Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

craig(at)craigandjean.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

Full doc here:



http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/

29015.DOC



AVweb has a short video here:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU14MNLBlqU



Personally for me the biggest proposed change is removal of the "10,000

above MSL" restriction (#9). My home field (36U) is at 6300 ft and we have

plenty of peaks over 10,000 ft.



Summary:



1. Replace sport pilot privileges with aircraft category and class ratings

on all pilot certificates.



2. Replace sport pilot flight instructor privileges with aircraft category

ratings on all flight instructor certificates.



3. Remove current provisions for the conduct of proficiency checks by flight

instructors and include provisions for the issuance of category and class

ratings by designated pilot examiners.



4. Place all requirements for flight instructors under a single subpart

(subpart H) of part 61.



5. Require 1 hour of flight training on the control and maneuvering of an

airplane solely by reference to instruments for student pilots seeking a

sport pilot certificate to operate an airplane with a maximum airspeed in

level flight with maximum continuous power (VH) greater than 87 knots

calibrated airspeed (CAS) and sport pilots operating airplanes with a VH

greater than 87 knots CAS.



6. Remove the requirement for persons exercising sport pilot privileges and

flight instructors with a sport pilot rating to carry their logbooks while

in flight.



7. Remove the requirement that persons exercising sport pilot privileges

have an aircraft make-and-model endorsement to operate a specific set of

aircraft while adding provisions for endorsements for the operation of

powered parachutes with elliptical wings and aircraft with a VH less than or

equal to 87 knots CAS.



8. Remove the requirement for all flight instructors to log at least 5 hours

of flight time in a make and model of light-sport aircraft before providing

training in any aircraft from the same set of aircraft in which that

training is given.



9. Permit persons exercising sport pilot privileges and the privileges of a

student pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate to fly up to an altitude of

not more than 10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) or 2,000 feet above ground

level (AGL), whichever is higher.



10. Permit private pilots to receive compensation for production flight

testing of powered parachutes and weight-shift-control aircraft intended for

certification in the light-sport category under §21.190.



11. Revise student sport pilot solo cross-country navigation and

communication flight training requirements.



12. Clarify cross-country distance requirements for private pilots seeking

to operate weight-shift-control aircraft.



13. Revise aeronautical experience requirements at towered airports for

persons seeking to operate a powered parachute or weight-shift-control

aircraft as a private pilot.



14. Remove the requirement for pilots with only a powered parachute or a

weight-shift-control aircraft rating to take a knowledge test for an

additional rating at the same certificate level.



15. Revise the amount of hours of flight training an applicant for a sport

pilot certificate must log within 60 days prior to taking the practical

test.



16. Remove expired ultralight transition provisions and limit the use of

aeronautical experience obtained in ultralight vehicles.



17. Add a requirement for student pilots to obtain endorsements identical to

those proposed for sport pilots in §§61.324 and 61.327.



18. Clarify that an authorized instructor must be in a powered parachute

when providing flight instruction to a student pilot 19.  Remove the

requirement for aircraft certificated as experimental aircraft in the

light-sport category to comply with the applicable maintenance and

preventive maintenance requirements of part 43 when those aircraft have been

previously issued a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport

category.



20. Require aircraft owners or operators to retain a record of the current

status of applicable safety directives for special light-sport aircraft.



21. Provide for the use of aircraft with a special airworthiness certificate

in the light-sport category in training courses approved under part 141.



22. Revise the minimum safe-altitude requirements for powered parachutes and

weight-shift-control aircraft.



--Craig

kmccune

Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 577
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:46 pm Post subject: Re: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

This one kinda stands out, like they were giving something away and had to get something back  I hope this does not have a required additional  instruments clause piggy backed. 

5. Require 1 hour of flight training on the control and maneuvering of an

airplane solely by reference to instruments for student pilots seeking a

sport pilot certificate to operate an airplane with a maximum airspeed in

level flight with maximum continuous power (VH) greater than 87 knots

calibrated airspeed (CAS) and sport pilots operating airplanes with a VH

greater than 87 knots CAS.

_________________
â€œAlways do what you are afraid to do.â€
R.W. Emerson (1803-1882)

"Real freedom is the sustained act of being an individual." WW - 2009

"Life is a good deal...it's worth it" Feb 1969
Dorothy McCune

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

Actually, this looks like a pretty good compromise to me.  They are 

letting the Cub and Champ fliers along with the PPC and Trike guys 

get by without any instrument training, but if a Sport Pilot wants to 

fly planes with the speed performance of a C-172 or Zodiac then he 

has to have a minuscule amount of instrument training.  It isn't 

enough to give them the skill to handle inadvertent IMC, but it is 

enough to warn them that instrument flying requires special skills.



We should remember this only applies to real Sport Pilots.  Private 

Pilots who are limiting themselves to Sport Pilot privileges already 

need to know how to perform minimal instrument flight.  I hope most 

of the ones who have been flying for years can do a lot more than 

that on instruments.  Even in 1971 when I got my Private, you didn't 

need to do any night flying but my examiner made me spend a 

considerable amount of time on my check ride under the hood.



I am not worried about new requirements for at least one gyro 

instrument on LSA.  I wouldn't fly a plane without at least that much anyway.



I am glad they addressed the silly 10,000 MSL issue.  I was planning 

on breaking that one anyway and citing the "PIC privilege to violate 

any rule if necessary for the safety of flight"  if challenged.  Out 

West, it makes a lot more sense to bust the 10,000 foot rule than fly 

into mountains.



Paul

XL fuselage

do not archive



At 05:46 PM 4/13/2008, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  This one kinda stands out, like they were giving something away and 

had to get something back  I hope this does not have a required 

additional  instruments clause piggy backed.

5. Require 1 hour of flight training on the control and maneuvering of an

airplane solely by reference to instruments for student pilots seeking a

sport pilot certificate to operate an airplane with a maximum airspeed in

level flight with maximum continuous power (VH) greater than 87 knots

calibrated airspeed (CAS) and sport pilots operating airplanes with a VH

greater than 87 knots CAS.

ihab.awad(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:18 pm Post subject: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Paul Mulwitz <psm(at)att.net> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    Actually, this looks like a pretty good compromise to me.  They are letting

 the Cub and Champ fliers along with the PPC and Trike guys get by without

 any instrument training, but if a Sport Pilot wants to fly planes with the

 speed performance of a C-172 or Zodiac then he has to have a minuscule

 amount of instrument training.


	


There is another, similarly optimistic way to look at it. This is

creeping morally closer to the idea that someone could exercise

responsibilities similar to those of a regular Private Pilot without a

Class 3 medical. Let's see....



Ihab



-- 

Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA

notsew_evets(at)frontiern
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:25 am Post subject: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

I have a very old friend and fellow CFI tell me about six months ago to: 

"watch out, the FAA will sneak up behind you and take away sport pilot 

privileges.  The FAA wants sport pilots out of the air, period.."

I thought he was a little off base but now I think not.  We ll see..



Steve W..

---

notsew_evets(at)frontiern
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:51 am Post subject: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

but help me understand the 2000 AGL rule....



sw

---

notsew_evets(at)frontiern
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:51 am Post subject: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

It amazes me.  I fly gliders ( no physical required. and can soar to 

18,000MSL.  Even go into class A airspace with prior notice.  The world 

record for altitude gain is 49,000

That put the sailplane at 51,000 MSL

Yet sport pilot can only go to 10,000 MSL.

I dont get that rule..

Steve W.

---

kmccune

Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 577
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:16 am Post subject: Re: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

Yes,  but 100mph! If they are flying daytime VFR only whats the point. Its not a terrible thing to have to do . But what if your plane goes 97mph (I hate knots     )  and you readjust the prop pitch and now your breaking the law. Or if its a type thing like I think I read, does this not matter. 

Sorry for my ranting.



do not archive.



 	  psm(at)att.net wrote: 	
		  Actually, this looks like a pretty good compromise to me.  They are 

letting the Cub and Champ fliers along with the PPC and Trike guys 

get by without any instrument training, but if a Sport Pilot wants to 

fly planes with the speed performance of a C-172 or Zodiac then he 

has to have a minuscule amount of instrument training.  It isn't 

enough to give them the skill to handle inadvertent IMC, but it is 

enough to warn them that instrument flying requires special skills.



At 05:46 PM 4/13/2008, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  This one kinda stands out, like they were giving something away and 

had to get something back  I hope this does not have a required 

additional  instruments clause piggy backed.

5. Require 1 hour of flight training on the control and maneuvering of an

airplane solely by reference to instruments for student pilots seeking a

sport pilot certificate to operate an airplane with a maximum airspeed in

level flight with maximum continuous power (VH) greater than 87 knots

calibrated airspeed (CAS) and sport pilots operating airplanes with a VH

greater than 87 knots CAS.

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:44 am Post subject: Re: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

Currently the rule is no LSA above 10,000 MSL which makes it impossible to fly it anywhere the ground is at or above 10,000 MSL. The new rule will allow an LSA to fly 2000 feet above the ground no matter how high the ground is.



P.S. Rule will not overrule physics.  

 	  notsew_evets(at)frontiern wrote: 	
		  but help me understand the 2000 AGL rule....



sw

---

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

notsew_evets(at)frontiern
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:07 am Post subject: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

I ve owned about 7 different aircraft over the years.  Seldom did I fly over 

9500 MSL.   The highest ( other than gliders ) was in my C 172.  To get to 

12.500 it took "forever"...

Steve W

---

Gig Giacona

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1416
Location: El Dorado Arkansas USA

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:20 am Post subject: Re: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

Not if you start at 9,000 MSL. 

 	  notsew_evets(at)frontiern wrote: 	
		  I ve owned about 7 different aircraft over the years.  Seldom did I fly over 

9500 MSL.   The highest ( other than gliders ) was in my C 172.  To get to 

12.500 it took "forever"...

Steve W

---

_________________
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR

psm(at)ATT.NET
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 1:45 pm Post subject: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

At 07:13 PM 4/13/2008, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  There is another, similarly optimistic way to look at it. This is

creeping morally closer to the idea that someone could exercise

responsibilities similar to those of a regular Private Pilot without a

Class 3 medical. Let's see....


	




Actually, this is already the case.  As an aging Private Pilot, I can 

exercise those privileges so long as I limit myself to VFR/Day and 

LSA.  I don't really consider the VFR/Day limits particularly 

limiting, and the LSA is a fair trade-off for the lack of a medical.



I would like to see the class 3 dropped altogether, and then I could 

fly with full Private Pilot privileges including any aircraft, IFR, 

and night.  I expect that to happen some time, but not necessarily 

soon.  The notion that a Class 3 medical makes it OK to fly with a 

Private Pilot when nearly all the accidents on record come from pilot 

error is shaky at best.



Paul

XL fuselage

do not archive

notsew_evets(at)frontiern
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:23 pm Post subject: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

OK heres my factoid.  .03%  ( point zero three ) of aviation accidents are 

medical related.

Well that was in 2005.....



SW

---

jmaynard

Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 394
Location: Fairmont, MN (FRM)

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:40 pm Post subject: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 02:42:21PM -0700, Paul Mulwitz wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Actually, this is already the case.  As an aging Private Pilot, I can 

 exercise those privileges so long as I limit myself to VFR/Day and 

 LSA.  I don't really consider the VFR/Day limits particularly 

 limiting, and the LSA is a fair trade-off for the lack of a medical.


	


Personally, I'd like to be able to fly at night...



 	  Quote: 	
		   I would like to see the class 3 dropped altogether, and then I could 

 fly with full Private Pilot privileges including any aircraft, IFR, 

 and night.  I expect that to happen some time, but not necessarily 

 soon.  The notion that a Class 3 medical makes it OK to fly with a 

 Private Pilot when nearly all the accidents on record come from pilot 

 error is shaky at best.


	


Yeah. It's for that day, or the day when they significantly relax the

requirements for a class 3 medical, that I specified a fully IFR-capable

aircraft.



do not archive

-- 

Jay Maynard, K5ZC                   http://www.conmicro.com

http://jmaynard.livejournal.com      http://www.tronguy.net

Fairmont, MN (FRM)                        (Yes, that's me!)

AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

_________________
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
AMD Zodiac XLi N55ZC

Jeyoung65(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:01 pm Post subject: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

Do you really plan on flying IFR in a 601 or 701? Would think you would  bounce too much to enjoy the flight. Maybe I am getting too old but I would not  plan on a IFR flight and would land ASAP if I hit IFR condititon. Jerry of  GA 

  

  In a message dated 4/15/2008 6:41:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  jmaynard(at)conmicro.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  



Yeah. It's for that day, or the day when they significantly    relax the

requirements for a class 3 medical, that I specified a fully    IFR-capable

aircraft.



do not  archive

	




It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.

  [quote][b]

kmccune

Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 577
Location: Wisconsin, USA

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:24 pm Post subject: Re: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

The only way I want to fly IFR is on NWA, and I'd rather drive! Now in the 701 (when it gets done) I want to see whats there! Of course thats why the 701 and  not a RV or Sonex or 601 ...

Kevin

jmaynard

Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 394
Location: Fairmont, MN (FRM)

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 06:57:49PM -0400, Jeyoung65(at)aol.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Do you really plan on flying IFR in a 601 or 701? Would think you would

 bounce too much to enjoy the flight. Maybe I am getting too old but I

 would not plan on a IFR flight and would land ASAP if I hit IFR

 condititon. Jerry of GA


	


Well, I'm certainly not planning on flying hard IFR in it, but I do believe

the instrument rating would allow me to fly on days that would be marginal

for VFR flight but not all that bad for an instrument pilot.



The AMD sales manager/test pilot tells me he's got 500 hours actual in

Zodiacs; he commutes from home, an hour or so away by air, to the factory.



do not archive

-- 

Jay Maynard, K5ZC                   http://www.conmicro.com

http://jmaynard.livejournal.com      http://www.tronguy.net

Fairmont, MN (FRM)                        (Yes, that's me!)

AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

_________________
Jay Maynard, K5ZC
AMD Zodiac XLi N55ZC

notsew_evets(at)frontiern
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

Many aircraft are IFR "capable" but really should stay on the ground when 

IMC.....



IMHO



SW

---

psm(at)att.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

 	  Quote: 	
		  Many aircraft are IFR "capable" but really should stay on the ground 

when IMC.....


	


Hi Steve,



I agree with you completely.



Still, in the real world real people who fly cross country fly into 

conditions where it is difficult to impossible to maintain control of 

their planes simply by outside visual reference.  In these inevitable 

situations it is a life saver to be able to perform simple control of 

the airplane solely by reference to instruments.  Needle, ball, and 

airspeed is enough.  With no gyros or no instrument flying skills at 

all the outcome of these incidents is nearly always fatal.  It just 

doesn't have to be that way.



The skill and equipment I am describing has very little to do with 

IFR flight.  It is simple stick and rudder skill with instruments 

replacing the windshield for pilot orientation. In many ways, IFR 

flight is more about dealing with the "System" than the airplane.  It 

includes filing and following complicated flight 

plans.  Understanding, copying and reading back 

clearances.  Navigating without outside reference.  Dealing with air 

traffic controllers, vectors, and all the complicated radio out 

procedures.  On the airplane level, IFR flight includes doing things 

like zero/zero takeoffs, instrument approaches, and staying focused 

for hours while the whole world inside and outside your plane is 

trying to distract you.  And then there is the whole area of dealing 

with weather you can't see like ice and thunderstorms.



Considering all that, single pilot IFR flight in a light small poorly 

equipped plane is not something I would want to do.  However, being 

able to survive brief periods of limited visibility and no clear 

horizon to stay oriented is an ability I think all pilots and planes 

should have.



Paul

XL fuselage

do not archive

Andrewlieser

Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 43
Location: Chicagoland

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:28 pm Post subject: Re: Proposed changes to sport pilot regs.

I wouldn't even fly IFR with NWA!!!!  Joking of course, but in all honesty just because its "IFR" does not automatically mean the rides are crap and that you would be bouncing all over the place.  True this DOES happen but I've flown IFR days were the rides are better than that of a VFR day.  An example would be when there's a real stable air mass and visibility sucks, or there's a real low layer of stratiform clouds that top out at 5-6 thousand feet.  In both those situations the IFR / IMC would be usually very smooth and most likely easily handled by any aircraft including the 601!  Just my 2 cents on the IFR capabilities of a 601.

_________________
Andrew Lieser
S/N 6-7045
http://websites.expercraft.com/andrewlieser

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Zenith-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum