I really don't consider the aircraft
 that meet the "sport aircraft"
 limitations real airplanes. They are toys. No real useful
 capability, much
 like a powered parachute.

 C. Smith

 I would like it raised also as it would enable not only for
 safer airplanes
 to emerge and more engine types, but also include a number
 of certified
 aircraft, e.g., Citabria, C-150, etc. to qualify. It would
 be nice if EAA
 would begin working this issue...I think you would see more
 "sport category
 flying" if this occurred.

 T.C. Hall
 Colorado Springs, Colorado

 T.C. Hall & C. Smith

 I can only speak to my flight training experience in a
 Cessna 172, I took
 training from an instructor that was a crop duster in
 Montana for a full
 time job.  Now what I did with that plane vs. what he
 showed me can be done
 with that aircraft was two different things completely!

 I sorta think that the weight/features of LSA class planes
 makes them less
 safe, and we all grew up running 3 ton cars 75 mph down
 country roads, speed
 does not phase most of us.  The approach to final is a
 practiced art, LSA
 plane pilots would not differ from my experience in the
 Cessna 172, with 10
 hours of practice, off you go Soloing.

 Now that same Cessna 172 in the hands of my instructor was
 like flying in
 two different aircraft, but I had the full availability to
 grow in my skills
 in the same aircraft, making me a safer flyer, and having
 full access to all
 features of a full featured airframe vs. having to acquire
 new skills in
 moving to a new aircraft to progress in my license category
 aka skills.

 Limiting my use of that Cessna 172 would be about what
 "rules" apply to my
 License Category in the Sport Pilot class.  What
 happens when you progress
 beyond the Sport Pilot License is lots of LSA class
 aircraft sitting idle,
 not good for the goals to strengthen aviation
 infrastructure around the
 nation.  In fact that large number of unused LSA
 aircraft would dampen
 growth of aviation in general.

 So how does one get the EAA motivated to push for the real
 issue of limited
 flight as per what the Sport Pilot Rules dictated in
 appropriate aircraft as
 per the features that are in line with the actual goals
 (i.e. single engine,
 unpressurized cabin, maximum speed, etc.) that make it safe
 for trainee
 pilots?

 GFCurtis Jr.

 There are many, many very good "sport category" airplanes out there
now,
two
 that come to mind are the KITFOX and the SEAREY, both of these
airplanes
are
 great performers, having rates of climb around 1000 feet per minute and
 cruise speeds of 100 knots plus, plus a range of engines types, etc.
True,
 most sport category aircraft are not great "cross-country or heavy ACL
 airplanes" that some pilots want and should have, but for the "sport
pilot"
 who wants great performance close-in, i.e., rates of climb, minimum
take-off
 and landing distance, rough terrain capability, adequate cruise speeds,
 etc., the sport category airplanes far exceed most "certified"
airplanes,
 not to mention the need for greater close-in piloting skills, i.e,
landing,
 take-off, and near the ground flying that most sport pilots have to
master.
 Of the things FAA has done right in supporting general aviation,
approving
 the "light sport category" aircraft designation was one of their
 better ones, and EAA was much involved with this effort. There is a
place
 for ultra-lights and LSA types, just as there is a place for certified
 aircraft, both utility and high-performance type.

 As far as pilot training is concerned, I would say that staying with
the
 "tried and true" good certified airplanes, like the Cessna 150's,
Cessna
 172's, Diamond Katana's, etc., are the way to go.  These are much more
 amiable to training type flying scenarios.


 T.C. Hall

 Who really cares?
 From the point of view of the rotary they are all irrelevant.
 Putting weight and performance  restriction on an aircraft goes
 against the grain of aircraft development and improvement.

 The main rotary advantage is power to weight ratio. If you cannot
design
 and aircraft to take advantage of that what is the point? It is like
 putting a minimum weight restriction on a racing car.

 C. Smith is absolutely right! LSA are a toy one soon loses interest in.
 So what! It flys but only up to an arbitrary speed. Where is the
creative
 challenge in that?

 Paul Lamar

Unless the option is to quit flying altogether.
The target audience may have been misdirected as far as LSA's are
concerned.
Young pilots, those who stay with the sport, tend to keep advancing, so
Light Sport is simply a stepping stone, if it gets stepped on at all.
They
can't afford to purchase it, and they would rather spend their money
renting
bigger, better, faster.

The true target audience for LSA is the older generation; those afraid
of
not passing their next medical, gained a little weight, who have the
money
to afford an LSA, and lack the strength to levitate their body mass with
arm
strength alone out of a Cirrus or a Corvalis, or the agility to navigate
even trickier ingress (Tri-pacer anyone).

It's a small niche, to be sure.

Chris Cosman


This very small niche just sold 2,086 aircraft with over 100 models to
choose from in the US. They are what their name implies, a light sport
aircraft, flown for the joy of flight. They cannot be flown for business
or
transport. It's a little like buying a new Harley Davidson, but more
money.
The Eltings



How many certified piston singles have been sold in the past few years?
How many RVs?  How many Rotax aircraft engines? If LSAs were supposed to
lower the cost of entry to aviation, they have not really done much as
they
are mostly on the high side of $100,000.

Murry I Rozansky

The "approved engines": are $15,000 and up. Low cost Mazda based
one rotors are not approved.

Paul Lamar

Hi Paul, the number of hours and cost of instruction are lower for the
LSA license and could be even lower if experimental and the older aircraft
that meet the LSA definition could be used for training.  The cost for
renting LSAs is not much less than a "real" airplane. Lower costs should
mean more pilots.  With out more new flyers personal aviation will be
greatly diminished.

Murry I Rozansky

I think the PP license requirements of X number of hours should be greatly  reduced
if one started with a LSA license. That would make sense for LSA.

However I don't really know what the rules are in regard to that.

Can one convert to a PP if one already has a LSA license?
If so what are the requirements?

Paul Lamar