I understood that private flying has always been far less restricted in the US compared with the UK. I was discussing this with a charming lady I met on the river bank at Shoreham only last weekend, Turned out she had been a flying instructor in Zambia during the 1970s followed by various commercial flying jobs in Texas. She confirmed what I've always believed, that private flying has always been grudgingly tolerated in the UK while being encouraged in the US.

Say what you like about those sports pilots. After watching them flying into small fields like Popham in tricky crosswinds they're no slouches. They receive special training in this type of thing (PFA Pilot Coaching Scheme) & I reckon they could teach some of the 'old hands' a thing or two. It's horses for courses. If it suits you, go for it.

I think flying is over-regulated anyway.

Here's another angle in support of the SP ticket:
Older pilots who have either lost their medical or are not eager to take one again and fail... I know some people, not that old and in decent health despite not meeting the requirements, who can now still do what they've been doing for many years: flying daytime VFR in rural areas in ragwings and homebuilts that luckily fall within the guidelines. Without this rating, they'd be grounded. If one is concerned about a bunch of old fogeys with bad hearts flying around, consider my first post here: less than 1/2 of 1% of all aviation accidents in the US are due to medical conditions. Maybe that's because the FAA docs weed people out with the medical exams, but I dunno- there are a lot of flying seniors out there and their safety record is good.
We need those people hanging around airports sharing their wisdom and keeping us on our toes in the pattern in their no-radio planes...

Quote:


I think there's a tow-plane owner, F-16 pilot and hangar resident (and the residents of that "residential" area) who  aren't too crazy about people flying around in under-equiped planes, out flying for fun, without being trained for serious flying first. All of those accidents sound like a "pilot" in over his head, the minute he left the ground .

FIGHTER JETS.. BANNER CLAD AIRPLANES.. A HANGAR, for crying out loud..  Can you imagine when this stuff gets a head of steam going and there are thousands of these yahoos out there (20 hours of training.. no class B, C or even D airspace/radio experience *egad*).

Nobody respects elder pilots more than I..  But there HAS to be a cut-off point for health reasons. I do INDEED think many accidents have been avoided by keeping high blood-pressure, irregular heart-beat, potential diabetic, prozac-dependent folks out of cockpits (all these people can and will be in patterns under SP).

These new, lighter, more efficient planes have their place, helping keep our passion more affordable.. but only in the hands of properly trained pilots.

That's all I'm gonna say, I've said enough and I'm bound to irk someone.

I haven't taken on a student yet, and won't until I work out this personal syllabus of mine. It seems that just about every time I fly, I think, experience, ponder and try something new, that will be an invaluable bit to "impose" on a new student. This much I've decided on though:

My students won't solo until they've passed the written and if less than 90%.. not until they're at 90% proficiency in my eyes. They will not go up alone without at least calling me and relating their intentions and letting ME make the weather decision.. ideally, meeting me at the airport for preflight (can't wait to put a little piece of Postit next to the static port (downwind side) or just behind the pitot drain and see how astute their pre-flight is as they start getting cocky).

I was comparing PPL solo students to SPs in my head and the main differences are that a solo student can't go to much farther than out of the pattern without a specific logbook endorsement for THAT trip only.. where a 20hour SP can wander off any time. Even in a 50hp Sport Plane.. you can get into unfamiliar space (including another airport's pattern/airspace.. or.. populated areas) pretty darn quickly at 100mph in a straight line. I don't think a pilot is mentally equiped to make those decisions until he's.. well.. a REAL pilot, who'd have no problems negotiating Bravo airspace, if need be.

I know there's not much you can do about the guy who will go out and buy a powered kite and buzz his neighbor's farm and I guess there really shouldn't be.

There's an area not far from KOSU that's an informally designated "ultra light / motorized-lawn-chair-with-a-parachute" zone. We all know that they'll be out there like gnats on a nice day and give them a wide berth. But they ALWAYS end up flying too high and wandering into approach/departure corridors and they don't have lights or radios.

The biggest expense in getting a PPL is of course the plane. When you look down the road..the extra $$ needed to train for a PPL isn't really all that much. Bring on all these neat, little, new planes for a lifetime of fun, inexpensive flying (I might buy one). Just don't turn someone loose in one until trained to PPL standards (which I'd raise if it were up to me)..

Quote:

Can't disagree with any of that- definitely a 20-hr SP would need a bit more than what a PP hopeful has at 20 hrs. Like I said earlier: earlier emphasis on navigation and radio work. Somehow they'll have to squeeze in a suitable amount of the cross-country syllabus.
You've got me wondering what the written-test requirements are for the SPL... the more I think about it, the more I think it should be about the same as for the PPL. As you point out, they need to know about all of it, even if they won't be planning on doing many things. It's rather like how hood  time is required for the PPL: you're supposed to stay VFR, but it may not work out that way some time, so some preparation is needed.
 That invites a comparison (possibly way off base):
Maybe a sport pilot needs only be as prepared for flight in controlled airspace, radio nav, and unfamiliar airport ops as a VFR-only PP needs to be prepared for inadvertent flight into IMC. Well, obviously they'll need a little more than that; SPs are more likely to bust their limits than VFR-only PPs, but still...

Another can of worms there: many IR pilots think everybody should get their IR for more safety, while other people believe that most pilots are better off without being tempted to fly in IMC...but that's an entirely separate discussion...

But...  it's true that new designs that meet the SP requirements would make suitable trainers for getting a PPL. definitely will, in some cases, keep the cost of a PPL in check .

At any rate, rather than continue to poke this one with a stick, I'll just say that although I support the SP measure on general principles.... having not flown at night since my PPL training, avoiding controlled airspaces and congested areas in general for  
the most part in the 10 years since I got my PPL,  rarely having the time or money for long XCs, and having to keep rolling back my plans to move on to IR/CPL/CFI ratings, given a choice right now, I'd still rather go for the PPL. For the extra money, time and effort, you get so much!

Quote:


Yes, but I'd have to see a sample written test to learn mre about the knowledge requirements... I'll look more later.

Quote:

Probably about the same here, too... my searches so far have yielded mostly ads for test-prep packages. Seems pretty involved; i don't think they're making it too easy.



. Quote:

You're probably right. And yes, even a PPL is just a "license to learn"...