LSA Class?

[Larry]

Why is the FAA so supportive of this class of flying? Older pilots?
passenger allowed? more skill required in bad weather? less reliable
powerplants? no FAA medical exam? Less stringent certification of LSA?
I can only surmise that the FAA, EAA and MAYBE a need for grooming
future military pilots (where ever they go) endorse this effort. I am
only concerned about safety and why we even consider this class of
flying. Freedom yes but the FAA/EAA says "become a pilot faster,
easier, and cheaper than ever before". This scares me and I worry about
safety. Maybe I am wrong in my thinking.

Larry/PP

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Larry" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Why is the FAA so supportive of this class of flying? Older pilots?
> passenger allowed? more skill required in bad weather? less reliable
> powerplants? no FAA medical exam? Less stringent certification of LSA?
> I can only surmise that the FAA, EAA and MAYBE a need for grooming
> future military pilots (where ever they go) endorse this effort. I am
> only concerned about safety and why we even consider this class of
> flying. Freedom yes but the FAA/EAA says "become a pilot faster,
> easier, and cheaper than ever before". This scares me and I worry about
> safety. Maybe I am wrong in my thinking.
>
> Larry/PP
>

I think you probably are wrong. Think about how much of your training time
for your Private certificate was used to teach you things that are either
not allowed or require additional training under the LSA rules.

Many of the pilots who will avail themselves of the LSA program are fully
trained older pilots that for what ever reason can no longer fly under
medical rules that are more stringent that those required of drivers of
18-wheelers.

As far a less reliable power plants go. Do you have anything to back that
up?

I'll bet you think the Exp/Homebuilt class is a threat to safety as well.

[dlevy[_1_]]

They all simply want more money.

"Larry" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Why is the FAA so supportive of this class of flying? Older pilots?
> passenger allowed? more skill required in bad weather? less reliable
> powerplants? no FAA medical exam? Less stringent certification of LSA?
> I can only surmise that the FAA, EAA and MAYBE a need for grooming
> future military pilots (where ever they go) endorse this effort. I am
> only concerned about safety and why we even consider this class of
> flying. Freedom yes but the FAA/EAA says "become a pilot faster,
> easier, and cheaper than ever before". This scares me and I worry about
> safety. Maybe I am wrong in my thinking.
>
> Larry/PP
>

[Jay Beckman]

Jim,

Very well said on all counts.

How do you like the Sporstar? I had a chance to sit in one at the AOPA Expo
and I have to say that I was very impressed.

Well built, well equipped and suprisingly comfortable.

Where are you flying?

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Jay Beckman]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
...
> Jim,
>
> Very well said on all counts.
>
> How do you like the Sporstar?

Err, that should be SportStar...

Fingers are sometimes faster than brain.

Jay

[[email protected]]

Hi Larry -

If you study the the statistics available at the Air Safety Foundation
(asf.org), you will find that there are very few medically-related
accidents. Furthermore, sport pilots must self-certify their medical
fitness prior to flight.

We should support these new rules to revitilize general aviation in the
United States. As you may be aware, we are running out of pilots. My
employer (a large regional airline) is currently offering employees a
$500 reward for anyone that we refer who makes it through training! I
believe that the number of student starts per year is down about 25% in
the past 10 years (this is from memory).

Why are we in a pilot shortage? For one, flying has become very
expensive (a rich man's sport) and therefore cost-prohibitive for most.
The new sport pilot/light-sport aircraft rules will change that. I
believe that flying can be safe AND affordable.

Regarding the new ASTM consensus standards - these standards were
developed by the industry to establish a level of safety without FAA
involvement. The traditional FAA certification process was very
lengthy and expensive. Now manufacturers of light-sport aircraft all
have a common standard to meet (and in the future can undergo an audit
to substantiate their level of quality) and they don't have to spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars (and lots of time) to reinvent the
wheel with each new airplane (and all of the bureaucracy that goes with
it).

I don't think these rules have anything to do with military pilots.
The military has plenty of money (yours and mine) to pay for flight
training.

The new sport pilot/light-sport aircraft rules will be the RENAISSANCE
of general aviation!

http://www.SportPilotTalk.com

GeraldZ


Larry wrote:
> Why is the FAA so supportive of this class of flying? Older pilots?
> passenger allowed? more skill required in bad weather? less reliable
> powerplants? no FAA medical exam? Less stringent certification of LSA?
> I can only surmise that the FAA, EAA and MAYBE a need for grooming
> future military pilots (where ever they go) endorse this effort. I am
> only concerned about safety and why we even consider this class of
> flying. Freedom yes but the FAA/EAA says "become a pilot faster,
> easier, and cheaper than ever before". This scares me and I worry about
> safety. Maybe I am wrong in my thinking.
>
> Larry/PP

[jmk]

Larry wrote:
> Why is the FAA so supportive of this class of flying? Older pilots?
> passenger allowed? more skill required in bad weather? less reliable
> powerplants? no FAA medical exam? Less stringent certification of LSA?
> I can only surmise that the FAA, EAA and MAYBE a need for grooming
> future military pilots (where ever they go) endorse this effort. I am
> only concerned about safety and why we even consider this class of
> flying. Freedom yes but the FAA/EAA says "become a pilot faster,
> easier, and cheaper than ever before". This scares me and I worry about
> safety. Maybe I am wrong in my thinking.

These are valid concerns, but I think they are misplaced. You are
quite correct that the just-certified Sport Pilot (SP) will have had
less total training than the just-certified Private Pilot (PP).
However, much of that training will cover operations that are
prohibited to the SP. In fact, although having had somewhat fewer
hours of training, the SP may have in fact had *more* training in those
areas directly affecting his flights (Day, VFR).

As for the (LSA) aircraft, there is no reason to assume that they are
any less safe. It is certainly true that they are not required to be
equipped for night flight or for flight in instrument conditions
(flying inside the clouds) - but those operations are prohibited to the
LSA SP anyway.

My normally certificated aircraft is not certified for flight in known
icing; whereas the MD-80 that I am about to board is so certified. Is
my plane inherently less safe? Not if I stay out of the ice!

In fact, the truth of the matter is that the FAA supported the LSA
rules precisely to *improve* safety. The reality of ultra-lights in
the US is that probably 80% of them are technically illegal
(overweight, above max fuel, more than one seat, etc.). They fly with
a reasonable level of safety, but they were pretty much without FAA
oversight. One of the goals of LSA was to bring more of these "into
the system" and give the FAA back some control.

Will some SP in an LSA eventually do something really stupid and kill
himself and maybe a passenger? Of course. And, unfortunate though it
is, tonight some guy will down a couple of six packs and manage to kill
himself and maybe a bunch of others on the highway. In both cases it
was the stupidity that was unsafe, not the level of training or the
mechanical condition of the vehicle.

[Jay Honeck]

> As for the (LSA) aircraft, there is no reason to assume that they are
> any less safe. It is certainly true that they are not required to be
> equipped for night flight or for flight in instrument conditions
> (flying inside the clouds) - but those operations are prohibited to the
> LSA SP anyway.

The CT -- the only LSA I've flown -- had equipment comparable to my
IFR-certified Pathfinder. And if flew wonderfully. LSAs need not be
anything but excellent light aircraft.

> Will some SP in an LSA eventually do something really stupid and kill
> himself and maybe a passenger? Of course. And, unfortunate though it
> is, tonight some guy will down a couple of six packs and manage to kill
> himself and maybe a bunch of others on the highway. In both cases it
> was the stupidity that was unsafe, not the level of training or the
> mechanical condition of the vehicle.

'Twas ever thus, I'm afraid.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jim,
>>
>> Very well said on all counts.
>>
>> How do you like the Sporstar?
>
> Err, that should be SportStar...
>

I was picturing an LSA made of mold. <G>

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> As for the (LSA) aircraft, there is no reason to assume that they are
>> any less safe. It is certainly true that they are not required to be
>> equipped for night flight or for flight in instrument conditions
>> (flying inside the clouds) - but those operations are prohibited to the
>> LSA SP anyway.
>
> The CT -- the only LSA I've flown -- had equipment comparable to my
> IFR-certified Pathfinder. And if flew wonderfully. LSAs need not be
> anything but excellent light aircraft.

I haven't tried one yet, but hope to @ AOPA Expo '07. They seem like
they would be a lot of fun, along the lines of many of the old
taildraggers some of my fellow pilots own for hopping around the 'patch
for the fun of it.

A few of us who already own other aircraft have tossed the idea of
buying an LSA as a group for a second local "fun" plane.

[Jim Stewart]

Larry wrote:

> Why is the FAA so supportive of this class of flying? Older pilots?
> passenger allowed? more skill required in bad weather? less reliable
> powerplants? no FAA medical exam? Less stringent certification of LSA?
> I can only surmise that the FAA, EAA and MAYBE a need for grooming
> future military pilots (where ever they go) endorse this effort. I am
> only concerned about safety and why we even consider this class of
> flying. Freedom yes but the FAA/EAA says "become a pilot faster,
> easier, and cheaper than ever before". This scares me and I worry about
> safety. Maybe I am wrong in my thinking.

I can't pretend to speak for the FFA, but I
can speak for myself as a LSA student and
future LSA plane owner (Flight Design CT-SW,
March delivery).

I've wanted to fly all my life, but it never
made sense until the light sport class happened.
The combination of performance, cost of operation
and sheer fun makes it possible with LSA. For
little more than the price of a high-end German
road car you can buy a *new* light sport plane,
cruise at 120 knots and get 30 miles to the gallon
on mogas. And look forward to annual inspections
for around $500 instead of $5000.

As to the training, as long as a pilot flys within
the limitations of the license class, I don't see
why it should be any less safe than a PP license.

I'm 54 years old. I could pass the 3rd class
physical easy this year, but what about the future?
I *don't* want to fly at night, knowing how bad
my night vision can be. Why train on it? I *don't*
want to fly in weather, so why not limit the
training to avoiding weather? My plane will
not have VOR, RNAV, ADF, DME, etc, etc, so why
train on that? I will have 2 gps receivers and
current charts, and I'm taking my pilotage training
very seriously. All I've ever wanted to be is
a fair-weather pilot.

The 20 hour instruction requirement is, just
like a PPL, a minimum. The instructor and the
examiner won't sign you off unless you are
competent. Get rid of all the non-applicable
stuff and a 20 minimum makes sense without
sacrificing basic pilot competence.

Did I mention that LSA planes are an absolute
blast to fly? They are. Call up a dealer
and take a familiarization flight. I'm training
on a SportStar and, as I said, have a CTSW on
order. Try either one and get back to me.

[Jim Stewart]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> Jim,
>
> Very well said on all counts.
>
> How do you like the Sporstar? I had a chance to sit in one at the AOPA Expo
> and I have to say that I was very impressed.

The Sportstar is the closest to the CT-SW that is
available for training where I live. I don't have
much experience to judge it by, but so far I find
it a delight to fly. It's really responsive and
at the same time it has a solid dependablity to
it. I did my first two takeoffs today and it leaped
into the sky at an almost fearful rate.

> Well built, well equipped and suprisingly comfortable.

My instructor has mentioned a couple of times
that he would like to get his own CT-SW when
the Sportstar lease expires. So today I asked
him why. He said that the CT-SW is the best
of the LSA planes. It has quite a bit more
room than the Sportstar, goes faster, and the
high wing is not so hot as under the canopy in
the summer. Which is no small consideration
where we live.

> Where are you flying?

At what was once McClelland AFB in Sacramento.

> Jay Beckman
> PP-ASEL
> Chandler, AZ

[Guy Byars]

>> passenger allowed? more skill required in bad weather? less reliable
>> powerplants?

My father just got a brand new Legend Cub. It is LSA compliant and it came
with a brand new shiny factory O-200. Tell me please how that powerplant is
less reliable than in a certified aircraft.

[Margy Natalie]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>> As for the (LSA) aircraft, there is no reason to assume that they are
>>> any less safe. It is certainly true that they are not required to be
>>> equipped for night flight or for flight in instrument conditions
>>> (flying inside the clouds) - but those operations are prohibited to the
>>> LSA SP anyway.
>>
>>
>> The CT -- the only LSA I've flown -- had equipment comparable to my
>> IFR-certified Pathfinder. And if flew wonderfully. LSAs need not be
>> anything but excellent light aircraft.
>
>
> I haven't tried one yet, but hope to @ AOPA Expo '07. They seem like
> they would be a lot of fun, along the lines of many of the old
> taildraggers some of my fellow pilots own for hopping around the 'patch
> for the fun of it.
>
> A few of us who already own other aircraft have tossed the idea of
> buying an LSA as a group for a second local "fun" plane.

That's what I'm thinking, but I want mine really light, open and
probably amphib!

Margy