In article ET,
writes:

Another part of the NPRM talks about having to train in a smaller,
slower aircraft first than transition to the larger faster aircraft... I
dunno how this will be resolved, but I expect some of this has already
been changed... we shall see.. hopefully soon.

That's one problem, past a certain point, we have had *no* visibility to
what has been kept or changed. The rule the OMB is balking over may not
closely resemble the rule as we last saw it.

And for starting LSA pilots, the idea was start in a small slow plane and
work up. But for UL pilots, who will have to solo slow, light, single
seat part103 aircraft - if there are no two seat trainers of that type -
how will they learn? My two seat Hawk flies much like a single seat
version, but neither fly much like a cub or champ, which might be the
closest aircraft type available to train in. We still have to have a
mechanism to train part 103 pilots, but the new rules effectively outlaw
the pool of training planes.

I don't mind creating a new upscale class of aircraft and somewhat
'better' (read 'more expensively') trained pools of certified pilots. I
*do* mind breaking a system that has been working well for a number of
years for the separate UL community. Killing the training exemption is a
stake in the heart of the UL community. Where's the corresponding gain
that makes that worthwhile?

So called "FAT UL's" ultralights have not proven to be a problem. In many
ways they are fat because the pilots wanted them safer - things like
decent horsepower engines, brakes, enough fuel not to run out just
puddling around for an hour, etc. Personally, I refuse to fly in an
aircraft that weighs less than I do! :-) The FAA has looked the other
way, because generally speaking, it hasn't been an issue. And also
because the FAA's original target weight was 500 lbs, but they got talked
down to 254 by some vendors who wanted to capture the market by setting
the limit just above their build weights. If/When Sport Pilot goes
through, the indications are that they will start enforcing 254/5gal more
vigorously - which is going to be a problem for about 80 percent of the
fleet of currently flying aircraft. That's going to break a much larger
part of a system that has been working well for years. Where's the gain
that makes *that* worthwhile?



And if you buy a factory built aircraft, you can't do your own work
and repairs on it, so it has to go to an AP, again increasing costs to
the BFI, and thence to the student. Too high a cost is what has shrunk
the American flying public from about 800,000 at it's peak down to the
current 500,00 or so.

Hrm, I know you can take a course for 2 levels of maint for LSA, I dunno
about the differing requirements for trainers though.

From what I can see, a training airplane has to be serviced by an AP. $$$
And they probably don't know as much about servicing my Hawk as I do.
Hell, I'm not sure I can fly into our fancy county airport where the AP's
are based without getting insurance to make the county manager happy. I'd
have to find an AP who makes housecalls. That's not gonna be cheap. And
they may not want the liability of working on that class of unfamiliar
aircraft. What if I can't find an AP who will service my plane? Do the
new rules *compel* AP's to work on UL's? I doubt it.


It is my expectation (although I cannot back this expectation up with
any facts whatsoever)..., that the planned obsolesence of these trainers
may be overturned, either by the final rule or an amendment later on....

That's my hope also, but generally speaking, whenever the government
'helps' me, I lose. EIther money or rights, and usually both, I lose. So
I don't have high hopes.


Most of my focus in sport pilot is on the new class of license created,
rather than the restrictions on existing UL's that are imposed.

But then it's "I got mine" at the expense of all those other folks who
were here before you. Eye's on the prize, and the heck with who gets
trampled in the process? :-)

Again, I don't mind them creating a new class. I very much mind them
breaking the ones that already exist. There are a lot more UL and fat UL
pilots at risk than the number of new LSA's who will be created. Look at
the recreational pilot license - there's how many of those, a few
hundred? Worth breaking the UL system as it works now for say 2000-3000
new pilots who could achieve much of what they want now just flying under
a loosely enforced part 103? Not in my book.



For me,
I expect it will allow me to get a SP lic for "about" half the cost of a
PPL and fly pretty much the way I would use a PPL anyway.... For my
father, who bought a high doller plane, only to have a minor medical
event that cause him to have to quit flying less than 30 days later :-(
it's an opportunity to fly, period.

He could fly a UL, either part 103 legal or a 'fat' one. Many of the UL
pilots in the air today either got medical'd out, or priced out, of GA
and have moved to UL's in response. If it's a high dollar airplane, it's
probably something more complicated or heavier/faster than a champ or cub
class anyway, and won't be available to him under LSA privileges. If it's
not, then a UL will give him a similar performance envelope at much lower
cost. And with a lot less fuss.


I believe OMB's 90 days was yesterday.... of course we would have all
fallen over dead in surprise if they had acted within the deadline...

And isn't that just an eloquent comment on the quality of government and
it's systems. We don't even expect it to obey the rules any more, and
would be surprised if they did.

Kevin