AVmail: March 15, 2010

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article
  • Text size:

    • A
    • A
    • A
Each week, we run a sampling of the letters received to our editorial inbox here in AVmail. One letter that's particularly relevant, informative, or otherwise compelling will headline this section as our "Letter of the Week," and we'll send the author an official AVweb baseball cap as a "thank you" for interacting with us (and the rest of our readership). Send us your comments and questions using this form. Please include your mailing address in your e-mail (just in case your letter is our "Letter of the Week"); by the same token, please let us know if your message is not intended for publication.

Letter of the Week: Revamp Light Sport to Save GA

The real world responses to this week's Question of the Week on the FAA's 2030 Aviation Forecast once again underscore the fact that the FAA's "last great hope" for aviation, Light Sport, is going to go the way of the 1990s recreational pilot and the Dodo bird. It's high time that everyone involved "gets" the fact that aviation is a sunset industry [unless there's] a massive paradigm shift in thinking.

All of the ongoing positive accolades from FAA and EAA and AOPA aside, Light Sport has produced only 3,248 Light Sport pilots in just over five years. That's about one Light Sport pilot per State per month. The total number of active U.S. pilots is down more than 35 percent since the heyday of the early 1980s. Something has to be done.

From FAA's own database, the average age of a new LSA pilot is 53, while the average age of a new student pilot is 34. Looks like the older guys are the ones interested in LSA. That's good, but it isn't going to reinvigorate aviation. Per the FAA, there is no way to determine how many older existing pilots are transitioning down to LSA, but by viewing the age of participants at Sebring's LSA Expo, I'd bet big bucks that it's a number larger than new LSA pilots. There are lots of aging pilots who want to keep flying, and Light Sport is their only vehicle. Some of these aging pilots own fine existing low-end GA airplanes.

LSA manufacturers now have 100 ASTM-compliant designs and have sold only just over 1,000 airplanes. To be fair, about five manufacturers have built the bulk of LSA airplanes, but I wouldn't establish an LSA Company based upon those statistics.

Light Sport was supposed to provide us with airplanes that would cost just a bit more than a high-end car, from $40,000-$60,000. One would be lucky to get one home for twice that number at a time when the price of used airplanes is plummeting. A good C-172 can be had for around $40,000, yet the less capable LSA would cost three times as much. Have they heard there's a serious economic downturn on?

Here are two measures which I feel would cause Light Sport to explode compared to the sad performance to date:

  1. Raise the totally ridiculous max gross weight of an LSA-compliant airplane from 1,320 pounds to about 1,600 pounds. This would allow a used C-150/152 to be used as an LSA and pull more new pilots into the fold. The existing LSA MGW limits the incorporation of sufficient design safety margins and handling qualities.
  2. Establish two categories of Light Sport Pilots, one for novice LSA pilots and one for the aging existing population of experienced pilots with hundreds or thousands of hours who want to keep flying but don't want to deal with medicals. It could be further defined by the total number of flying hours, as well. Anyone over, say, 400 hours of total time ought to have more options than being limited to a 1,320-pound airplane. I'd be willing to limit myself to day VFR only with one other passenger in my C-172 if I could continue to fly it under Light Sport rules.

Within FAA's own existing rules, there exist FARs which define the parameters of what a Primary class aircraft is and what privileges a recreational pilot may fly under. Neither of these FAA "better ideas" ever went anywhere, but by marrying them with the LSA movement, I believe that a massive quantum leap in interest would occur.

A person could become a recreational pilot in 30 hours and fly a C-172 but would need a medical. The same person could today fly a 1,320-pound LSA without a medical. Frankly, we're down to splitting hairs here.

A new LSA pilot aspirant lets call them Type A (novice) would be limited to the (new) 1,600-pound C-150/C152 airplane. But as he/she builds time, he could move up to an airplane that meets Primary aircraft standards. They'd still be limited to day VFR and one passenger but could hope to fly better, more comfortable airplanes that cost a heckuva lot less than a new LSA.

The existing experienced pilots willing to give up privileges in return for no medicals could continue to fly their existing airplanes as long as they flew day VFR with one passenger and the airplane met Primary aircraft parameters.

Spawning new pilots is important, but equally important is keeping the pilots we have. The more pilots and airplanes we have, the more infrastructure will be required. Unless and until the FAA, et al. get serious about growing aviation, we truly are in a sunset hobby. If no changes are made to the LSA rules, it will join its predecessor, Recreational Pilot, in the box of poorly thought-out aviation "better" ideas.

Larry Stencel

Kids in the Tower, Part Two

The politically correct crowd are making this out to be more than it is, for sure! But, on the other side of the coin, will there be a way to differentiate between a kid who is being monitored by his/her dad or mom and the ones who may be operating with a handheld just outside the airport perimeter?

Trust but verify!

Alan Memley

This whole exercise is much ado about nothing. I was a tower (and radar) controller for 40 years and saw non-controllers, including children, issue ATC instructions at least a hundred times with nary an incident. In this case, I think it was the media that blew this whole thing totally out of proportion.

However, it took Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to elevate it to the moronic level when he suggested that this conduct demonstrated "total disregard for the safety of the people on the airplane." Really! But then, what else can one expect from a politician?

Bob Merrilees

I think the pilots that responded to that kid's instructions should be grounded also. How did they know it wasn't some idiot with a handheld radio on the terminal frequency? It's happened before. They all should be punished; flying is not a joke.

Richard Buck

My thoughts about the kid's transmissions are that he (the kid) had one of the best days of his life and that the air traffic he "controlled" had the most supervised instructions they (the pilots) have ever received in their collective careers. It would be an injustice to the supervisor, the dad, and especially the kid if he is forced to go through the rest of his life having caused his dad and [the dad's] boss to lose their jobs, particularly at this time in our economy.

Lee Goettsche

Justifying Delays

I've just finished reading the article "JetBlue And Delta Petition For Relief From New Delay Fines." It is incomprehensible to me that whether or not a runway is out of service, the airport management and the airlines would be unable to coordinate operations so that planes do not sit on the tarmac for more than three hours. Isn't that why we have takeoff "slots" at airports like JFK? There is no reason reservation systems like this can't work.

The purpose of this legislation isn't for the convenience of the airlines, but for the sanity and humane treatment of the passengers! Really, there's no excuse for not optimizing the system, through delayed boarding and schedule rearrangement when necessary to abide by this law.

Jay Taylor

Cockpit Management

Senator DeMint's bill, with a short title of "Pilot Professionalism Assurance Act," could not be more inappropriately named. The provisions of the act allow air carriers to use cockpit voice recorder or flight data recorder information to "discipline or discharge a pilot," to "defend itself in any discipline or discharge grievance proceeding," to "evaluate or monitor the performance of an individual pilot," to "justify a pilot's submission to a proficiency check or line check," and (the last provision) "for any other purpose relating to improving the safety or well being of passengers."

Reread the previous sentence and replace the two words air carriers with one word, management, and you know exactly where this legislation can and will lead.

A more appropriate short title would be: Management Enforcement Act.

Pilots know that a good professional pilot cannot be legislated into being. However well-intended Senator DeMint may be, this bill needs to die in committee.

Bob Bostick
Captain, Retired

Read AVmail from other weeks here, and submit your own Letter to the Editor with this form.