Did I miss the Era of GA?

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:49:47 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

2.The FAA with a lot of pushing from EAA and AOPA have created the LSA
license and aircraft certification standard that will allow you to buy a
brand new 2 place aircraft comparable to the one I'm building for less than
$100K. Take a 16 hour course and you will even be able to work on you own
LSA aircraft.

$100K (or even $50K) is still WAY out of reach of most people
(including me!) However, you can still buy a used T-Craft or Aeronca
for under $20K, which is a lot more realistic to most people, There
are also a lot of new aircraft in that price range, straddling the
blurry line between GA/LSA and ultralight... aircraft just about as
capable (depending on the model) as the T-Crafts and Aeroncas... but
NEW.

A lot of people (mainly ultralight pilots) are finding nothing good
about SP/LSA, and I agree that it just about completely missed its
original target (which was the absorbtion of "fat" ultralights). I'll
bet that before too long, though, most primary flight training will be
in new LSA aircraft, as the current fleet of C-150's and similar
aircraft ages.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drink wet cement, and get completely stoned!

"Dana M. Hague" d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net wrote

A lot of people (mainly ultralight pilots) are finding nothing good
about SP/LSA, and I agree that it just about completely missed its
original target (which was the absorbtion of "fat" ultralights).

But it did absorb the so-called "fat" ultralights - they can now be
certified as LSA which only require a sport pilot license to fly. Before
SP/LSA they were technically aircraft that required a recreational or
private license to fly, so the rules have been relaxed quite a bit.

The problem is that unlicensed ultralight pilots were illegally flying these
aircraft which clearly didn't fit the Part 103 definition of an ultralight,
and they were hoping that the SP/LSA initiative would include a
re-definition of what an ultralight was. But that was never promised. In
fact, I believe the FAA specifically said that that was not being
considered.

Ultralight pilots are "finding nothing good about SP/LSA" because they will
no longer be able to operate outside of the CFRs without being noticed. I'm
not so sure that this is a bad thing.

BDS

BDS writes:

Ultralight pilots are "finding nothing good about SP/LSA" because they will
no longer be able to operate outside of the CFRs without being noticed. I'm
not so sure that this is a bad thing.

I'm not sure that it's a good thing, either. What problems were they causing
in the past?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:45:53 GMT, "BDS" wrote:

But it did absorb the so-called "fat" ultralights - they can now be
certified as LSA which only require a sport pilot license to fly...

Yes, and not necessarily a bad thing... but now they're finding just
how much money and hassle that is going to involve (compared to the
relative freedom of Part 103). Also some owners are having a hell of
a time geting their grandfathered aircraft inspected before the
deadline, because there just aren't enough inspectors.

However, the industry (and media) focus is not on the absorbed
ultralights, but on the [expensive] LSA aircraft which have more in
common with the GA aircraft than ultralights.

...they were hoping that the SP/LSA initiative would include a
re-definition of what an ultralight was. But that was never promised. In
fact, I believe the FAA specifically said that that was not being
considered.

No, and that IS a good thing. Part 103 never would been created in
this day and age, and any attempt to rewrite 103 would doubtless
result in a LOT less freedom.

Ultralight pilots are "finding nothing good about SP/LSA" because they will
no longer be able to operate outside of the CFRs without being noticed. I'm
not so sure that this is a bad thing.

No, it's not bad... and actually may well lead to a revitalization of
"true" ultralights, for all the pilots who don't want to deal with the
hassles of registration, licensing, etc., for whatever reason.

I've had a PPL for 30 years... but at the moment I'm flying
ultralights because it's just so much simpler-- and not all that
different from buzzing around the local area in the T-Craft I used to
own.

-Dana


--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beware of strange faces and dark dingy places,
Be careful while bending the law.....

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:08:52 -0400, Dana M. Hague
d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net wrote:

I've had a PPL for 30 years... but at the moment I'm flying
ultralights because it's just so much simpler-- and not all that
different from buzzing around the local area in the T-Craft I used to
own.

Dana,

If you're up for flying a Sundowner one of these days...

barry at bburke dot com and I'll shoot you a phone number!

You can leave the Gremlin at home and I'll pick you up in Chester.