Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: IFR LSA's

Expand Messages
  • Herb Kushner
    The one point no one s brought out is that the intention of the FAA in creating the Light Sport Category had nothing to do with making flying fun, or less
    Message 1 of 148 , Aug 1, 2009
      The one point no one's brought out is that the intention of the FAA in creating the Light Sport Category had nothing to do with making flying fun, or less epensive, or to bring more people into flying. They could not have cared less about any of that. The alphabets (EAA and AOPA, etc.) sold the FAA on the idea by harping on the safety issue of bringing (legal and/or illegal) pilots under their (the faa) control. PERIOD. The FAA had no other intention what-so-ever. All the rest is just gravy.
      (I know I've mentioned that before, but people seem to forget it)


      I've been following this thread reading about how much fun this is supposed to be and how it's not time yet and how LSA is supposed to be more affordable, but the bottom line is that "Uncle Fred" doesn't care. He crafted his new rule VERY carefully to establish a standard of training for those who are willing to comply with (VERY CAREFULLY scripted) limits; INCLUDING THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO STEP DOWN to those limits. The fact that so many Private or Commercial Pilots are now (and like it or not it will continue)flying under the Light Sport Rule is no accident, and it certainly is no loop-hole. It was designed to happen that way! It keeps these guys from flying (unsafely)in conditions where they no longer belong. Plus, the FAA re-established Part 103, and drew a hard line "in the sand" while warning us not to cross it (again). (That was a BIG issue with them.) This and this alone was how the FAA was sold on the idea (I used those words deliberately)

      Certification standards (FAR's) set the requirements for flying in IMC and the FAA doesn't care what you're flying in as long as you are (in their opinion) properly equipped, and properly rated. If your LSA qualifies and you do , too, good for you. 'Same for your Bonanza, if you are fortunate enough to have one. If your balloon is so equipped and you have the rating, go for it!! (I admit.. that would be an interesting flight plan, but I'm sure it's been done-- Fawcett's around the workd balloon flight; wasn't that up in the flight levels????). Jim is absolutley correct. Not everybody flies only for fun and the Rule is worded to allow flying for fun but also, and maybe more important, it does NOT specifically exclude flying for transportation (read IFR). Is that unsafe? Nope. Not so long as you meet the requirements as outlined in the FARs, and are proficient and current in both equipment and skills.

      One last point (finally) and then I'll shut up (for now). Many pilots without instrument ratings don't realize how much easier it is to fly under Instrument Rules as opposed to Visual Rules (although not necessarily under Instrument CONDITIONS). You file, you copy your clearance, and you simply do as you're told. ATC provides you with navigation help, weather info, traffic advisories..... they do all the work and you just monitor systems and make sure you are flying safetly and accurately..... they even tell you when it's time to descend, and you don't give even a fleeting thought to airspace restrictions. It's a WHOLE LOT EASIER than going VFR unless you are just "didley boppin' around the neighborhood.

      Sorry to be so wordy (I can't help it) but thanks to all for a VERY interesting thread. I've enjoyed reading it and look forward (I hope) to continued discussion.
      Herb K




      --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Bair" <JimBair@...> wrote:
      >
      > I totally get your philosophy. But I totally get other people's philosophies, too. Go to Oshkosh. You see airplanes designed to do damn near everything imaginable. People have different needs and design planes to fit those needs. Just because your needs don't need instruments doesn't mean everyone's doesn't. I fly for fun, too, but to be honest, having the ability to file IFR to escape some morning fog and go somewhere nice has been handy a couple of times. But mostly, if I fly through a cloud, I'm getting paid to do it, so I understand what you're saying.
      >
      > Jim
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: skyponyorg
      > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:48 PM
      > Subject: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: IFR LSA's
      >
      >
      > I've been a Sport Pilot for 2 years and I guess I must be old-fashioned or just old! Why would anybody want to fly in the fog (IFR)? I fly to explore and see things. It wouldn't make sense to me to fly when I couldn't see anything. If the weather is bad, I wait until it gets good. I fly for sport!
      >
    • Bill
      It seems an easy database search for the FAA - find all sport pilots that then earned their PPSEL. There is a decent chance that any such pilot is in jeopardy.
      Message 148 of 148 , Aug 6, 2009
        It seems an easy database search for the FAA - find all sport pilots that then earned
        their PPSEL. There is a decent chance that any such pilot is in jeopardy. Also their
        recommending CFI and their DPE. This could get a lot uglier before it gets better.

        Bill

        ---------- Original Message -----------
        From: "Jim Bair" <JimBair@...>
        To: <Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 22:57:21 -0500
        Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Cessna SkyCatcher completes ASTM
        complia...

        > That can of worms has already been opened in the past, and the answer is not
        > only "Yes", but every other applicant's records that examiner has done is
        > now open to review.
        >
        > Don't get me wrong. We're only speaking hypothetically here, but if there
        > is a serious screw up by an examiner, just read the above sentence again.
        >
        > Food for thought.
        > Jim
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Bill Watson
        > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 6:22 PM
        > Subject: RE: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Cessna SkyCatcher completes
        > ASTM complia...
        >
        > [[sound of large can of worms opening]]
        >
        > What about all the Private Pilots who *thought* that their SP was usable?
        > Do they all now lose their licenses?
        >
        > Bill Watson
        >
        > bill@...
        >
        > From: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Bair
        > Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:21 AM
        > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Cessna SkyCatcher completes
        > ASTM complia...
        >
        > He wouldn't. Same deal as if some guy who wasn't even an instructor was
        > signing someone's logbook with a fake CFI number. The system basically
        > trusts that there is a level of integrity. That's why the whole logbook and
        > endorsement system is a big deal. It is a legal record and a paper trail of
        > responsibility. If someone is falsifying records, they open themselves up
        > to both criminal prosecution and legal liability. If the examiner performs
        > his due diligence and does his best to perform appropriately, I would guess
        > he's pretty well in the clear. However, if the person actually doing the
        > falsifying is caught, he's the one in trouble. I don't think anyone expects
        > examiners to check the FAA database for every signature in a logbook and
        > check to see if their CFI was current at that time, etc. That's up to the
        > individual instructor to have the proper quals for what he is teaching.
        > That's why I have a checklist I use to check off all the required
        > endorsements and hours of training requirements prior to the checkride. If
        > they have all the endorsements and quals, I have done my job. I have
        > stopped a checkride in the briefing and called the SFI to finish the logbook
        > endorsements. If the instructor isn't available, the ride can't be
        > conducted. Everyone is responsible for doing their job.
        >
        > Jim
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        >
        > From: Bob Comperini
        >
        > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:44 AM
        >
        > Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Cessna SkyCatcher
        > completes ASTM complia...
        >
        > On 10:16 PM 8/5/2009, Jim Bair wrote:
        >
        > >Food for thought for examiners might be, what happens when some guy
        > >kills himself and his wife's lawyer pores over the logbooks and
        > discovers
        > >that some of his instruction for his PP was done by an SFI vs. a CFI.
        > Is
        > >that examiner now liable for giving an inappropriate checkride?
        >
        > But wait! An "SFI" as you call them *CAN* train to the private level...
        > if the "SFI" was a weightshift/PPC instructor, and happened to have a
        > private pilot certificate. How would the examiner know that?
        >
        > --
        > Bob Comperini
        > e-mail: bob@...
        > WWW: http://www.fly-ul.com
        ------- End of Original Message -------
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.