Simviation Forums

Has anyone heard of the new Sport Pilot program? Basically, it's a brand-new pilot rule created by the FAA that lets you fly at half the cost of a traditional pilot license. No medical needed--if you can drive a car, you can fly an airplane! You can become a sport pilot with as little as 20 hours of flight instruction. You can fly a one or two-seater aircraft capable of speeds up to 138mph. And in most cases, you can pass the medical requirements just by showing your driver's license! That's not all...

Now you can:
1.) Obtain an FAA pilot certificate at a lower cost and with less time commitment than ever before.
2.) Fly a sport pilot-eligible aircraft with your driver's license serving as evidence of medical eligibility.
3.) Purchase new, more affordable, ready-to-fly aircraft.
4.) Make your dreams of flying come true more easily and less expensively.
5.) Fly interesting alternative aircraft such as powered parachutes, weight shift-controlled (trikes), gliders, gyroplanes, or balloons.
6.) Maintain your own aircraft

Anyone here going to try this program out? My friend just trained in Texas and he said he was certified under 21 hours and only paid a total of $2,300!


It's cool cuz you can pick basically any type of plane you want and either build it or have a factory build it for you. Here are some photos of the various aircraft available for purchase: http://www.sportpilot411.com

But, doesn't it sound too good to be true? I mean, is it safe to only train for under 20 hours?

I'll stick with the traditional way, thanks.

That does sound interesting though..

It ends up being more expensive when you do get around getting a real PPL.

It's a bizarre type of flying.. as there are so many airports you cannot fly in/out of.. and the ones that you do/can.. you end up being a nuisance/danger.. I personally wouldn't want to share time in the pattern with someone trying to short-cut their way into the air..

There are hang-gliders, ultra-lights and farm fields for dare-devils.

Sorry if that's "snobby" but I think it's a poor solution to a problem that never existed.


Edit :  I'm all for new, innovative, economical, inexpensive aircraft..  I'm just not crazy about "untrained" pilots whizzing around, up there with me, or over my house  ;)

Last weeks there were two deadly crashes with ultralights here...

Last weeks there were two deadly crashes with ultralights here...

I'm sorry to hear that...

Ultra-lights themselves, aren't dangerous. It's the mindset that goes with flying them. There's just a much smaller "weather" window in which to fly them and no "real" reason, other than being airborne for the fun of it.. They're just an amplification of what worries me about this Sport Pilot thing. Flying isn't a sport. It's deadly serious business.

Ironically, to me.. the lighter and less forgiving, more at the whim of weather a plane is.. THE MORE QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED the pilot should be. You can get yourself into trouble VERY quickly when the margin for error is tiny.

This Sport Pilot Deal has trouble written all over it.  :(

It could work well for many pilots; I don't worry about the medical requirements, because in the US, medical problems factor into a small fraction of 1% of all accidents. there are a few certified aircraft (Cub, etc.) that fall within the guidelines, so they're not limited to experimental birds. IO guess the weight/hp/passenger limits are intended to minimize any damage done by pilots with only half the usual amount of training; seems reasonable.

But regardless of the airplane, there'll be no flying at night or over congested areas . That won't work for everybody, although it's easy enough to avoid both in most parts of the US.
 And it's only a good way to go if you are not planning to upgrade your ratings... you'll sort of have to start over., especially if you've been flying without radios, etc.
The sport-pilot rating was not available when I started, but I would've gone the PP route anyway, because I want to get my IR/commercial/CFI tickets eventually.

I don't worry about the medical requirements, because in the US, medical problems factor into a small fraction of 1% of all accidents

Do you think that number will go up for Sport Pilots ?

Is it maybe only 1% 'cause there are so many people NOT flying for medical reasons (that will be flying under Sport Pilot) ?

I can think of a handful of people right now (never even bothered to take a lesson by my advice) that aren't flying, but could fly, under Sport Pilot.

The whole thing is creepy. Lower the medical standards; Lower the training standards... *sigh*..

Flying isn't a sport. It's deadly serious business.

Where would we be if the pioneers of flight took that view?

on Today at 7:03am, Brett_Henderson wrote:

Flying isn't a sport. It's deadly serious business.






Where would we be if the pioneers of flight took that view?

Same place we'd be with anything that went from it's earliest, experimental phases.. on into mainstream, regulated status.

When people were first inventing cars.. it was a free-for-all..  No laws, no standards.. hardly any roads. In order for it to have become commonplace and safe.. well.. you get the idea  ;)

Sport Pilots won't be pioneering anything.. Except maybe giving crash investigators lots of practice.

It definately sounds interesting, but Im probably going to get my PPL in college (Seems like I might be going to KU, and from their course catalogue it looks like you can take a course to get your PPL) and after I get that I plan on getting other ratings (glider, seaplane, multi, complex, high performance, etc)

The whole thing is creepy. Lower the medical standards; Lower the training standards... *sigh*..

Believe you me, brother, that was my first thought. But consider the stats for glider and ultralight pilots (OK, glider pilots )... hard to say if it's easier or harder to get into trouble in a glider (depends on the situation),

This sounds similar to the NPPL that was introduced in the UK in 2002. I see nothing wrong with it in principle. In fact I was thinking of doing it this way myself. Many flying clubs (including those at at Shoreham & Popham) offer NPPL courses which are a minimum of 32 hours. Providing the training is done by JAA approved instructors it's possible to upgrade to a full PPL if & when required.

The NPPL replaces the former microlight licence, the PPL(A) Microlights. A microlight licence is now simply one of several possible ratings under the NPPL. The Self-Launched Motor Glider (SLMG) licence will work the same way.

For the introduction of the NPPL the existing privileges of holders of the PPL(A) Microlight licence will be retained, and those who already had such a licence will keep it in its existing form. Anyone applying for a microlight licence after July 29th 2002 will be issued with an NPPL with a microlight rating instead.

As well as the microlight rating, the NPPL will also provide for a Single Engine Piston (SEP) aeroplane rating. If you have the SEP rating you will be able to fly aircraft of up to 2,000kg (Piper PA-28s, Cessna 172s etc.) as long as they are so-called simple aircraft types. That essentially means no retractable undercarriages, variable-pitch props, forced induction engines, pressurised cabins, or aircraft which cruise in excess of 140knots.

All of these limitations can be removed by doing extra "Differences" training. The same will apply to the difference between tailwheel and nosewheel aircraft - you will have to be specifically trained on whichever one (or both) you want to fly.

http://www.nppl.uk.com/FAQ.htm

This is one of the popular trainers used at Popham.


And the good old Piper Super Cub at Shoreham. Very nice too.


Sorry Brett but I think your snobbery is showing.

Yeah .. I'm probably over-reacting. I'm guilty of "mentor" influence.. The pilot I admire most is one of those 30,000+ hour guys who insurance companies seek out deliberately when their wealthy clients buy newer, bigger, faster planes. He's done it all.. seen it all..

If you even mention this Sport Pilot stuff around him, you can see his veins start popping out.. and it will take quite a bit of finnessing on your part to win his respect back.

Pilots have always been kinda a self-policing lot. Sure.. the FAA does what it can, being a bloated, corrupt, government agency and all, but it's really up to "us" to keep the skies safe. There's a reason air-travel IS so safe (even light G/A) and this stuff seems to fly in the face of that success..

Anyways... Glider pilots never take to the air unless the weather, by definition, suits the flight.. and a regular pilot's worst nightmare (engine failure) is a given.. going in. Those high-time, well qulaified pilots have accidents 'cause they GO places. If they were never outside of gliding range from their intended field of landing.. or never flew in less than ideal weather.. imagine how rarely they'd crash.

Sorry Brett but I think your snobbery is showing.  

No worries.. I admit that freely..

I don't like this Sport Pilot stuff one bit..

Being a bit elitist about my paltry PPSEL myself, I admit I share similar misgivings...I feel like the member of some snooty club who suddenly has to be nice to abunch of "unworthies", but although X-C travel, whether under IFR or VFR, contributes to the accident figures for PPs, there are a tremendous number of accidents in the pattern at uncontrolled fields on CAVU days every year. They involve pilots of every description and level of experience. And they're not always midairs. My "favorite", for want of a better word, involved two high-time ATPs, both airline captains, who co-owned a Stearman and went up one day together for some pattern work. Something minor went wrong (don't remember what it was), and what would most likely have become a minor incident became a horrible stall-spin accident...because, as it was determined later, they started fighting each other for control. Imagine that... two guys who came up through the old-school training system, got all the ratings, lived with airline-standard CRM procedures every day on the job for years... fighting over the stick like a coupla panicky greenhorns. Amazing.
Not condemning them... it takes guts to relax and let the designated PIC do his/her thing in an emergency; I might've done the same thing. Maybe they hadn't settled who was "in charge" before the flight began:  if so, however, that was mistake #1.
But that's my point: inadequate training or experience can lead to mishaps, but having more training or experience does not always protect us.

It could very well turn out that the sport-pilot crowd turns in better statistics, given their limitations... those limitations should, in theory, eliminate a major cause of GA accidents: continued flight into IMC by unrated, inexperienced, or unequipped pilots.
I think it's a chance worth taking, because recreational GA and the world of FBOs and all associated businesses need all the help they can get right now... without more affordable access to the air for more people, in more fuel-efficient aircraft, that whole world will probably fade away in our lifetimes.