mall" was a great idea at show center. My first
plane was an Ercoupe, and even thought I've moved "up" to a 172, the
LSA type airplanes are really pretty cool. What I've been trying to
figure out is this new LSA instructor thing. Can one really just take
the "fundamentals of instruction" (FOI) test and then the written for
the LSA instructor (and then the practical)? Without getting a
commercial and then insturment, like a traditional CFI?
2. I was oogling the new Czech "Mermaid" amphibian as well. My wife was
keen on that idea. Now with this, is there going to be a seperate
LSA-single engine seaplane rating (LSA-seaplane???)? If one already has
PP-SEL, does one just add SES on to it and then be qualified to fly the
thing?

I'm already a relatively active pilot, but I truly hope this LSA thing
really takes off and we start seeing these planes out at the FBO's!

Ryan
Madison, WI

[W P Dixon]

Ryan,
I hope the sport thing takes off as well. There are alot of naysayers
that will do whatever they can to throw a monkey wrench into it all for
everyone. Like most "new" things done by any government agency there are
quirks that have to be worked out. One I am working on is the Catch 22 of
the 87 knot endorsement.
One rule says a sport pilot may train in single engine plane , even if
it is not light sport category, but must solo and take a check ride in the
light sport aircraft. The 87 knot endorsement requirement states a
certificated sport pilot may train and get an endorsement in a plane that
cruises over the 87 knots. Hmmm if you already have time training in a
Cherokee as a student why can't you get the 87 knot endorsement? The
training is the same...just one of those tricky little wording things that I
would guess got messed up by someone along the way.
As the FAA guy told me," Welcome to the FAR's" ;) I sure wish I could
have made it up to the big event at OSH but driving was out of the question
for me. I would have loved seeing the sport planes. Fill us in if you
would!?

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
> wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'm just back from OSH late last night as well. Had a good time, got
> totally sunburned and enjoyed the show. A couple of questions came up,
> and everyone I asked seemed to have a different opinion (which happens
> when you don't have the FAR/AIM books at hand out on the Flight
> line)....
> 1. I thought the LSA "mall" was a great idea at show center. My first
> plane was an Ercoupe, and even thought I've moved "up" to a 172, the
> LSA type airplanes are really pretty cool. What I've been trying to
> figure out is this new LSA instructor thing. Can one really just take
> the "fundamentals of instruction" (FOI) test and then the written for
> the LSA instructor (and then the practical)? Without getting a
> commercial and then insturment, like a traditional CFI?
> 2. I was oogling the new Czech "Mermaid" amphibian as well. My wife was
> keen on that idea. Now with this, is there going to be a seperate
> LSA-single engine seaplane rating (LSA-seaplane???)? If one already has
> PP-SEL, does one just add SES on to it and then be qualified to fly the
> thing?
>
> I'm already a relatively active pilot, but I truly hope this LSA thing
> really takes off and we start seeing these planes out at the FBO's!
>
> Ryan
> Madison, WI
>

[John T]

Ryan, I think one of the big roadblocks to LSA is economics. Insurance
companies won't insure classic taildraggers for student solo, so someone
(FBO, student, flying club) is going to have to buy/lease a trike
geared LSA for training. That means one of the new planes which seem to
have a base price of 80,000 buckeroos. For that kind of money, you could
get a decent 182! And don't forget checkouts for the instructor, parts
inventory (which should be relatively small for such new planes), and
maybe even metric tools (1)

If someone is limited to SP, then yeah, 80 grand might seem like a good
idea, or they could go experimental, but you'd still have to find an
instructor to give lessons in a homebuilt...after you get the phase one
flown off, of course.
I really liked some of the new LSA's, and I hope it takes off...I'd like
to fly some of these planes.

John

(1) The week before Oshkosh, I dropped by the FBO hangar where there was
a NEW Katana (not the FBO's). The guys in the shop had to buy metric
tools cause they didn't have any! This was a FBO that had been around
for 75 years!

[W P Dixon]

IMHO,
If sport pilot gets to the every plane costs 80G it will die. Other than
a few rich fellows that are going to lose their medicals the people that
sport pilot was intended to target to add to aviation will be left out in
the cold.
Not all, but in alot of cases people into ultralights are there because
they can not afford a certified aircraft,...a smart plane or kit builder
could make those ultralighters sport pilots which would be a great
percentage of their biz, or they can choose to cater to the rich and only
get 3 to 4 % of the biz.
You are correct in the dwindling number of taildraggers available for
rent because of ridiculas insurance. There are a few places left but you
really have to look for them. Insurance companies will always find a way to
screw people ..so this is just par for the course for those leeches.
A sport plane at tops should be in the 20-40 G range, if a company could
make one lower all the better. Why would it cost 60 G for a place to make a
new Cub or Champ? Simple GREED....and as long as that mentality prevails GA
will die. Yes a company needs to make a profit but not 200%-300% from every
sale.
The metal to build a 601 or Sonex will run in the 3000-4000 price range,
figure an engine to be 10 G , and there is nothing to building one of these
planes so labor SHOULD not be a boatload. But I have seen these sell for
40-60G , and it's highway robbery. 25G would be good , and 30G probably not
unreasonable. Hey they are not building 777's , just a small plane. I speak
from experience in production of aircraft, from MD-80's to Learjets.
A greedy company that wants to sell a 25G plane for 50G may sell
100...if he sold them for 25G he has the potential of selling 500, simply
because it opens the market for more people. All I can fly is sport category
and I WILL NEVER pay as much for a light sport plane as a 172, etc. I would
simply build my own plane before that happens, or even a certified old
project plane that meets the sport category. I realize some may not have the
know how or tools to do that..they will find ultralights very cheap in the
next few years if the sport category really takes off. Or they can surely
check with a local EAA group and probably gets tons of help building their
own light sport plane. When we "poor boys" HAVE to build one, it's one less
they can sell at a trumped up price, one less that will be rented on the
flight line. Just my take on it anyways ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
"John T" > wrote in message
...
> Ryan, I think one of the big roadblocks to LSA is economics. Insurance
> companies won't insure classic taildraggers for student solo, so someone
> (FBO, student, flying club) is going to have to buy/lease a trike geared
> LSA for training. That means one of the new planes which seem to have a
> base price of 80,000 buckeroos. For that kind of money, you could get a
> decent 182! And don't forget checkouts for the instructor, parts inventory
> (which should be relatively small for such new planes), and maybe even
> metric tools (1)
>
> If someone is limited to SP, then yeah, 80 grand might seem like a good
> idea, or they could go experimental, but you'd still have to find an
> instructor to give lessons in a homebuilt...after you get the phase one
> flown off, of course.
> I really liked some of the new LSA's, and I hope it takes off...I'd like
> to fly some of these planes.
>
> John
>
> (1) The week before Oshkosh, I dropped by the FBO hangar where there was a
> NEW Katana (not the FBO's). The guys in the shop had to buy metric tools
> cause they didn't have any! This was a FBO that had been around for 75
> years!
>

[RST Engineering]

So let's do the math. If the metal is $4k, the engine is $10k, another $3k
for incidentals like tires, wires, and the like, and $5k in labor to build,
the out-door cost is $22k. Sell it for $25k and you've made a whole $3k,
times 500 customers is $1.5mil.

Sell it for $50k and you've made $28k times 100 customers and you've made
$2.8 mil, not to mention the headaches involved with another 400 customers
and the service that entails.

Like the man said, DO THE MATH.

Jim



> The metal to build a 601 or Sonex will run in the 3000-4000 price
> range, figure an engine to be 10 G , and there is nothing to building one
> of these planes so labor SHOULD not be a boatload. But I have seen these
> sell for 40-60G , and it's highway robbery. 25G would be good , and 30G
> probably not unreasonable. Hey they are not building 777's , just a small
> plane. I speak from experience in production of aircraft, from MD-80's to
> Learjets.
> A greedy company that wants to sell a 25G plane for 50G may sell
> 100...if he sold them for 25G he has the potential of selling 500, simply
> because it opens the market for more people.

[W P Dixon]

Well DUHHHH JIM,
There are variables for every kind of plane, the estimated cost of a
Tatcher CX4 is 8,000 with engine. Do you need to sell it for 50 G too? Take
the blinders off!!!!!!

Patrick

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> So let's do the math. If the metal is $4k, the engine is $10k, another
> $3k for incidentals like tires, wires, and the like, and $5k in labor to
> build, the out-door cost is $22k. Sell it for $25k and you've made a
> whole $3k, times 500 customers is $1.5mil.
>
> Sell it for $50k and you've made $28k times 100 customers and you've made
> $2.8 mil, not to mention the headaches involved with another 400 customers
> and the service that entails.
>
> Like the man said, DO THE MATH.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>> The metal to build a 601 or Sonex will run in the 3000-4000 price
>> range, figure an engine to be 10 G , and there is nothing to building
>> one of these planes so labor SHOULD not be a boatload. But I have seen
>> these sell for 40-60G , and it's highway robbery. 25G would be good , and
>> 30G probably not unreasonable. Hey they are not building 777's , just a
>> small plane. I speak from experience in production of aircraft, from
>> MD-80's to Learjets.
>> A greedy company that wants to sell a 25G plane for 50G may sell
>> 100...if he sold them for 25G he has the potential of selling 500, simply
>> because it opens the market for more people.
>
>

[W P Dixon]

Not to mention then you can sell parts and such to 500 customers instead of
100, Jim you should understand how that works you are in biz. Lots of
variables but the main point is companys are to greedy. Look at the greed
our auto industry has gotten into( from their own and the greed of their
workers). When things cost less you sell alot more, period.

Patrick

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> So let's do the math. If the metal is $4k, the engine is $10k, another
> $3k for incidentals like tires, wires, and the like, and $5k in labor to
> build, the out-door cost is $22k. Sell it for $25k and you've made a
> whole $3k, times 500 customers is $1.5mil.
>
> Sell it for $50k and you've made $28k times 100 customers and you've made
> $2.8 mil, not to mention the headaches involved with another 400 customers
> and the service that entails.
>
> Like the man said, DO THE MATH.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>> The metal to build a 601 or Sonex will run in the 3000-4000 price
>> range, figure an engine to be 10 G , and there is nothing to building
>> one of these planes so labor SHOULD not be a boatload. But I have seen
>> these sell for 40-60G , and it's highway robbery. 25G would be good , and
>> 30G probably not unreasonable. Hey they are not building 777's , just a
>> small plane. I speak from experience in production of aircraft, from
>> MD-80's to Learjets.
>> A greedy company that wants to sell a 25G plane for 50G may sell
>> 100...if he sold them for 25G he has the potential of selling 500, simply
>> because it opens the market for more people.
>
>

[Michael]

>Insurance companies won't insure classic taildraggers for student solo

That's not true. Insurance companies WILL insure Cubs and Champs and
their ilk for student solo. There's a Cub locally that can be soloed
at 10 hours tailwheel time, 5 hours make and model. Students can solo
it. It's insured - and the owner went cheap on the insurance. He
could have made it the same as the Champ in which I got my tailwheel
signoff - 5 hours tailwheel, CFI checkout - but that cost a bit more.

What insurance companies WON'T insure is students soloing after being
taught by unqualified instructors. The local flgiht school at my home
field has a Citabria on the line, and wants to check out a new
instructor. They plan to take him from zero tailwheel time to giving
dual in a Citabria - in 15 hours. That's when it all goes to hell.
Minimum of 100 (or is it 150) hours total time, private pilot or
better, 15 hours dual instruction in make and model to solo, and a huge
bill for mediocre coverage. The honest truth is that you can't be a
qualified tailwheel instructor with 15 tailwheel hours. Those low time
instructors of yesteryear who taught in Champs and Cubs ALL had 200+
hours tailwheel time and had passed checkrides in taildraggers
themselves.

Flight schools are quick to blame the insurance, but the real problem
is they are unwilling to do what it takes to attract and retain
qualified tailwheel instructors.

> That means one of the new planes which seem to
> have a base price of 80,000 buckeroos.

Something is severely wrong here.

When I was in the Keys a few months ago, I met a guy who does lessons
(officially, really they are usually rides) in a 2-seat floatplane
ultralight trainer. He says it does just fine getting off the water in
the Florida heat with two big people. It has a Rotax engine, and it is
open cockpit with a dacron-covered wing, but it's a three axis machine,
not a trike. He bought it new, ready to fly (not a kit) for under
$25,000 two years ago, straight from the factory. It also exists in a
landplane form, which is cheaper.

My understanding is that the whole point of Sport Pilot was that such
aircraft could be sold as LSA's, for general non-commercial (except
instruction) use, not as ultralight trainers for instruction only. In
its landplane configuration, it would be a perfectly serviceable
general purpose three axis sport pilot trainer or pleasure craft. Any
garden variety CFI could instruct in it. So what happened?

I suspect that the process the FAA claimed was going to be easy for
manufacturers is still bad enough that it winds up doubling or tripling
the cost of the aircraft. That would be typical. In fact, I will only
believe otherwise if I see those two-seat ultralight trainers selling
as LSA's for no more than 10% more than they cost as UL trainers.

Michael

[RST Engineering]

The Polish say that this is ****ing in the soup. You get more soup, but it
doesn't taste anywhere near as good.

Jim



"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...

> Not to mention then you can sell parts and such to 500 customers instead
> of 100, Jim you should understand how that works you are in biz. Lots of
> variables but the main point is companys are to greedy. Look at the greed
> our auto industry has gotten into( from their own and the greed of their
> workers). When things cost less you sell alot more, period.

[W P Dixon]

This versus bankruptcy for trying to sell a 80G sport plane? Hard to tell
who is ****ing in what ain't it? Do you think a 80G sport plane will be a
moneymaker? I don't, that's the basis for my rant ;) I would like to hear
your opinion on the 80G sport planes though, when I need sarcasm I just ask
my wife for that ;) I am sure we don't need it to discuss the cost of a
sport plane.

Patrick

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> The Polish say that this is ****ing in the soup. You get more soup, but
> it doesn't taste anywhere near as good.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Not to mention then you can sell parts and such to 500 customers instead
>> of 100, Jim you should understand how that works you are in biz. Lots of
>> variables but the main point is companys are to greedy. Look at the greed
>> our auto industry has gotten into( from their own and the greed of their
>> workers). When things cost less you sell alot more, period.
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

One thing you are going to have to remember is that these planes are not
being mass produced. What do you think a Honda Accord would cost if you had
to build each one by hand?

[Montblack]

("W P Dixon" wrote)
[snip]
> The metal to build a 601 or Sonex will run in the 3000-4000 price
> range, figure an engine to be 10 G , and there is nothing to building one
> of these planes so labor SHOULD not be a boatload. But I have seen these
> sell for 40-60G , and it's highway robbery. 25G would be good , and 30G
> probably not unreasonable. Hey they are not building 777's , just a small
> plane. I speak from experience in production of aircraft, from MD-80's to
> Learjets.
> A greedy company that wants to sell a 25G plane for 50G may sell
> 100...if he sold them for 25G he has the potential of selling 500, simply
> because it opens the market for more people. All I can fly is sport
> category and I WILL NEVER pay as much for a light sport plane as a 172,
> etc.


Get out your checkbook.

Sonex had a new (LSA) plane at OSH for $24K ...built ...with engine ....and
instruments ...and tires.


Montblack

[Michael]

> Sonex had a new (LSA) plane at OSH for $24K ...built ...
> with engine ....and instruments ...and tires.

Seriously? An actual, hop in and fly it away airplane? Got a link? I
went to their web site and didn't find it.

If I can get insurance, I think I might just buy it and put it on the
line.

Michael

[Robert M. Gary]

In the U.S. we don't price products this way. In the U.S. we look at
what the market is willing to pay for the product. If we can make a
profit off of that we go for it. Those damn socialists get so hung up
with what it costs to produce the product when they price. It makes no
difference. My costs are none of your concern, your only concern is
whether or not you are willing to pay my asking price.

-Robert

[Montblack]

("Michael" wrote)
>> Sonex had a new (LSA) plane at OSH for $24K ...built ...
>> with engine ....and instruments ...and tires.
>
> Seriously? An actual, hop in and fly it away airplane? Got a link? I
> went to their web site and didn't find it.


Oops. My mistake. (Just dug through OSH pics) Sign reads:

Build this "Sport Pilot"
Sonex
For $24,000 Complete


Montblack

[George Patterson]

W P Dixon wrote:
> Not to mention then you can sell parts and such to 500 customers instead
> of 100, Jim you should understand how that works you are in biz. Lots of
> variables but the main point is companys are to greedy. Look at the
> greed our auto industry has gotten into( from their own and the greed of
> their workers). When things cost less you sell alot more, period.

The flaw in this argument is that it assumes unlimited demand. Sure, you *might*
sell 500 the first year, but not so many the next. Five years down the road,
demand is satiated and you're out of business. You need to price things high
enough that some people have to wait to buy them.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:MJAHe.5547$GN5.3669@trndny08...
> W P Dixon wrote:
> > Not to mention then you can sell parts and such to 500 customers instead
> > of 100, Jim you should understand how that works you are in biz. Lots of
> > variables but the main point is companys are to greedy. Look at the
> > greed our auto industry has gotten into( from their own and the greed of
> > their workers). When things cost less you sell alot more, period.
>
> The flaw in this argument is that it assumes unlimited demand.

No, it assumes you can price yourself out of the market for which there is
limited demand.

> Sure, you *might*
> sell 500 the first year, but not so many the next. Five years down the
road,
> demand is satiated and you're out of business.

That assumes demand is fixed, which is incorrect.

> You need to price things high
> enough that some people have to wait to buy them.

Assuming there are limited providers....

[W P Dixon]

Yep the Sonex is a nice little plane and the complete kit is around 24,000.
3,000 give or take in metal, figure around 6000 for an engine ( the VW type,
the Jabiru would make it to fast for sport category) I'll even say the
instruments cost 1000 for a total of 10 G , Wow what does there labor cost
to predrill some holes and use a metal brake? but it is a very nice plane
and I do like it!;)
George and Matt both make good points....but where is that fine line of
priced right to sell a unit versus priced so high it will not sell? I do not
see a sport plane selling for 80G that would make money for a company on a
regular basis. But check out the money Sonex can make on their kit for
24,000 G . A company has to ask do we want doctors and lawyer types who
won't qualify for a medical anymore or do we want a general population to
sell to.
You may make alot of money at first selling to the high end , but you
will make more money longer and stay in biz longer if you have a wider base
for your product. When the rule first came out people were getting alot more
money for the older Champs and such but now those prices for the most part
are coming back down. Could it have been that those with the money bought
the ones they could and now that "money" market has already got their plane
and prices have gone back down? Beats me, but it sure is a way to look at
it. Cubs are always overpriced so I don't count them in this ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[John T]

One of the big reasons certified aircraft are so expensive is liability.
I read somewhere (don't know if true) that of the new cessna's sold
today, $100,000 goes for liability insurance...

[John T]

My "base price of 80,000" applied to aircraft that looked more like
conventional aircraft...high or low wing, all metal or composite. Not
supersized ultralights, dacron covering, or revised classics.

I'm not sure, but I think some of them came with glass cockpits as
standard.

John

[[email protected]]

I spent alot of time in the LSA mall last week, some of those glass
cockpits are pretty cool. If you read the fine print, they may be an
option on some and not standard. I didn't get literature on every one,
just those I was interested in (ie-low wing).

Ryan

[Robert M. Gary]

What's wrong with that? As long as you are willing to pay it, they will
charge you for it. They would be idiots if they charged anything less
than the customer was willing to pay.

[W P Dixon]

I don't think I would want a glass cockpit in a sport plane, but that is
just me. Just some good instruments and let's go fly. I guess a glass
cockpit can add what ,about 10G to the cost? Just not worth it for a sport
plane. I am sure there are some gizmo guys and gals out there that would
love the glass, heck I may even like it myself if it did not cost so much.
Liability is a major cost and concern with about anything these
days..even selling coffee at Mickey D's! I guess that all goes to lawyers,
insurance companies and people to dern stupid to walk across a floor without
half killing themselves ;) Sure wish some folks could figure out a way to
stop all the nonsense. We all know the risk of flying as well as the risk we
take driving to the grocery store..things happen! Sure wish we all could
just accept those things without having to blame everyone but ourselves.
And yes there are alot of sport planes out there that do not look like a
flying lawn chair!!! Thank goodness huh? ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I spent alot of time in the LSA mall last week, some of those glass
> cockpits are pretty cool. If you read the fine print, they may be an
> option on some and not standard. I didn't get literature on every one,
> just those I was interested in (ie-low wing).
>
> Ryan
>

[TaxSrv]

"John T" > wrote in message
...
> One of the big reasons certified aircraft are so
> expensive is liability. I read somewhere (don't
> know if true) that of the new cessna's sold
> today, $100,000 goes for liability insurance...
>

I would think that to be way off. That would result in an
enormous pot of money collected on their annual unit sales.
The money is paid over to ultimately Lloyd's of London, and
that kind of an expense doesn't fit into their detailed
financial statements in Cessna's SEC filings. Nor is there
any such hint of that big a liability problem in the
necessary narrative in the SEC filings about legal matters.

Fred F.

[Dave Stadt]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
...
> "John T" > wrote in message
> ...
> > One of the big reasons certified aircraft are so
> > expensive is liability. I read somewhere (don't
> > know if true) that of the new cessna's sold
> > today, $100,000 goes for liability insurance...
> >
>
> I would think that to be way off. That would result in an
> enormous pot of money collected on their annual unit sales.
> The money is paid over to ultimately Lloyd's of London, and
> that kind of an expense doesn't fit into their detailed
> financial statements in Cessna's SEC filings. Nor is there
> any such hint of that big a liability problem in the
> necessary narrative in the SEC filings about legal matters.
>
> Fred F.

Cessna self insures.

[Newps]

Dave Stadt wrote:


>
>
> Cessna self insures.

With the extra $100K per plane.

[ET]

wrote in
ups.com:

> I'm just back from OSH late last night as well. Had a good time, got
> totally sunburned and enjoyed the show. A couple of questions came up,
> and everyone I asked seemed to have a different opinion (which happens
> when you don't have the FAR/AIM books at hand out on the Flight
> line)....
> 1. I thought the LSA "mall" was a great idea at show center. My first
> plane was an Ercoupe, and even thought I've moved "up" to a 172, the
> LSA type airplanes are really pretty cool. What I've been trying to
> figure out is this new LSA instructor thing. Can one really just take
> the "fundamentals of instruction" (FOI) test and then the written for
> the LSA instructor (and then the practical)? Without getting a
> commercial and then insturment, like a traditional CFI?

YES

> 2. I was oogling the new Czech "Mermaid" amphibian as well. My wife
> was keen on that idea. Now with this, is there going to be a seperate
> LSA-single engine seaplane rating (LSA-seaplane???)? If one already
> has PP-SEL, does one just add SES on to it and then be qualified to
> fly the thing?

YES, One instructor to train you and another to check you... They have
to fix the No changing the gear in flight thing. Better if your already
a PP-SEL & have no problem with your medical to just get your seaplane
rating and move on.


>
> I'm already a relatively active pilot, but I truly hope this LSA thing
> really takes off and we start seeing these planes out at the FBO's!
>
> Ryan
> Madison, WI
>



--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Morgans]

"ET" > wrote

> They have
> to fix the No changing the gear in flight thing.

I talked to some EAA guys in the LSA part of the tent, and they said that
this has been taken up with the head of the FAA, who was unaware of the
problem. She said it *will* be taken care of, to everyone's satisfaction,
post haste. (for the FAA, I suppose that will be an indefinite time)
--
Jim in NC

[W P Dixon]

Yep and the same for the 87 knot endorsement rule Jim ;)


Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ET" > wrote
>
>> They have
>> to fix the No changing the gear in flight thing.
>
> I talked to some EAA guys in the LSA part of the tent, and they said that
> this has been taken up with the head of the FAA, who was unaware of the
> problem. She said it *will* be taken care of, to everyone's satisfaction,
> post haste. (for the FAA, I suppose that will be an indefinite time)
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Morgans]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Yep and the same for the 87 knot endorsement rule Jim ;)

Refresh my memory, please. I have slept several times since that came up.
;-)
--
Jim in NC

[W P Dixon]

Hee Hee,
I know where you are coming from. Well as most people know, a sport pilot
may train in pretty much any single engine aircraft if it meets the category
or not. But solos and the check ride must be done in a "sport" category
aircraft.
When you get down into all the little sub sections of the rules it goes
on to say that only a certificated sport pilot can get training and get
signed off for the 87 knot endorsement. So you have one rule saying you can
fly a Cherokee and the other rule saying you can't until you are already a
sport pilot.
The EAA says they are working on the wording as it has caused some
confusion. One of those that was very confused is the AOPA (did not have a
clue). And the FAA fellow told me," Welcome to the FAR's!"
From all I have heard from the powers that be it is supposed to be where
you can get the endorsement during your training, just like a taildragger or
controlled airspace endorsement. Just the wording got "messed" up.
So for now, some CFI's are giving the endorsement as it was intended by
the rules, and some are afraid to by the conflict of the term certificated
sport pilot. AHHH Red tape ya just gotta love it! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Yep and the same for the 87 knot endorsement rule Jim ;)
>
> Refresh my memory, please. I have slept several times since that came up.
> ;-)
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Morgans]

"W P Dixon" > wrote

> When you get down into all the little sub sections of the rules it
goes
> on to say that only a certificated sport pilot can get training and get
> signed off for the 87 knot endorsement.

Sorry, but you still didn't say what the 87 knot endorsement rule is.
--
Jim in NC

[W P Dixon]

OK,
To sum it up,....before a sport pilot can operate a fixed wing aircraft
that cruises 87 knots or more he must have ground and flight training and
recieve an endorsement. The rule regarding this endorsement specifically
states a certificated sport pilot can get this endorsement.
So you have one rule saying a sport pilot can train in the same aircraft
that the other rule says he can't until after he is a "sport pilot". It's
causing as much confusion as the retracts on seaplanes, if not more just
because alot of us(me included) have already been flying aircraft that
cruise at or more than 87 knots. Some CFI's are giving the endorsement
during training , others just are not sure what the heck to do.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote
>
>> When you get down into all the little sub sections of the rules it
> goes
>> on to say that only a certificated sport pilot can get training and get
>> signed off for the 87 knot endorsement.
>
> Sorry, but you still didn't say what the 87 knot endorsement rule is.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[W P Dixon]

"If you hold a sport pilot certificate and you seek to
operate a light-sport aircraft that has a VH greater than 87
knots CAS you must-

The wording right there is what is the holdup, see the sport pilot
certificate, that means someone who already is a sport pilot , not a
student. A student would be seeking to obtain a sport pilot certificate, or
it should say a student sport pilot. But using the words sport pilot
certificate does not include students, or so say half the FAA and AOPA.
It's kind of like saying you could not fly a C150 unless you had a
private pilot certificate,...no mention of a student pilot there. It's weird
wording for sure.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "W P Dixon" > wrote:
>
>> To sum it up,....before a sport pilot can operate a fixed wing aircraft
>>that cruises 87 knots or more he must have ground and flight training and
>>recieve an endorsement.
>
> True.
>
>>The rule regarding this endorsement specifically
>>states a certificated sport pilot can get this endorsement.
>
> True, but it does *not* say a student pilot cannot get it.
> It says nothing about when it can be given or to whom.
>
> The exact wording of 61.327 is:
> "If you hold a sport pilot certificate and you seek to
> operate a light-sport aircraft that has a VH greater than 87
> knots CAS you must-
> (a) Receive and log ground and flight training from an
> authorized instructor in an aircraft that has a VH greater
> than 87 knots CAS"
>
> FAR 61.315 on SP privileges, just says that in order for a
> certificated SP to exercise the privilege of flying a
> light-sport aircraft that has a VH greater than 87 knots CAS
> he must first have the 61.327 endorsement. This applies to
> certificated sport pilots only. It certainly does not
> prohibit the endorsement from being given to a student
> pilot. The student must always have the make and model
> signoffs to solo. I haven't given the 87 knot signoff, but
> I'd have no problem giving it to a student pilot if I
> thought he was qualified.
>
>> So you have one rule saying a sport pilot can train in the same
>> aircraft
>>that the other rule says he can't until after he is a "sport pilot".
>
> No you don't. There's nothing in either rule saying a
> student pilot can't get the endorsement. For that matter, I
> don't see anything saying he has to have the signoff to
> train or solo in a >87 knots SLA (although I'd recommend it
> before solo and certainly before the practical test
> signoff.).
>
>> It's
>>causing as much confusion as the retracts on seaplanes, if not more just
>>because alot of us(me included) have already been flying aircraft that
>>cruise at or more than 87 knots.
>
> Where is the confusion coming from? Can you point me to
> it?. I frequent some Sport Pilot groups and haven't seen
> it discussed (although I might have missed it).
>
>
> Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
> return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.
>
> (first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)

[ET]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in
:

> "If you hold a sport pilot certificate and you seek to
> operate a light-sport aircraft that has a VH greater than 87
> knots CAS you must-
>
> The wording right there is what is the holdup, see the sport pilot
> certificate, that means someone who already is a sport pilot , not a
> student. A student would be seeking to obtain a sport pilot
> certificate, or it should say a student sport pilot. But using the
> words sport pilot certificate does not include students, or so say
> half the FAA and AOPA.
> It's kind of like saying you could not fly a C150 unless you had a
> private pilot certificate,...no mention of a student pilot there. It's
> weird wording for sure.
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>

Break it apart: "If you hold a sport pilot certificate" ok, student
does not, therefore don't read anymore.

Now once you have the certificate: "If you hold a sport pilot
certificate" Yes; "and you seek to
operate a light-sport aircraft that has a VH greater than 87
knots CAS you must-
(a) Receive and log ground and flight training from an
authorized instructor in an aircraft that has a VH greater
than 87 knots CAS"

OK, you did that as a student, so your golden... It doesn't say WHEN
you had to have it done, it simply says you have to DO that before
flying an aircraft w/ VH greater than 87 knots.

Sounds simple to me....

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[W P Dixon]

Hee Hee,
Well it does to alot of folks, but guess what the FAA doesn't see it as
so simple, nor the AOPA. And thus the problem. Like the FAA told me, welcome
to the FAR's. Some people interpret it one way and others another way and
some don't even get it close. But with half the CFI's and DPE's confused on
the matter they are waiting on word from the higher authority. And the
higher authority themselves are confused! See the dilemma. What you or I
think doesn't matter if the person who has to give you the endorsement does
not see it that way, and no one is telling him/her any different.
We see it from pretty much the same side, but there are those who are
seeing it as you CAN NOT fly a plane 87knots or greater until you have a
sport pilot certificate. Some FAA says you can some FAA says you can't. As
long as the FAA doesn't know for sure, then everyone under them is just
guessing as to what the rule means, or at least what the FAA wanted it to
mean.
I think you are exactly right! If you trained in them you are good to
go, but ALOT of CFI's are having a problem with it. The EAA says it was a
wording glitch and CFI's should sign the endorsement and alot do. But for
those that don't "see it that way" , the EAA is not the higher authority,
the FAA is. Guess it's kind of like The Constitution , seems judges and
politicians can change it's meaning from day to day, and twist simple words
around . Pretty much like this rule, just says what whomever is reading it
says it says. And sometimes in either case I don't see how they come up with
the stuff they do! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "If you hold a sport pilot certificate and you seek to
>> operate a light-sport aircraft that has a VH greater than 87
>> knots CAS you must-
>>
>> The wording right there is what is the holdup, see the sport pilot
>> certificate, that means someone who already is a sport pilot , not a
>> student. A student would be seeking to obtain a sport pilot
>> certificate, or it should say a student sport pilot. But using the
>> words sport pilot certificate does not include students, or so say
>> half the FAA and AOPA.
>> It's kind of like saying you could not fly a C150 unless you had a
>> private pilot certificate,...no mention of a student pilot there. It's
>> weird wording for sure.
>>
>> Patrick
>> student SPL
>> aircraft structural mech
>>
>
> Break it apart: "If you hold a sport pilot certificate" ok, student
> does not, therefore don't read anymore.
>
> Now once you have the certificate: "If you hold a sport pilot
> certificate" Yes; "and you seek to
> operate a light-sport aircraft that has a VH greater than 87
> knots CAS you must-
> (a) Receive and log ground and flight training from an
> authorized instructor in an aircraft that has a VH greater
> than 87 knots CAS"
>
> OK, you did that as a student, so your golden... It doesn't say WHEN
> you had to have it done, it simply says you have to DO that before
> flying an aircraft w/ VH greater than 87 knots.
>
> Sounds simple to me....
>
> --
> -- ET >:-)
>
> "A common mistake people make when trying to design something
> completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
> fools."---- Douglas Adams

[W P Dixon]

Todd,
I can't give you any computer links, but the AOPA I called and talked to ,
and the FAA I have called and spoken to as well. These were all personal
conversations, I do not know if those people would like their names on the
net or not, so I won't put their names here. heck I don't think I got the
name of the AOPA rep I spoke to anyway! HAHA As to the FAA, let's just say
reps from an FSDO and in the light sport program. If you get on the phone I
am sure you will get alot of different answers as well.
Since AOPA had to get his FAR and open up the book and read what I was
telling him I was having the problem with I don't think it would be
addressed on their website. After he read the rule he told me you can not
fly the plane until you have a sport pilot certificate. That was his take.
But by all means , I like your common sense approach to it! If you are a CFI
please give me the endorsement so I won't have to fool with it! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "W P Dixon" > wrote:
>
>>"If you hold a sport pilot certificate and you seek to
>>operate a light-sport aircraft that has a VH greater than 87
>>knots CAS you must-
>>
>>The wording right there is what is the holdup, see the sport pilot
>>certificate, that means someone who already is a sport pilot , not a
>>student.
>
> I completely agree. Therefore, since the student does not
> hold a sport pilot certificate, this rule does not apply.
>
>>A student would be seeking to obtain a sport pilot certificate, or
>>it should say a student sport pilot. But using the words sport pilot
>>certificate does not include students
>
> Agreed. So it's irrelevant.
>
>>, or so say half the FAA and AOPA.
>
> Can you give me some links? I won't deny that there's a lot
> of dispute over the meaning of FAR's but I haven't run into
> this dispute. It doesn't seem to me that the language is
> any problem, but I'd like to see the comments of someone who
> does.
>
>> It's kind of like saying you could not fly a C150 unless you had a
>>private pilot certificate,...no mention of a student pilot there. It's
>>weird
>>wording for sure.
>
> It doesn't say that. I'll give you an example for other
> signoffs. You can't launch a glider behind a towplane, or
> fly a taildragger without a signoff. The rules read as
> follows:
>
> "no person may act as pilot in command of a glider .."
>
> and
>
> "no person may act as pilot in command of a tailwheel
> airplane .... "
>
> See the difference? A student pilot who is solo is acting
> as PIC. The student must have the signoff. The rule we are
> discussing is not written that way, so IMHO, he does not
> need the signoff until he gets his license. Of course, I
> don't see any prohibition in the existing language from
> giving him the signoff, so I see two different ways that
> your concern should go away. You don't need it, but if you
> think you do, go ahead and get it. You will need it
> ultimately, so make sure you get it eventually.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Patrick
>>student SPL
>>aircraft structural mech
>>
>>"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
>>> "W P Dixon" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> To sum it up,....before a sport pilot can operate a fixed wing
>>>> aircraft
>>>>that cruises 87 knots or more he must have ground and flight training
>>>>and
>>>>recieve an endorsement.
>>>
>>> True.
>>>
>>>>The rule regarding this endorsement specifically
>>>>states a certificated sport pilot can get this endorsement.
>>>
>>> True, but it does *not* say a student pilot cannot get it.
>>> It says nothing about when it can be given or to whom.
>>>
>>> The exact wording of 61.327 is:
>>> "If you hold a sport pilot certificate and you seek to
>>> operate a light-sport aircraft that has a VH greater than 87
>>> knots CAS you must-
>>> (a) Receive and log ground and flight training from an
>>> authorized instructor in an aircraft that has a VH greater
>>> than 87 knots CAS"
>>>
>>> FAR 61.315 on SP privileges, just says that in order for a
>>> certificated SP to exercise the privilege of flying a
>>> light-sport aircraft that has a VH greater than 87 knots CAS
>>> he must first have the 61.327 endorsement. This applies to
>>> certificated sport pilots only. It certainly does not
>>> prohibit the endorsement from being given to a student
>>> pilot. The student must always have the make and model
>>> signoffs to solo. I haven't given the 87 knot signoff, but
>>> I'd have no problem giving it to a student pilot if I
>>> thought he was qualified.
>>>
>>>> So you have one rule saying a sport pilot can train in the same
>>>> aircraft
>>>>that the other rule says he can't until after he is a "sport pilot".
>>>
>>> No you don't. There's nothing in either rule saying a
>>> student pilot can't get the endorsement. For that matter, I
>>> don't see anything saying he has to have the signoff to
>>> train or solo in a >87 knots SLA (although I'd recommend it
>>> before solo and certainly before the practical test
>>> signoff.).
>>>
>>>> It's
>>>>causing as much confusion as the retracts on seaplanes, if not more just
>>>>because alot of us(me included) have already been flying aircraft that
>>>>cruise at or more than 87 knots.
>>>
>>> Where is the confusion coming from? Can you point me to
>>> it?. I frequent some Sport Pilot groups and haven't seen
>>> it discussed (although I might have missed it).
>>>
>>>
>>> Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
>>> return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.
>>>
>>> (first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)
>
>
> Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
> return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.
>
> (first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)

[Jose]

If you are just a layman, and not a pilot or student pilot, and you go
up with another pilot, you can manipulate the controls. The FARs don't
say you can't, and they don't say the pilot can't let you.

If the other pilot is an appropriate instructor, then you can log those
hours as instruction, no matter what the cruise speed of the aircraft is.

After certain instruction and other requirements are met, you can get
your certificate. To interpret the regs to say that "now that you have
your certificate, you can no longer do what you used to be able to do"
is a bit of a stretch, especially when the alternate interpretation
makes at least equal sense.

I suppose it hinges on what the FAA intends by "fly". It makes sense to
interpret it as "act as PIC". In a vacuum, it also makes sense to
interpret it as "maniuplate the controls". However, if it does not mean
"act as PIC" then getting a certificate would impose a restriction, and
I don't think anybody thinks that's the intent.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[W P Dixon]

Ahhhha!,
See there is the other confusion of the same rule, you said until we fly
in a 87 knot LSA. Well why doesn't a Cherokee count, does it not cruise over
87 knots? Why can't you count flying any aircraft that flies over the 87
knots as one for the endorsement, you can train in one that fast. If you can
fly a Cherokee you can't control a Zenith 601? I didn't see anything in the
rule that says you have to solo the 87knot or over plane , just you needed
training and a endorsement. Since you can train for a sport pilot cert in a
Cherokee and not solo it, why can't you count that time for the endorsement?
And hey, I'd love to go fly with ya! We'd have a blast. If you were anywhere
close I'd come and fly your Champ for sure! I just love that little
airplane! Slipping in for a landing in the Champ is just fun!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "W P Dixon" > wrote:
>
>>But by all means , I like your common sense approach to it! If you are a
>>CFI
>>please give me the endorsement so I won't have to fool with it! ;)
>
> I'm a CFI, but you don't get the endorsement until we fly
> together in a >87 knot LSA. :-)
>
> I'd like to track down the origin of this dispute. I sure
> don't see it. I've called OK City (AFS-610) on SP questions
> a lot. I'll call and see what they say.
>
> Do not spin this aircraft. If the aircraft does enter a spin it will
> return to earth without further attention on the part of the aeronaut.
>
> (first handbook issued with the Curtis-Wright flyer)

[W P Dixon]

I agree,
I have never flown a ultralight, so it should not be a problem, but so far
it sure is .;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft stuctural mech

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote
> .
>> But by all means , I like your common sense approach to it! If you are a
> CFI
>> please give me the endorsement so I won't have to fool with it! ;)
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>
> I think I see why this was put in the rule.
>
> It is possible to get a SP certificate, flying only fat ultralights, that
> could not do 87 knots in a dive. OK, that is stretching it, but take that
> as truth.
>
> The FAA does not want you to get in a fast (88 to 120 knot) Light Sport
> Plane, without having a signoff that shows you can fly a faster airplane.
>
> The other stuff, I think Todd has nailed it.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Morgans]

"W P Dixon" > wrote

> The rule regarding this endorsement specifically
> states a certificated sport pilot can get this endorsement.
> So you have one rule saying a sport pilot can train in the same
aircraft
> that the other rule says he can't until after he is a "sport pilot".

I hadn't heard of that one. Originally designed for the ultralight to SP
guys, I'll bet, but just as screwy as the amphib gear issue.

Thanks! (I think) <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"W P Dixon" > wrote
..
> But by all means , I like your common sense approach to it! If you are a
CFI
> please give me the endorsement so I won't have to fool with it! ;)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I think I see why this was put in the rule.

It is possible to get a SP certificate, flying only fat ultralights, that
could not do 87 knots in a dive. OK, that is stretching it, but take that
as truth.

The FAA does not want you to get in a fast (88 to 120 knot) Light Sport
Plane, without having a signoff that shows you can fly a faster airplane.

The other stuff, I think Todd has nailed it.
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

But don't you have to get checked out in each Make/Model if you have a SP?

ie. Someone learns and checkrides in a CUB and then they want to fly a
Zenith 601XL they have to get another sign-off?



"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote
> .
>> But by all means , I like your common sense approach to it! If you are a
> CFI
>> please give me the endorsement so I won't have to fool with it! ;)
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>
> I think I see why this was put in the rule.
>
> It is possible to get a SP certificate, flying only fat ultralights, that
> could not do 87 knots in a dive. OK, that is stretching it, but take that
> as truth.
>
> The FAA does not want you to get in a fast (88 to 120 knot) Light Sport
> Plane, without having a signoff that shows you can fly a faster airplane.
>
> The other stuff, I think Todd has nailed it.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[ET]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in
news:4_1Le.84$7f5.5@okepread01:

> But don't you have to get checked out in each Make/Model if you have a
> SP?
>
> ie. Someone learns and checkrides in a CUB and then they want to fly a
> Zenith 601XL they have to get another sign-off?
>
>
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "W P Dixon" > wrote
>> .
>>> But by all means , I like your common sense approach to it! If you
>>> are a
>> CFI
>>> please give me the endorsement so I won't have to fool with it! ;)
>> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>>
>> I think I see why this was put in the rule.
>>
>> It is possible to get a SP certificate, flying only fat ultralights,
>> that could not do 87 knots in a dive. OK, that is stretching it, but
>> take that as truth.
>>
>> The FAA does not want you to get in a fast (88 to 120 knot) Light
>> Sport Plane, without having a signoff that shows you can fly a faster
>> airplane.
>>
>> The other stuff, I think Todd has nailed it.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>>
>
>
>

No, that's a very old supposition cleared up by the faa:

see: http://afs600.faa.gov/documents/PDF/LSA-Sets%20of%20Aircraft.pdf

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams