Jump to content

revise the sport pilot program


kgassmann

Recommended Posts

The text listed in red is exactly what I said.  You need permission from the destination country, the FAA doesn't care.  Basically the country has to waive the ICAO requirements for pilot qualifications in the case of an SP pilot in their airspace.

 

No.  You said a sport pilot can fly into other countries.  They cannot fly into ANY country that is ICAO compliant, as is Canada.  And any other country you must get permission to do so. Ask the Jeffs if Canada waives their requirement....recall their flight to Alaska?  They had to hire a pilot to get their plane across Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the last few months I thought we were done with this nit picking.

Come on guys.

 

In may rules or situations there are no nevers and never an always. There will be exceptions and blanket statements can lead to these misunderstandings and can rarely cover every possible scenario.

 

I believe the Jefts brothers performed all their own flights. I see him a couple times a week and I'll ask. We just went quad riding the other day.

 

"They cannot fly into ANY country that is ICAO compliant, as is Canada"   Now you have to define into.

 

Here is a perfect example of never say never and never assume.

 

The Jefts did in fact fly across the Canadian border, but flew across Canada, but didn't land. So the blanket statement that you can't fly into Canada as an LSA pilot assumes you landed, but in fact they flew over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the last few months I thought we were done with this nit picking.

 

We were until a bunch of people got sappy and wished some people well as they moved on to COPA.  Now the misinformation and repetitive BS is back.... don't feed the troll!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They had to hire a pilot to get their plane across Canada."

 

Don't know where your getting your information but this is the type of miss information that causes everyone to mistrust your posts.

 

My brother and I have been flying for 50 plus years each and did not hire anyone to fly our planes on the Alaska trip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To approach this from a slightly different perspective...

 

I have never gotten a tailwheel endorsement, nor a complex endorsement, nor a high performance endorsement. Yet I've logged a bunch of time in each.

 

If you wonder how I did that, take a quick look at CFR 61.31.

 

And the reasoning there is logical - someone who had demonstrated the ability to fly any one of those planes prior to the requirements for such endorsements was assumed competent to safely continue flying said aircraft.

 

Why is this pertinent?

 

Most of the Light Sport Limitations are there due to lesser training standards. And that makes sense. What makes less sense is experienced pilots operating under Sport Pilot Limitations being subject to the same Limitations.

 

I have a whole bunch of hours flying at night, above 10,000' (in both a pressurized plane and sucking oxygen), and in actual and simulated IMC. None of those hours, nor experience, nor abilities went away the day my medical expired.

 

Many other experience pilots find themselves in the same boat. It's a shame that "grandfather" clauses - similar to the ones listed under 61.31 - were not included in the Light Sport Limitations, to allow Private, Commercial and even ATP pilots flying sans medical to benefit from their prior training and experience and fly safely at night, over 10,000' and without visual reference to the surface and without the more restrictive visibility requirements.

 

Not complaining, per sé. I'm thrilled that there's a way for me to continue flying at all without a medical. Just trying to look at it logically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To play Devils advocate to Fast Eddie's response. I just recently finished reviewing aeromedical factors for pilots with my aviation ground school class. Since a pilots eyes are the most important sensory input a pilot has they are essential to flight, and I don't think anyone would disagree with that. There are several medical factors that reduce the ability of the eye to perform it's duties at night. My guess is the FAA's lack of being able to check the pilot for any of these conditions that could effect his ability to safely operate at night based on a medical condition is the reason the they don't allow a person without a medical to fly at night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To play Devils advocate to Fast Eddie's response. I just recently finished reviewing aeromedical factors for pilots with my aviation ground school class. Since a pilots eyes are the most important sensory input a pilot has they are essential to flight, and I don't think anyone would disagree with that. There are several medical factors that reduce the ability of the eye to perform it's duties at night. My guess is the FAA's lack of being able to check the pilot for any of these conditions that could effect his ability to safely operate at night based on a medical condition is the reason the they don't allow a person without a medical to fly at night.

 

But by that token, there are myriad conditions throughout the body that could affect the safety of flight during the day, as well.  The whole point of the DL medical is that the pilot in conjunction with his physician are able to adequately decide if anything in the pilot's medical file is an actual problem in flying.  I don't think that should change when the sun goes down. 

 

Clearly the FAA disagrees!   :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

 

I did consider that.

 

But they let Sport Pilots self-certify their fitness to fly for all sorts of things - including vision, hearing, you name it.

 

As an aside, at 66 there's not much doubt my night vision is not what it once was, and I would only rarely choose to fly at night - maybe just extending a flight just beyond sunset, let's say.

 

In fact, Karen and I usually stop for the night right around sunset even when driving on road trips - and I used to cover major mileage at night.

 

 

edited to add - Andy and I were composing at the same time, end he expressed a similar thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similarly, like Clint Eastwood said as Dirty Harry, "A man's got to know his limitations".

 

Even without the 10,000' limitation, its rare I would want to fly that high or higher than that without oxygen. I did two 9,500' legs on the way back from Indiana - to take advantage of 40+ kt tailwinds, but I know from experience my performance suffers over about 8,000' if I stay there too long.

 

But that's where the experience comes in - a quick trip up over 10,000' to get over some Class B or the Grand Canyon restriction or to top some troublesome clouds or whatever could be very handy on occasion. I still don't get the rationale that just because I have no medical it becomes de facto more dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have a whole bunch of hours flying at night, above 10,000' (in both a pressurized plane and sucking oxygen), and in actual and simulated IMC. None of those hours, nor experience, nor abilities went away the day my medical expired.

 

This is the one that bothers me the most living in New Mexico. My home field is at 7,200' and we have a lot of surrounding terrain that is 10,000' or higher. The 2,000' agl helps a little but I don't really feel comfortable flying through mountain passes at 2,000' agl in a light sport...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the one that bothers me the most living in New Mexico. My home field is at 7,200' and we have a lot of surrounding terrain that is 10,000' or higher. The 2,000' agl helps a little but I don't really feel comfortable flying through mountain passes at 2,000' agl in a light sport...

 

It would be better if instead of "2000 feet AGL" the limitation stated something like "an altitude reasonable for safe clearance and navigation of surrounding terrain".  

 

That way the pilot would have more discretion, and the FAA could go after pilots who they felt were in violation on a case-by-case basis.  2000AGL is adequate in most circumstances when crossing a ridge line or something, but in mountainous terrain where there is no heading to turn that buys you any relief, a higher altitude above terrain would be safer and more reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AGL is a poor basis for an exemption.  For the most part mountain ranges need altitude exceptions to cross where individual peaks not so much because you can go around instead of crossing over.

 

When approaching a mountain range it is obviously best to obtain your planned crossing altitude ahead of time so that all you have to do is maintain altitude as you approach and cross.  With an AGL exception you generally need to begin your climb to 10,000'+ at 8,000'+ which can mean 'wait till just before you need the altitude and climb in the shadow of the high terrain, perhaps climbing in the lee side sink'.

 

Mountain ranges above 8,000' are serious business and the wording of the exception shouldn't increase the risk.  The MEF for the quadrant + 500' would make sense to me as opposed to an AGL exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet they based it on MOCA, which is fine if you have an aircraft that can climb a lot harder at high elevation than ours...

 

The altitude reg needs an amendment: "or as necessary for safe transit over hazardous terrain".

 

With how many people die out in the Rockies each year, I'm surprised there isn't a "mountainous area" endorsement. That could even tie in with the amendment...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...