I don’t think your going to see a huge movement of sport pilots moving into “complex” airplanes without training. I think the biggest advantage is the ability to be able to utilize the extra weight allowance. 1320 pounds is very difficult to stay under especially when you want to add a brs. A lot of “LSA” airplanes are built for higher gross weights, but can’t utilize the the extra weight because of the 1320 pound max weight limit. All the new Kitfox’s have a mtow of 1550 but if your sport pilot rated, your stuck limiting it to 1320, giving up 230 pounds of useful load. That’s a lot.
Perhaps you are right, but I think you will see many pilots like me, those who hold a PPL flying a 172 under LSA rules. But I could fly that under a standard medical, so it is making it easier for me to fly, but not really bringing a new person into aviation, which is the intent.
I think the changes would be great. The barriers to entry financially are just huge. Been trying to get my license my whole life (I’m 4:21 now 46). Tried 3 times now and the money always runs out. Im down to my cross country’s and at 325 bucks an hour wet with instructor thats pretty daunting to pay every week. I gave up on it for now because even if i spend all that money to finish my license i still gotta cough up 150 or so a week to rent to keep current. General aviation ownership is just outta my price range and i make pretty good money as does my wife and we have no kids and it’s STILL outta reach. So, i decided to start building a Zenith stol 750 that will fall under LSA rules because god knows when i will compete it and where my health will be. But as already having my A&P and if the plane that is built is LSA and i do it in cash I’m looking at insurance fuel and parts. That much i can afford and as an added bonus i can operate that aircraft off a my property. Any lightning of the rules at this point would be welcomed by me. LSA/experimental is the only shot i will ever have at getting into the air.
Interesting point, but the 172/182 airplane will get more expensive, because demand will increase due to more people being able to fly them, similar to what happened when BASICMED came to be.
Actually the gross weight you speak of that is 3000 lbs, is not actually what determines what the weight is, it's the 54 kts clean stall speed which equates to about 3000 lbs. However there are planes that can have that stall speed of 54 kts and be heavier. That is why a certain weight is not a requirement. thanks
STC how do they play into action? Cessna 182Q get STC paper note in log book and gross increases to 3110 lbs from 2950. Above the 3000 lb llimit proposed.
Good question, I guess you would not be able to fly one over 3000lbs, like the Aeronca Champ, they have gross weights all over the board, but current LSA limits you to ones less than 1320lbs.
I was under the impression we were at least a year or more out from the rule changes. Been watching to see if it's more stalling. After the bright idea of FAA demanding transponders for toy rc planes and drones, I figured they were hell bend on pretty much over regulating our farts next.
Except that the FAA has actually done more in the last 25 years to loosen various requirements for pilots and aircraft than tighten it. Starting with LSA and Sport Pilot, then to BASICMED, and now MOSAIC, the FAA has made it measurably easier from a regulatory standpoint to fly. The regulations regarding UAS came about mainly at the behest of the GA advocacy groups who feared that if nothing was done to reach UAS operators and educate them on the use of airspace, that GA flying could become more hazardous. It's early days on that front, and expect refinement of those rules as time goes on. If there is anything you can still complain about, it's the insurance companies. They have much more say about what pilots can do these days than the FAA does.
I agree we are headed in the right direction, although I think we are several years away from the changes going into law. Hopefully the suggestions made by AOPA will find a way into the final version.
@@J3PiperCub This is one point I think you get wrong in the video. No legislation is required to enact the rule. The FAA is acting under their regulatory authority, so when they publish the final rule, it's law. I want to say I heard on a recent EAA webinar with Tom Charpentier that they are hopeful that the final rule will be published by the end of this year. The only problem is there are still a lot of questions about what the rule means for maintenance authority given that we're essentially creating a whole new category of aircraft. Some feel it's also taking a step backward for those holding Light Sport Maintenance certificates.
Legislation is a law passed by an elected body, i.e. Congress. Administrative procedures in the executive branch are made formally through rules. Rules are not legislation.
A 182? That's a complex aircraft! 235 hp, plus a constant speed prop. And the FAA wants this complex aircraft to be considered a LSA? Sorry, that's insane. 45+ year A&P, here.
Per the FAA, a complex aircraft has 2 of the following, controllable pitch prop, movable flaps, or retractable gear. Not sure the controllable prop makes that big of a deal.
@@J3PiperCub Not 2 of the following, but all three. 14 CFR part 61, section 61.1 "Complex airplane means an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller"
@@dougmackenzie5976 if you pay any attention at Al to the govt agenda DEI runs their whole program, commercial pilots, ATC, etc ,why should this be any different. I’m always suspicious of any govt agency relaxing standards for reasons that aren’t clear.
This is a bad idea. All of the plane crashes I’ve seen in the news recently were due to pilot error or pilot inexperience and panicking. Just like a top tier athlete if you want to be a good pilot you have to train, train, train. There is no shortcut.
I personally don't think this is a good idea. There is already too many accidents involving new/inexperienced pilots crashing planes that are too complex for their skills. Now you have less training and less requirements to fly bigger faster, more complex airplanes. Recipe for disaster. Additionally this makes a PPL almost useless. Yes it would lower entrance costs into GA, however, at what non-monetary cost? They should focus on modernizing their medical standards instead...
I wanted to take you to town on your comment. But, after I thought about it, you are right! A sport pilot license was suppose to make flying more affordable, and if we are honest, the real reason it exists is for those who can't pass the medical. Not sure why one might want a complex craft if their goal was affordable entrance into the sport. New light sport are so overpriced, I'm not sure who is running out to buy them regardless of pocketbook! 315k for a modern remake of a J3 Cub? Are you kidding me??? So, sadly, that leaves VERY OLD, very used, very much planes on their last legs in life being the 'affordable' options. Vs. a nice new modern technology and safety standards for only a special few. The entire idea of GA flying has gone down hill. Not sure it will ever be for anyone but top 1% earners. When I started flying in late 80's, flying was VERY AFFORDABLE. Now? Well, unless you are rich, you can't afford SAFE new craft! Does that seem right to you? We aren't entitled to NEW, but we should be entitled to SAFE! IMHO, FAA Over regulated where it's pointless, and not enough regulations where it would save actual lives! Maybe, stop caring so much about a toy RC airplane having a transponder, and instead focus on all the crappy workmanship causing engine outs on take off! Hold the right people responsible and stop punishing the consumers! Goes even more so for the Ultralight community. Gas powered $5k weedwhackers that fail more than my actual weedwhacker engine!
Imagine if there were studies over the last three decades that would provide solid accident data over all types of GA flying that could inform policy makers and shape policy that is actually scientifically based? If it weren't for the Nall (renamed the McSpadden) report published annually by the Air Safety Institute, we wouldn't have MOSAIC today. You can think what you want, but there's hard data that says otherwise.
The McSpadden repots are interesting reading suggesting recently that LSA pilots had a higher accident rate, but a lower fatality rate. I also found it interesting that a large percentage of people flying LSA are older private pilots flying under LSA rules, not certificated LSA pilots.
It doesn’t make the PPL useless in any way, shape, or form. It may make you feel less special, true. Sport pilots can already do all of their training in the C-172, up until their solo, at which point they’d need to get a 3rd class physical or switch to an LSA. So it’s not like they can’t understand complex stuff. Their check ride has to be in an LSA also. But a sport pilot still won’t be able to fly with 3 or 4 people, will not be able to fly incident to business, still can’t fly at night, in IMC/IFR conditions, or in Class B/C/D without an endorsement. It will be a good stepping stone to becoming a PPL, by spreading their experience out over a longer period.
ok but does having a 3rd class medical really make for better pilots? I'm just asking. Not that the PIC shouldn't be fit and proficient. But how many times has a pilot been in some way become incapacitated in the air? I know I have heard of a few but it's pretty rare isn't it? And most had their privates or better and their medicals too so. Also wouldn't you get training and checked out before you hopped in a bonanza to bore holes in the sky?
I don’t think it’s a great idea. They came up with a sport pilot and the light sport category for a reason and their limitations too. Having them flying more complex aircraft is not a good idea. If they want to fly these aircraft then become a Private Pilot like the rest of us. It’s not that much more for them to do.
As an faa scd I can say this is a fabulous idea and it will make general aviation competitive again. Most crashes are from engine outs and from weather. The weather accidents are more than likely more experienced pilots. Flying at night in a single should be illegal with no brs. The accidents we have had over the last 80 years from planes at night losing power is absurd. All planes should have a brs if they are a single. IMO a single is an emergency from the time the engine starts. I own a vans rv 10 with a brs and a pipistrel with a brs. I’m no jug head moron.
I’ve said this for a bit now. Not just engine out, but disorientation, getting behind the aircraft, losing situational awareness, fatigue after working all day, low blood sugar if they skipped dinner, loss of ground references, pilot-activated lighting, towers closed. Single-engine at night in an unfamiliar area is a killer if you add go arounds, haze, clouds, smoke, uncontrolled or unlit airports, or over water. Fly tomorrow, arrive alive.
