# Why so few sport pilot licensees in the US? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 9, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241 "2009-06-09T20:25:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/1 "2009-06-09T20:25:39Z")
The [sport pilot certificate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_pilot#Sport_pilot) has been around for 5 years, intended to allow an easier route for civilians to get licensed to fly light recreational aircraft. According to that page, there are fewer than 1000 sport pilots (compared to 236,148 private pilots and 84,866 student pilots - although I suppose some fraction of student pilots may be training for light aircraft - do you need the same student license to train for it?). That number seems low to me, given that it was designed to allow easier entry into piloting. What are the factors there? Do most people interested in flying already have a private pilot’s license, perhaps? I want to become a pilot one way or another, and this could be an option for me. Are there major drawbacks to becoming a sport pilot (other than the obvious restriction to a certain class of aircraft)? Is it relatively cheap to rent/fly light aircraft compared to most general aviation aircraft? If so, it seems that with flight instruction with fewer required hours in cheaper aircraft, getting a sport license could be relatively inexpensive - and if you wanted to go for a full private pilot license from there, the flight hours would translate, right? ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/2 "2009-06-09T21:02:20Z")
There are some odd restrictions for it. For a new pilot, all you need is a driver’s license which is great for many people who can’t pass a medical exam. However, if you take a medical exam and fail, you can’t use the driver’s license option anymore which defeats a lot of the purpose of a sport pilots license. I have been training for a private pilot’s license (very slowly) for years and I am going to switch over to sport pilot training because that is all I really need for my interests. There is also a strict limitation on the weight and configuration of the planes that you can fly and there weren’t many available a few years ago. Now, lots of them are being rolled out so that may increase interest. You can transfer the hours later if you want to. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/3 "2009-06-09T22:41:34Z")
It’s more of a backward license for most pilots. If you go to the trouble of training to fly real airplanes you might as well get a real license. It’s a nice shortcut for the ultralight crowd who want to legally fly with a passenger. It would also allow a certified pilot to keep flying (in lighter aircraft) if maintaining a 3rd class medical becomes a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/4 "2009-06-09T23:56:17Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > The [sport pilot certificate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_pilot#Sport_pilot) has been around for 5 years, intended to allow an easier route for civilians to get licensed to fly light recreational aircraft. According to that page, there are fewer than 1000 sport pilots (compared to 236,148 private pilots and 84,866 student pilots - although I suppose some fraction of student pilots may be training for light aircraft - do you need the same student license to train for it?). A “student certificate” for either private, recreational, or sport pilot would be the same, and prior to taking your tests/checkrides there would be minimal obstacles to switching from one to another (the medical exam required by two of the three being the main one). So, until the person in question gets their license they would be listed under “student pilot”, not “sport pilot”. > [@](#): > > That number seems low to me, given that it was designed to allow easier entry into piloting. What are the factors there? Do most people interested in flying already have a private pilot’s license, perhaps? Well, there are several things at work here. First of all, the economy is crap - you might have noticed. That means even a lot of established pilots such as myself aren’t flying anymore. I would expect there to be a drop in new certficates issued over the past few years. Second, when sport pilot was first issued there was a distinct _lack_ of applicable aircraft available for rent. I remember this, since I looked for sport planes as I prefer the smaller, lighter end of general aviation. The ones that qualified were either taildragger antiques or very, very new models. Of the two, the antiques were more common BUT in many cases there were prohibitions via insurance policy that would have made it difficult or impossible for a sport pilot to rent or fly them without blowing the insurance. For example, some taildragger policies prohibit anyone with less than a private pilot certificate from acting as pilot in command - necessary if the person is intended to solo at some point. I did rent a German-made Ikarus for awhile before I discontinued flying, an airplane the FBO that owned it bought _specifically_ to attract and train sport pilots (though obviously they let the rest of us fly it, too). If you can’t find an airplane to rent then your only other option is to BUY an aircraft and be taught in it. Some people do exercise that option, both in ultralights and other parts of general aviation, but the price of an aircraft is a definite obstacle and many who would find it feasible to rent do not find purchasing to be an option for them. This sharply limited the number of people initially taking up a Sport Pilot course of study. Third, a LOT of pilots actively discourage people from going the sport pilot route. For example, our own **Magiver** in post #3 poo-poo’s the whole Sport Pilot concept, basically saying they aren’t real pilots or real airplanes (more on that later). This also has an effect on who gets that certficate. > [@](#): > > I want to become a pilot one way or another, and this could be an option for me. Are there major drawbacks to becoming a sport pilot (other than the obvious restriction to a certain class of aircraft)? Is it relatively cheap to rent/fly light aircraft compared to most general aviation aircraft? If so, it seems that with flight instruction with fewer required hours in cheaper aircraft, getting a sport license could be relatively inexpensive - and if you wanted to go for a full private pilot license from there, the flight hours would translate, right? First of all - don’t ever for a moment think aviation is cheap. It’s not. You can get _relatively less expensive_ but if it’s cheap you need to ask what’s wrong here? Now, for the rest of what you ask. The first thing you should do is ask yourself “What do **I** want from flying?” (Also a good idea to keep asking that). If all you want to do is fly small planes in good to excellent weather in the daytime and don’t mind being limited to no more than one passenger it certainly can be a good option. I was actively pursuing sport planes for rent because that pretty much describes my flying - the only time I flew at night was to fulfill the licensing requirements of the private license (sport not existing when I was in training) and while I dabbled in larger and more complex airplanes the vast majority of my time is in two-seaters. Really, I _fly_ like a Sport Pilot even if I have the full Private. A certain number of Privates will “downgrade” to Sport because it fits their flying habits and why pay for more than you need? If nothing else, I’ll save the cost of that flight physical every two years. But I will always be listed in the stats as a “Private Pilot” because that’s the highest rating I hold, even if I fly exclusively as a Sport Pilot the rest of my life. So those folks aren’t included in the numbers. The Sport aircraft are _not_ necessarially cheaper. The older taildraggers, for example, tend to have higher insurance rates and this is reflected in the price of rental. They also tend to burn more fuel per unit of time than the newer Sport planes, and that is also reflected in the rental rates. Some of the newer models rent for the same prices as 30 year old Cessna 150’s because, well, they’re _new_ airplanes with a higher price and a higher replacement price should they be damaged. So, the rental price of a Sport airplane may or may not be lower, the same, or higher depending on the airplane in question and where/who you rent from. I would also like to tell you, just in case you weren’t aware of it, that the listed number of hours in the regs are a _minimum_ number of hours. If you don’t master the skills required in that minimum then you must continue to study until you do, while paying for instructor and airplane. For example, while the Private license has a minimum requirement of 40 hours the _average_ student takes 80, and some even longer. Keep that in mind when you are budgeting. I hope you can do it in the minimum, but most people don’t. You also have to find someplace willing to have you in a Sport Pilot course - I’ve known some FBO’s that offer Recreational, Sport, and Private licenses and others that refuse to even consider anything but Private. Well, a Sport Pilot doesn’t have quite as much to learn as a Private Pilot, and it probably would take you less time to earn a Sport. How much less I don’t know - you still have a lot of the same basic territory to cover. Regardless, it will take you less time to earn a Sport than for you to earn a Private, but those no guarantee that someone else won’t earn a Private in half the time you take to earn your Sport. YOU are the big variable in this equation. It is true, however, that all hours you fly as a Sport Pilot count in your GA logbook. Going from Sport to Private would entail going over those parts of the Private that aren’t covered in the Sport then taking another written, oral, and checkride test. If you are planning to do these in quick succession then just going for Private might be the better course, but if there’s a gap of several years (for whatever reasons) then there is some merit in getting a Sport license and getting some flight time under your belt which, once you get your license, will be mostly the cost of renting the plane without needing to pay an instructor or being under the instructor’s supervision. You will not in any way lose any Sport Pilot hours. > [@Shagnasty](#): > > There are some odd restrictions for it. For a new pilot, all you need is a driver’s license which is great for many people who can’t pass a medical exam. However, if you take a medical exam and fail, you can’t use the driver’s license option anymore which defeats a lot of the purpose of a sport pilots license. The FAA has been quite adamant that this is NOT for people who _know_ they would fail a medical exam. I think the way the regs were written weren’t terribly well done, but it has been said over and over that if you KNOW you would fail a 3rd Class physical you are not legal to fly as a Sport Pilot. This is also true of glider pilots who “self-certify”. If you KNOW you have a condition not compatible with safe flight it’s not legal for you to fly (though I have no doubt some people do this). As an example, someone with controlled epilepsy may have a valid driver’s license but god help them if they try to argue that they’re safe to fly as a Sport on that basis. > [@Shagnasty](#): > > I have been training for a private pilot’s license (very slowly) for years and I am going to switch over to sport pilot training because that is all I really need for my interests. There is also a strict limitation on the weight and configuration of the planes that you can fly and there weren’t many available a few years ago. Now, lots of them are being rolled out so that may increase interest. ^ See - if Sport had been available me when I went through flight training that’s what I would have done. Sport fits my flying, but it wasn’t an option for me. > [@Magiver](#): > > It’s more of a backward license for most pilots. If you go to the trouble of training to fly real airplanes you might as well get a real license. It’s a nice shortcut for the ultralight crowd who want to legally fly with a passenger. It would also allow a certified pilot to keep flying (in lighter aircraft) if maintaining a 3rd class medical becomes a problem. OK - this pisses me off. Excuse me, what makes you think an ultralight isn’t a “real” airplane? I understand that in the regs they’re listed as “vehicles” but the fixed wings, at least, look like airplanes, they fly like airplanes, if you build 51% of yours you can have it registed and N-numbered as an airplane. They’re _airplanes_. I will also point out that it is not and never has been legal to fly an _ultralight_ with a passenger. Not _ever_. Ultralights under Part 103 are _single seat_ aircraft _by definition_. The training aircraft - the two-seat “ultralights” - were _exceptions_, were not legally ultralights, and only flown under restricted conditions (said regs being much ignored and abused, yes, but still there). ALL of those two-seat “ultralights” must now be either N-numbered as Sport or homebuilt airplanes and the training exemption is being discontinued. As someone who started in ultralights I must say that in some ways they are _more_ challenging to fly than your typical GA airplane, many models being less forgiving and less capable than the standard Cessnas and Pipers. While there are certainly some bad apples among UL flyers there are also a lot of very accomplished stick and rudder pilots. Would you tell a glider pilot that they aren’t a “real” pilot? Yes, ultralight pilots who want to fly legally with a passenger may well opt for Sport. On the other other hand, some may still opt for a Private (I know of two ultralight pilots who went on to be GA CFI’s). It wouldn’t surprise me if in the future if we see a lot of people who were encouraged to get full Privates to drop back to Sport once they get out on their own, just as we see people earn instrument ratings then revert back to strict VFR either because they find it difficult to stay current or they find they prefer VFR. Certainly, additional knowledge doesn’t hurt but given the cost of aviation I can’t argue that we should force people to pay for what they don’t want as long as they get what they _need_ in the way of training. Also, as I already pointed out, “having trouble maintaining a 3rd class physical” may also preclude flying as a _legal_ Sport pilot. Personally, I don’t think that will be more of a problem than people who can’t pass physicals flying as Private pilots. I wouldn’t call it common, but it does occur. MOST people have the sense to stop flying when their health goes down the toilet. I expect that will be as true of Sport pilots as anyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/5 "2009-06-10T01:02:35Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > If you go to the trouble of training to fly real airplanes you might as well get a real license. Plenty of sport pilot approved planes are “real airplanes”. Some of them look like fancy ultralights but certainly not all of them. There are too many examples to list but here is one sport pilot plane. > **[Light-Sport Aircraft | EAA](https://www.eaa.org/eaa/aviation-interests/light-sport-aircraft)** > > Light-sport aircraft (LSA) and the corresponding sport pilot certificate make flying easier, more affordable, and more accessible - not to mention fun! There are many others on that site. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/6 "2009-06-10T01:06:33Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > OK - this pisses me off. Excuse me, what makes you think an ultralight isn’t a “real” airplane? I understand that in the regs they’re listed as “vehicles” but the fixed wings, at least, look like airplanes, they fly like airplanes, if you build 51% of yours you can have it registed and N-numbered as an airplane. They’re airplanes. I will also point out that it is not and never has been legal to fly an ultralight with a passenger. Not ever. Ultralights under Part 103 are single seat aircraft by definition. The training aircraft - the two-seat “ultralights” - were exceptions, were not legally ultralights, and only flown under restricted conditions (said regs being much ignored and abused, yes, but still there). ALL of those two-seat “ultralights” must now be either N-numbered as Sport or homebuilt airplanes and the training exemption is being discontinued. Isn’t that kind of **Magiver** ’s point **Broomstick**? They ARE real aeroplanes, they fly like real aeroplanes and they look like real aeroplanes, so if you’re going to go to the trouble of learning to fly a real aeroplane you may as well go the extra 10% and get a full licence. Are the pilots with sport licences allowed to fly in controlled airspace in the States? They’re not in Australia and that can be limiting at times. ---
**Author:** ![A\_Man\_A\_Plan\_A\_Canal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/839c29/32.png) [@A\_Man\_A\_Plan\_A\_Canal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A_Man_A_Plan_A_Canal)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/7 "2009-06-10T01:10:40Z")
I’m just a PSEL with 450 or so hours, but the Sport Pilot license seems to me to be not so good if its the first and only certification you’ve ever received. It seems to me that my own training to the standards of the private pilot license and my experience level is just sufficient to fly safely under VFR conditions–and then, only if I’m careful to plan, think, work, and stay ahead of the airplane. Maybe others could be safe at the Sport Pilot level–the FAA thinks so, I guess–but me, I’d want a full license just for my own and my pax safety. That’s just me, though–I’m sure there are plenty of Sport Pilots that are safe, careful, knowledgeable, and so forth. (Boy, I gotta get working on that instrument rating!) AMAPAC ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/8 "2009-06-10T01:11:47Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > Plenty of sport pilot approved planes are “real airplanes”. Some of them look like fancy ultralights but certainly not all of them. There are too many examples to list but here is one sport pilot plane. > > [http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/slsa/Jabiru%20USA%20Sport%20Aircraft%20Calypso-SP.html#TopOfPage](http://www.sportpilot.org/learn/slsa/Jabiru%20USA%20Sport%20Aircraft%20Calypso-SP.html#TopOfPage) > > There are many others on that site. Oh, hey - ! They list the Citabria (7ECA) as a Sport Pilot! I’d think that would depend heavily on the options you install, as a bunch of avionics and radios could tip it over the weight limit, but that’s the one I got my tailwheel sign-off in. Aerobatic, too - ya, that’s a “real airplane” alright. They’re a lot of fun to fly, too, if you want a Sport license and can train in one like that… wish **I** had had my primary training in one of those. If you handed me the money to buy an airplane _right now_ I’d seriously consider one of those. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/9 "2009-06-10T01:33:26Z")
[quote=“1920s Style “Death Ray”, post:6, topic:499241”] Isn’t that kind of **Magiver** ’s point **Broomstick**? They ARE real aeroplanes, they fly like real aeroplanes and they look like real aeroplanes, so if you’re going to go to the trouble of learning to fly a real aeroplane you may as well go the extra 10% and get a full licence. [/quote] I don’t consider the difference between Sport and Private to be “10%”, it’s considerably more than that. For example: - Minimum flight time for Sport is 20 hours. For Private it’s 40. Right there that _doubles_ your aircraft rental costs, which are the bulk of your training costs. Assuming $70-100 for aircraft rental, that’s the difference between a bill for $1,400-2,000 and a bill for $2,800-4,000. - Sport requires one solo cross country flight, of 75 miles or more. Private requires three, one of which must be at least 150 miles in total length. Because I trained mostly in slow airplanes my long solo wound up being a 6-7 hour ordeal, would have been happy to strut my stuff in half the time and distance. - Sport has no night training requirement. Private requires at least 3 hours of night flying. - Sport has no instrument training requirement. Private requires at least 3 hours of flight solely by reference to instruments. - Sport requires 5 hours of solo time. Private at least 10. The way I see it, that’s more than 10% extra. If you think you’re only going to fly under Sport conditions, even if just for a few years, it’s going to be cheaper to get a Sport license. You can always get more training later. Going from Sport to Private just means getting those additional areas that are the difference between the two ratings, and I’d assume, an an example, that if you did a solo cross country of 150 miles after you got your Sport license it would count towards your private requirements. All your Sport hours count towards your Private hours. You lose nothing by flying under Sport. If you do Sport then Private you might wind up spending as much in total on training as if you went straight for Private, it will just be spread over more time. > [@](#): > > Are the pilots with sport licences allowed to fly in controlled airspace in the States? They’re not in Australia and that can be limiting at times. Yes, as a matter of fact they are allowed to fly in controlled airspace. Anything up to E automatically, and with a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor in accordance with reg 61.325, they can fly in class D, C, and some B including operations involving control towers. So it’s slightly more than the minimum for Sport pilot, but considerably less than all the additional required for a Private. The “not above 10,000 MSL” limitation can be problematic in the Rockies, I’ve heard more complaints about that than operations in controlled airspace. If you live in Denver you’d probably want a Private, but if you live in Florida you might well need no more than Sport. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/10 "2009-06-10T02:02:29Z")
Thanks **Broomstick** , I must admit I wasn’t aware that the difference between the licenses was so great. It’s interesting the differences between your PPL and the one I did in New Zealand. We had no requirement for night hours and no requirement for instrument hours, however the minimum hours for the license was 50. We did do some instrument flight in the CPL though. ---
**Author:** ![Waffle\_Decider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/77aa72/32.png) [@Waffle\_Decider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waffle_Decider)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/11 "2009-06-10T03:05:21Z")
[quote=“1920s Style “Death Ray”, post:10, topic:499241”] It’s interesting the differences between your PPL and the one I did in New Zealand. We had no requirement for night hours and no requirement for instrument hours, however the minimum hours for the license was 50. We did do some instrument flight in the CPL though. [/QUOTE] I think the night and instrument hours are due to the fact that a plain vanilla US PPL is allowed conduct night and VFR over-the-top operations; if I understand correctly, in most other countries, those operations are either prohibited under VFR, or require additional ratings even when conducted under VFR. As mentioned before, though, the 40 hours minimum in the US is wildly optimistic. Almost everyone needs more than that. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/12 "2009-06-10T03:28:28Z")
Yeah I think at the time you could only do night VFR up to 25nm from your departure aerodrome and it was a separate rating. Most people didn’t bother because it was so limited. Night VFR is also a separate rating in Australia, though someone with a current instrument rating can conduct night VFR wthout having a NVFR rating. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/13 "2009-06-10T06:38:54Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > OK - this pisses me off. Excuse me, what makes you think an ultralight isn’t a “real” airplane? I understand that in the regs they’re listed as “vehicles” but the fixed wings, at least, look like airplanes, they fly like airplanes, if you build 51% of yours you can have it registed and N-numbered as an airplane. They’re _airplanes_. Because realistically they’re not. They’re motorized kites that can’t handle a 15 knot crosswind without blowing around like a leaf. Loads of fun to fly around a pumpkin patch on a clear day with no wind. They’re designed to stall at very slow speeds and be relatively easy to fly. But, if as you say, they are real airplanes then you should advocate a 40 hr license versus a 20 hr license as a matter of safety. > [@Broomstick](#): > > I will also point out that it is not and never has been legal to fly an _ultralight_ with a passenger. Not _ever_. Ultralights under Part 103 are _single seat_ aircraft _by definition_. The training aircraft - the two-seat “ultralights” - were _exceptions_, were not legally ultralights, and only flown under restricted conditions (said regs being much ignored and abused, yes, but still there). ALL of those two-seat “ultralights” must now be either N-numbered as Sport or homebuilt airplanes and the training exemption is being discontinued.. Thus the reason I gave for getting a sport pilot license. As far as getting a sport license to fly 1300 lb planes it doesn’t make financial sense. The money saved limits what you can buy and I don’t know if anybody is renting sport planes so that would severely limit what can be rented. What I did to save money was to join a flying club and get my instruction with their aircraft. By joining a club I was able to fly 3 different aircraft before I soloed. I already had a good idea what I wanted in a plane before I got my license. I also helped restore an airplane to defray the cost of flying which worked out well because I ended up buying a share of the plane. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/14 "2009-06-10T08:14:38Z")
[A reason to fly ultralights](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhaEoBtxdzE&feature=related). I couldn’t watch this video with the computer in my lap. Hope it shows up at Oshkosh. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/15 "2009-06-10T08:28:30Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > [A reason to fly ultralights](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhaEoBtxdzE&feature=related). I couldn’t watch this video with the computer in my lap. Hope it shows up at Oshkosh. What about powered hanggliders, which are sometimes called ultralights? Do you need a license for those? How do you go about finding lessons locally (I live on Long Island)? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/16 "2009-06-10T12:37:09Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Because realistically they’re not. They’re motorized kites that can’t handle a 15 knot crosswind without blowing around like a leaf. Loads of fun to fly around a pumpkin patch on a clear day with no wind. They’re designed to stall at very slow speeds and be relatively easy to fly. I don’t know too many people who’d fly a Cessna in a 15 knot direct crosswind, and though I’ve done it successfully I’m not eager to do it again. I did say that they were for those intending to fly only in good weather, what did you think I meant? Do weekend pilots flying out to breakfast _need_ to be flying in 15 knot crosswinds? Not to mention that, given the very short ground runs of these airplanes, landing on grassy areas more directly into the wind instead of a less optimally-aligned runway is a viable option in some areas Motorized kites? Yes, back in the 1970’s. Arguably the Quicksilver still falls into that category, except that, having flown the 3-axis model, I can tell you it flies like an airplane though I’d say it’s more comparable to a Stearman in feel than a Cessna (that’s in the air - ground handling is totally different between those two). The CGS Hawk, Challenger, Kolb, and the like are _much_ more like airplanes than “motorized kites”. > [@](#): > > But, if as you say, they are real airplanes then you should advocate a 40 hr license versus a 20 hr license as a matter of safety. Why? For example, what _possible_ use would three hours of “flight solely by instruments” be in flying an ultralight or an ultralight-derived Sport plane, or an antique taildragger that meets Sport requirements? _The don’t have the instruments to allow that_. Not only would you have to rent a larger airplane with those instruments to do that, such training would have zero relevance to aircraft that simply can’t do those things. Training to fly the airplane you’re in strikes me as the best course, not training to fly an airplane you don’t want to be in (unless you’re getting paid for it, but that’s not what we’re talking about here). There is a portion of the Private syllabus that is simply superfluous to ultralight and Sport airplanes, I don’t see the purpose in \*forcing \*people to spend the time and money on it. I would certainly _encourage_ people to do more than the minimum. You might as well say “advocate an 80 hour license” for safety. They’re simple flying machines with a minimum of instruments and complications. Simple to fly, yes, although some of them have a few quirks you need to be aware of, but that’s becoming less common. It doesn’t take 40 hours to learn to fly these airplanes. Of course, the license limits you to those airplanes you are qualified to fly, just like my license limits me to single-end land. But you know, since I don’t currently have a desire to fly sea planes or multi-engine airplanes the limitation doesn’t feel limiting. I did add tailwheels to my privileges because I wanted to, and at one point was working on complex but dropped it when I realized that it didn’t really appeal to me. Likewise I believe a lot of people would be happy flying Sport planes. If that changes they can get additional training. If that doesn’t, why force them to train for what they aren’t interested in? > [@](#): > > As far as getting a sport license to fly 1300 lb planes it doesn’t make financial sense. In a lot of ways, flying for recreation at all doesn’t make financial sense. > [@](#): > > The money saved limits what you can buy and I don’t know if anybody is renting sport planes so that would severely limit what can be rented. In the Chicago area there are Sport planes for rent - I know, because I’ve rented them. I even mentioned that upthread. The Lowell airport has a champ that’s been rented out for years, it easily qualifies as Sport. Morris has an Ikarus, or at least it did two years ago (I haven’t flown for awhile). I don’t think the Morris Citabria qualifies, it has enough avionics to put it overweight but I’m not 100% sure, I’d have to find my official weight and balance information for it, but it might. Poplar Grove has a few vintage planes that would qualify, so does one of the Waukegan flying clubs. The planes are less common than Cessnas, which are a like a bad rash that won’t go away, but they are out there. As for “limits what you can buy” - there are a LOT of models to choose from, follow some of the links provided, and you don’t even have to opt for kit planes anymore if you don’t want to, you have options that are factory assembled. I’m the weird one, with 17 different airplanes in my logbook - most Privates I know fly maybe one or two different types of airplane in a decade, or even a lifetime, almost always either a Cessna or a Piper, which sounds pretty limiting to me. To some degree, that’s financial constraints, and that’s true unless you have tens of millions to spend on flying. > [@](#): > > What I did to save money was to join a flying club and get my instruction with their aircraft. By joining a club I was able to fly 3 different aircraft before I soloed. I already had a good idea what I wanted in a plane before I got my license. I also helped restore an airplane to defray the cost of flying which worked out well because I ended up buying a share of the plane. And that worked for you. Unfortunately, some flying clubs are badly run and turn into nightmares. There are a lot of options out there for training and I tell people interested in flying to check out as many as possible and do some thinking before making a commitment. ---
**Author:** ![Scruff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Scruff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scruff)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/17 "2009-06-10T16:46:20Z")
> [@Waffle\_Decider](#): > > [snip] a plain vanilla US PPL is allowed conduct night and VFR over-the-top operations. I thought that VFR-on-top was forbidden these days? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/18 "2009-06-10T16:51:06Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > I don’t know too many people who’d fly a Cessna in a 15 knot direct crosswind, and though I’ve done it successfully I’m not eager to do it again. I did say that they were for those intending to fly only in good weather, what did you think I meant? Do weekend pilots flying out to breakfast _need_ to be flying in 15 knot crosswinds? Not to mention that, given the very short ground runs of these airplanes, landing on grassy areas more directly into the wind instead of a less optimally-aligned runway is a viable option in some areas. I fly in 15 knot crosswinds all the time. I usually choose the crosswind runway for the fun of flying it. Ultralights are fair weather machines built for the local enjoyment of flight and therefore do not require the skillsets of a full pilot’s license. > [@Broomstick](#): > > In a lot of ways, flying for recreation at all doesn’t make financial sense. > > In the Chicago area there are Sport planes for rent - I know, because I’ve rented them. I even mentioned that upthread. The Lowell airport has a champ that’s been rented out for years, it easily qualifies as Sport. Morris has an Ikarus, or at least it did two years ago (I haven’t flown for awhile). I don’t think the Morris Citabria qualifies, it has enough avionics to put it overweight but I’m not 100% sure, I’d have to find my official weight and balance information for it, but it might. Poplar Grove has a few vintage planes that would qualify, so does one of the Waukegan flying clubs. The planes are less common than Cessnas, which are a like a bad rash that won’t go away, but they are out there. > > As for “limits what you can buy” - there are a LOT of models to choose from, follow some of the links provided, and you don’t even have to opt for kit planes anymore if you don’t want to, you have options that are factory assembled. None of what you said negates my point. Getting a sport pilot license limits your choice of aircraft and what you can rent. That is a fact. It doesn’t make sense to skimp on the cost of a pilot’s license to save money. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/19 "2009-06-10T16:52:19Z")
Nope. Which is not to say it’s a good idea. The “trick”, if that’s the word, is that a VFR pilot wanting to fly VFR-over-the-top has to get up there from either the edge of the overcast or through a “sucker hole”, he can’t fly through clouds to get there. And once up there, he better have a way back down other than through clouds 'cause if it’s found out he deliberately got himself into a hazardous situation there could be substantial penalities both to the wallet and flying privileges. Assuming said pilot survives a bout with IFR-only conditions, which is by no means guaranteed. So it’s _strongly discouraged_ for the VFR-only but technically still legal under some circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Waffle\_Decider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/77aa72/32.png) [@Waffle\_Decider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waffle_Decider)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241/20 "2009-06-10T18:21:22Z")
> [@Scruff](#): > > I thought that VFR-on-top was forbidden these days? Not that I’m aware of. There’s no regulation that forbids a non-instrument rated pilot or aircraft from operating VFR above an undercast in the US, provided that the normal VFR minimums are maintained. Unlike, as an example, Canada, which explicitly states that the ground/water must be in sight at all times. One possible source of confusion is that, technically speaking, over-the-top is not to be confused with VFR-on-top, which is an IFR clearance that allows an IFR aircraft to operate at a VFR altitude; which is also not to be confused with cancelling IFR once you get on top. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-so-few-sport-pilot-licensees-in-the-us/499241.md?page=2)