You keep saying that like it’s some unshakable fact. It makes sense if that’s the sort of flying a person wants to do. Lots of people doing GA piloting only fly around locally in VFR conditions in situations that would easily suit sport aircraft. And I’m guessing it’s becoming more common for light sport aircraft to be available to flying clubs or for rent. If the license fits you, then getting it would be quicker and cheaper than a full pilot’s license - with the option of using your hours later to upgrade.
There’s no good way to be sure of the numbers, but I suspect it has more to do with medicals than with aspirations. There are plenty of pilots, especially older ones, who are having trouble with theirs now, but have traded in their planes on LSA’s just to stay legal. Since there is no FAA notification required to stay within a “lower level” license’s restrictions, the number of people actually flying as SP’s is not known. But I know a few myself, and LSA salespeople I’ve talked to say their primary customer base is seniors who have lost (abandoned, rather) their medicals.
Availability of aircraft is an issue still, but decreasing as the insurance companies get some experience built up with LSA’s. For instance, AFAIK there are only 3 FBO’s in New England that offer them for rent right now. The ones that have them are using them as low-cost primary trainers even for people going PPL’s, replacing their 150’s and such. There are still relatively few used LSA’s available in the US, since they just became available a couple of years ago. That is certainly restricting the market but is likely to ease up as the lost-medical seniors who bought the first ones stop flying altogether.
For younger students, there just aren’t many who can’t pass a medical and would have to stop at SP. But that’s about the only group you’d see listed in the total. For the rest, there isn’t much more time or expense involved in getting a regular PPL and avoiding the SP restrictions. The far-smaller number of Recreational Pilot licenses is explainable by its requiring a medical and almost as much work as a Private Pilot license, but with far greater restrictions.
Fine. That’s you. Nonetheless, most people I know as pilots do not fly in 15 mph direct crosswinds. Not everyone thinks that is fun.
Yes. I don’t think we disagree with that.
Sport pilot airplanes are, likewise, primarially built for the local enjoyment of flight in good weather in daylight, and likewise do not require the skillset of a full pilot’s license.
In reality there is not a sharp dividing line from true ultralight to sportplane to typical general aviation. There are some arbitrary lines drawn, but really, it doesn’t take “the skillsets of a full pilot’s license” to fly a Censsa 150 in good weather in daylight, either, and that airplane doesn’t qualify as a sportplane. I’m satisfied that the Sport license requirements teach the necessary basics to flying a simple machine in simple conditions, which is all a lot of people want.
As I keep pointing out, I got my full Private years ago. Despite some minor dabbling, virtually all of my flying since would easily fall under Sport pilot except that I’ve mostly flown C150’s which are just a little bit too heavy to qualify. Even some of my further training past Private - my tailwheel sign-off - took place in an airplane that, in many cases, could qualify as a Sportplane. It may not be YOUR choice but there’s definitely a bunch of us out here who voluntarily choose to fly those “limited” airplanes you think so little of because that’s what we like to fly. Seriously, if you gave me 10 million dollars I’d be flying the same airplanes I was two years ago, about the only difference would be I’d be able to buy enough time in the Stearman to solo it. Other than that - two seaters all the way, open cockpit whenever possible, when not I’ll have the window open.
What? You said there were no sportplanes for rent. I just listed some very specific places, even very specific individual airplanes. How does that not negate your claim that these aircraft and unavailable for rent?
For pity’s sake - my PRIVATE limits my choice of aircraft and what I can rent! I’m not allowed to rent/fly ANYTHING with multiple engines. Since I never finished the log book endorsements I’m not allowed to fly either retractable gear or high power airplanes solo, either. I’m not allowed to rent seaplanes or airplanes with skis. I’m not allowed to fly either helicopters or gyrocopters. I’m not authorized to fly airships. For that matter, neither you nor I are permitted to fly sportaircraft in the weightshift or powered parachute category, either! ALL flying licenses have limitations! If you don’t like the limitation then, assuming you are otherwise eligible, you have the option to buy the training required to have it removed.
It doesn’t make sense to force people to train beyond what they need to safely fly, either. I mean, from a safety standpoint, you could bundle Private and IFR ratings and never let anyone fly as a licensed pilot until they have both, but what’s the benefit? Most recreational flyers will never use an IFR rating. I considered it at one point, but given that most of the 17 or so different aircraft I’ve flown aren’t equipped for IFR flight it seemed worse than pointless - what was I going to do, spend my limited flying money on airplanes I didn’t really care for to maintain a rating I couldn’t use in the airplanes I did want to fly? THAT would have been a waste of money!
YOU view Sport as something less, a straightjacket, a limitation. That means it is not for YOU. Other people can well find it liberating and all they’ll ever need, or at least all they’ll need for quite some time. It’s not “skimping” - the airplanes and instructors cost the same, and for damn sure the testing still costs the same! Sport pilots are free at any time to push on to a full Private, just as I am free at any time to push on to an IFR or Commercial or whatever else I may want. But until I want to fly at that level it doesn’t make any sense to force me to pay for that training.
YOU might find 15 mph crosswinds fun - I know people who won’t fly if the wind exceeds 10 mph (and true, they don’t fly as often as some other people). I know a guy who flew a Piper Warrior in a 50 mph wind (but fortunately he realized the downsides of that without getting hurt). I know people who don’t give a damn if the airplane is upside down or right side up, though frankly just *watching *aerobatics can make me sweaty and my hands shake.
One of the things I most valued about the instructor I completed my Private under was, despite his preference, nay, love of high power, complex, multi-engine airplanes and flying on instruments he never pressured me to “move up” beyond my VFR daytime flying. He certainly offered to show me other aspects of flying (and I took him up on those offers) but when I figured out the sort of flying I wanted to do he genuinely did his best to make me the very best VFR day flying pilot I could be, and suggested several other types of continued training beyond just the standard “get your IFR” because he knew it was highly unlikely that I’d ever use such a rating or even fly airplanes capable of that kind of flying.
(We did compromise on one thing - when I train with him I rent four-seaters. He finds a lot of what I like to fly uncomfortable or even scary and I don’t like to make my instructors uncomfortable if I can avoid it. Of course, I am allowed to rent four seaters. Before I was OK’d to fly four seaters he got into the C150’s with me. What a guy. He also also been quite upfront that for some things he is not the best instructor and for those I should go elsewhere)
So, Magiver, I disagree with your opinion that a Sport license is somehow “skimping”, or even very “limiting”, for a great many people although you are not in that category. I disagree - based on personal experience - that it is impossible to find sportplanes for rent. Sport is clearly not a good fit for you - it would, however, be an excellent fit for ME, despite my Private certificate, and I am seriously considering that, when my finances allow me to start flying again, simply not going back for the flight physical for the full Private level BFR and just flying at the Sport level because I just don’t see spending anything extra for what I’m not using. Or maybe I will get fully current again as a Private, but continue to fly aircraft that would fall under Sport because that’s what I’ve been doing for 14 years!
Do I regret learning some extra knowledge? No - but I would have rather spent some of that money on the flying I really enjoy. Did I regret trying complex or high powered airplanes? No - but I didn’t need a Private certificate for that, only to solo them. There’s no reason a Sport pilot can’t buy a few hours in a “higher” level aircraft with an instructor to see if they even want that sort of flying. If they do, they have the same option as everybody else to pursue that level of training. Just like I, as a Private pilot, am able to hire a CFII to take me through a few hours of instrument time, including, perhaps, actual conditions, to see if it holds any interest for me, or to purchase a few hours in a multi-engine aircraft to see what that is like. Earning a Sport license in no way restricts a person to that level forever and ever. The only difference is that they wait to pay for higher training until they really want or need it, instead of being required to pay upfront for training they aren’t using.
Not quite. The regular student certificate is part of the medical, because you would need one to solo a non-LSA. There is a similar, but not identical, 8710 form for a sport student which has a block for driver’s license info instead of an AME’s signoff.
That’s me too, and a lot of other people I know. If you’re not planning to fly for a living, then a lot of training and experience simply becomes inapplicable - you don’t need an instrument rating if you wouldn’t even think of flying in IMC, for instance.
FWIW, at the FBO I learned at, a 2003 C172SP is $120/hr wet, a 2007 Gobosh LSA is $95, and a 2007 Valor LSA is $85, all prices wet.
That’s probably related to their insurance coverage - the underwriters have been reportedly very reluctant to offer coverage for something new here. A CFI can “drop down” as easily as a pilot, btw - there’s no separate Sport CFI license required for someone who has a higher CFI license already.
Not quite. The requirement is that you be able to meet the medical requirements for a driver’s license in the state in which yours was issued, and of course that you have one. So, if you get stupid and lose yours, you’re grounded too.
There are rumblings that the FAA might rescind the inexplicable “Catch 22 Rule”, but meanwhile, if you have worries about a medical condition, it’s best to do your homework and find out what the acceptable limits are (those are clear-cut and public for most conditions), get tested, see if you’d pass, and only then go for the medical. You can even get tested by an understanding AME who will agree to just not submit the paperwork if you fail, so you won’t have an official denial to deal with.
One conspiracy theory (and is there a Doper who doesn’t love those?) is that the FAA put the LSA rule into effect as a way of getting all those pesky homebuilt ultralights under regulatory control. The stuff about opening up aviation for more people was the cover story.
The one LSA I’ve flown (and I understand they’re all about the same, due to meeting all the same restrictions) was a lot twitchier and wind-affected than the light single I normally fly, which has twice the wing loading. I thought the LSA was actually harder to fly, but I might not think so after a little experience with it.
I know a few guys who can still pass their medicals but, being middle aged, are already “downsizing” to LSA’s so they can stop worrying about the medical. I know one pilot who sold his twin Cessna and bought an LSA because 1) the twin was too expensive for him to maintain and fly anymore and 2) he preferred buying a brand new aircraft that was an LSA to purchasing a 30-40 year old more typical GA airplane. I know some people who have been flying N-numbered homebuilts for years as Privates that, now that their homebuilts meet LSA requirements, are simply not planning to go back for another physical. Yes, a lot of middle-aged pilots are opting for Sport. You know, I don’t have a problem with that. But, as I said, they won’t show up as Sport pilots. The airline pilot who used to keep his private aircraft at my local field retired and moved to Texas, sold his GA planes, bought a Cub, and is intending to fly on Sport… but he’ll always be listed as an ATP, won’t he?
I think that, going forward, that will start to have a greater effect. As the older training fleet is replaced people will “grow up” flying Sportplanes and won’t be as adverse to the concept.
I still disagree - airplane rental is going to be about twice as much to get a Private as a Sport, even at the same hourly rental rate.
I think you have to find the right fit - seriously, how many Privates continue to fly at night past primary training? I know one Private who so enjoyed night flying that he did it regularly after he got his license, but he’s the exception. In fact, I know several FBO’s that flat out refuse to allow a Private to fly their airplanes at night, they won’t let you unless you have an IFR rating. Speaking of IFR’s, how many actually go on to get an IFR? Certainly not everyone. And frankly, even if a Sport pilot eventually goes on to those things a bunch of hours of VFR experience won’t hurt them prior to getting that training.
True, that’s something else you have to do regularly to remain proficient. Accident rates *are *substantially higher at night, after all, even in good weather with no mechanical problems, largely because of the various optical illusions that can get you if you don’t remember them.
It can take as much time and expense as the basic PPL, and that’s another “use it or lose it” capability, even without considering currency requirements. Many people do get it because they think they should and they’re still in the habit of getting flight training, but really, you only need it if you’re going on to a career in flying. I haven’t done it for those reasons, and because it would only make me legal to be in conditions I wouldn’t think of going into anyway. I couldn’t maintain sufficient proficiency or even legal currency.
But I do understand that IFR training will make you a better VFR pilot (and it cuts your insurance rates too). By the same token, Private training or better should make you a better Sport pilot even if that’s all you plan to do.
Yes and no - there actually has always been a student license that isn’t combined with a medical form. I know this because, due to a situation I don’t want to clutter this post with (but I’ll explain in another if you want details) my original student pilot license expired before my physical so I had to obtain a second one, this time without the medical being combined with it. I think people who start primary training as glider pilots also use the “license only” form but I don’t know that for sure. In fact, I believe I still have both my original medical form and my second student license somewhere in my flying stuff.
I wasn’t aware that they now have a student pilot/driver’s license info form, but now that I think about it that makes sense.
Well, not for fixed wing, no - however, I do know a CFI who is also certified to instruct in powered parachutes which isn’t that common as most CFI’s don’t know squat about them (the guy started as a UL PP guy and went on to become a fixed-wing CFI later, he’s actually been instructing in powered parachutes about twice as long as he’s been a CFI. I met him during my tailwheel training, he subbed once or twice for my regular CFI when he couldn’t make it). For a few forms of Sport flying you’d need to find a CFI qualified to teach those particular areas, and they’ll more likely be someone who started in ULs and and became UL instructors before Sport came about.
Funny - the local FAA at my local FSDO have been quite emphatic that if you KNOW you have a condition that would ground you if you took a 3rd class medical simply going to Sport isn’t going to cut it. The example I gave about epilepsy was an example - there are many epileptics who are permitted to drive cars, but the FAA doesn’t want anyone with a history of seizure disorder flying (unless they can go through the waiver process). Now, granted, for a lot of conditions you don’t KNOW you’d be grounded. You might suspect you’d be grounded, or have to go through a waiver process, but you don’t know, for sure, the outcome. That’s the grey area.
Another example they gave was someone with vision in only one eye - those folks don’t pass a 3rd class, but the waiver for their condition is one-time and fairly straightforward, almost everyone passes. So in that case, sure, they’re OK for Sport because it’s reasonable to assume in most cases they it’s not a safety issue and they’d be able to get a 3rd class in the end anyway.
I think that the reg was written (including the Catch-22 part) and we’ll have to sort out the unintended consequences as we go.
That has always been the case. Only until recently, the choice was either pass the 3rd class, fly gliders or fly ULs. Now we have another option that will fit some people.
There’s no doubt in the UL community that it was a lot about getting control of the “fat ULs”. Part 103 does continue to exist with no changes, but Sport cuts out the excuses for those who were flying overweight machines as ULs
The biggest problem I’ve seen for Privates accustomed to larger GA airplanes (and by “large” I mean C150’s and heavier!) is that they really do have to adjust their thinking to a new set of capabilities. Lighter airplanes ARE more “wind-affected”. It’s a fact of life. This can make them feel “twitchier”, in some cases they are twitchier. Another trait is that a lot of them have more adverse yaw than 1950’s and newer airplanes, and demand more ruder input. This can be surprising or even alarming to people accustomed to Cessnas and Pipers but it is something one can become accustomed to. Really, if you think about the difference in “twitchiness” between a C172 and a C150, there’s a similar increase in twitchy between a C150 and the heavier LSA’s, then again in the next step down to lighter LSA’s, then again down to ULs. It’s all manageable, but that’s why a Private who wants to fly an LSA needs a couple hours to get used to it, and an instructor to point out the differences and suggest techniques helps a lot.
I understand their reasoning - but as I said, they will let NO Private pilot fly their aircraft solo at night, no matter how night current. My local FBO will rent at night to VFR pilots, but the front desk personal are required to confirm currency prior to handing over the keys.
True, and I’m a big advocate of continuing to learn new things, or at least try new things. But a Private can be daunting for a lot of people in both cost and time. At a certain point economics works its way into the equation. The cost of a full Private discourages some people. How many people I’m not sure anyone knows, but some of them might feel Sport is more manageable.
Everybody I know who flies? Flying at night is spectacular when you see the stars at 10,000 feet, fireworks at 2500 feet, or a city like Chicago from the shoreline.
A night restriction further limits flying to local fair-weather hops. If a common summer popup shower delays a return flight then you’re grounded. It would make a trip to an event like Oshkosh a real PITA. Many a year I’ve had to wait until late to depart.
AFAIK a sport pilot license is for ultra lights and people who have problems passing a 3rd class medical (which is usually a BP related problem). The lack of IFR and long distance training makes it a truly local license and the low hours makes it a danger to the user and passengers.
All I can say to that is that pilots based in Dayton and pilots based in Chicago must be different pilots. Either that, or we both know different groups of pilots.
Not so much fun when lake-effect weather rolls in off the water, though. I suspect our weather may have an effect on how we view flying at night vs. how you view flying at night.
I’ve given more than a few IFR pilots directions to local hotels - at a certain point anyone is grounded.
You do realize that not everyone is even interested in long trips in small airplanes, yes?
If all that someone wants to do is local flights then why not just get a Sport license? The blunt truth is that I stuck to local flying because I couldn’t afford long trips in rented airplanes. It was either 1 long trip a month or getting to fly nearly other weekend. I though more frequent, if shorter, flights was a better thing that infrequent very long flights. My choice, even if not yours.
Low hours make ANY new pilot a danger to the user and the passengers. That applies just as much to a 40 hour Private pilot as to a 20 hour Sport.
Thing is, though, some of the UL pilots I know have hundreds of hours of flying experience… the FAA just says those hours don’t count because they aren’t properly documented. That doesn’t erase the experience, though, does it? Got an internet friend who’s been involved in an annual 1,200 mile trip in her UL (a Max-Air Drifter) for about 15 years now, along with all the rest of the flying she does in a year. If she gets a Sport then she may only have 20 or so “official” hours but it’s hard to argue she’s a low time pilot or inexperienced.
Whatever - clearly Sport doesn’t fit you, you don’t like the entire idea, and you assume anyone slumming in a sportplane must have a health problem. :rolleyes: I’ve made my arguments, don’t have anything more to say. I regret that you assume those of us who like small, simple airplanes are either quasi-cripples or somehow else your inferiors but I’ve been aware for years that some of my fellow pilots are quite biased.
A related question - people were saying 20 or 40 (sport or private) was the minimum hours required for a license but that most people would need more. What is it that they need more for? Is there a certain set of requirements that need to be met that take 50+ hours, or is it just a matter of them needing a lot of practice to be able to pass their check ride?
It’s a mixture of the two. Different people learn at different rates. It is possible you might take 20 hours just to get good enough to fly the aeroplane solo. Someone else might do the same thing after 6 hours or even less. The other thing that makes it take longer is that the flights themselves for each lesson may take longer than planned due to things like having a training area that is some distance from the airport, or being delayed by other air traffic. Also, no matter how quickly you learn, if you don’t fly constantly you’ll find yourself wasting hours and money getting back up to speed on things you’ve already learned.
The thing is, if you can only afford to do the minimum 20 hours then you won’t be able to afford to keep flying after you get the license anyway so what’s the point?
Somehow you’re taking my posts personally. I never said the license was skimping, I said it was limiting. It’s fine for ultralights but it is limiting for GA use. The thread is not about which license is best, it’s a question as to why there are so few sport pilots.
The major reason people take more than the specified number of hours is time. If you can’t fly a 2-4 hrs a week then you are losing the feel of the airplane. Weather is usually the culprit in my area of the country. And the license itself is just a certification to continue learning so passing the test is not a rubber stamp to get stupid.
For me, there was a “critical mass” of skill that was obvious regarding my abililty. It was around 100 hrs before I felt I could jump in a plane at any time and feel comfortable. I’ve had years where my only real flight was a cross country to Oshkosh by myself. I damn sure wouldn’t do this unless I felt comfortable in the plane.
That is a good point.
Not everyone has the money up front. At that point either
- you put off lessons until you do have the money
- figure out a budget that will let you pay as you go while flying reasonably often
- resign yourself to the fact you can’t afford to fly and
— a) deal with it
— b) increase your income.
1 is frequently recommended, but only really viable if, after you get the license, you can continue to afford to fly with a certain frequency
2 can be done, but you must account for the fact that at some points training requirements may conflict with that budget. For example, the long solo cross country usually costs more than the average lesson. The final tests and checkride will cost more than you usual weekly cost.
3 just sucks. Facing it, I got a better job which worked well for awhile. Unfortunately, I lost the job and can no longer fly because I can’t afford to do it. If you can’t afford to rent a decent airplane or (if you own) maintain an airplane properly, if you can’t afford to fly often enough to keep your skills sharp, you can’t afford to fly. Which is why I haven’t for nearly two years now (no, not a happy camper about that…) So… right now I’m just dealing with it.
Welcome to the club. This is the first year my plane won’t be at Oshkosh in the last 15. I guess I’m lucky that a buddy is letting me tag along. The only flight I make this year will probably be the annual.