Your new post wasn’t up when I commented. I will leave further thoughts there.

I’m not “blaming” either the supply or demand side of the equation. My purpose is to make people aware of the challenges the diverse needs of pilots bring to SP/LSA. And, I hope, to make pilots think about their decisions, and the affect they will have. Looking at the comments up to this point, I’m heartened by the ongoing conversation.

By the “reality in the middle,” I was referring to SP/LSA’s fixed-wing mission, that at a whole, it will be somewhere between the low-and-slow worlds of what were two-seat UL trainers and the practical VFR transportation possibilities of the LSAs at the top of the performance spectrum.

It does no good for Flight Design to sell ultralight style flying when their product will never, ever fit that profile.

And the fact one company is very successful selling “fast & sleek” doesn’t stop any other company from selling “simple & cheap”. There’s no point at all in blaming Cessna for the fact the Quicksilver hasn’t sought approval for the MLXII Sport trainer.

LSA isn’t one just thing - whole different categories are built right into the reg. Would anybody expect a hot-air balloon to be the same experience as a glider, or a seaplane, or a trike? So why does anyone expect a Cessna to appeal to somebody who’s looking for a Kolb?

Your statement: “The reality is somewhere in the middle” is wrong, wrong, wrong.

The reality is the middle, the low end, the high end, and all points in between. Yes, Flight Design and Cessna get a lot of attention for selling new S-LSA airplanes that are much more capable than the FAR 23 2-seaters we all know and love. But that doesn’t stop Allegro, Indy Aircraft, or CGS from producing delightful open-air ultralights. And it doesn’t stop the Trikers either.

LSA is NOT a zero-sum game.

Slower? I think many of the GA-to-SP pilots are wondering what you are talking about.

I’m a private pilot, and the fastest plane that I have ever flown was a 172 that would do about 117 kt. Most of my training was done in an Alarus, which could sometimes top out at just under 95 on a warm day.

SPs are quite a bit faster than that. :-)

The people who see LSA as PP-Light are just basing that on the rules as they exist, because the rules offer much flexibility for these guys that didn’t exist before.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that there’s a lot of flexibility from the ultralight stepup crowd that is now legally sanctioned, and that isn’t a bad thing either.

But don’t forget that these “low-speed” lsas will outrun the 152, 172, archers, and cherokee 140s that make up so much of our fleet.

What’s been most interesting is that each commenter’s slant on my original post is related to their particular take on flying. Cost is a common theme, modified by their interests. Some want SP/LSA to be, in effect, private pilot light, which is was not intended to be. And coming from ultralight end of the scale, SP/LSA introduces cost and complexity they would rather not deal with.

The reality is somewhere in the middle, but I know this for sure. The pilots who give SP/LSA life, whether they be private pilots flying to SP requirements, or ultralight pilots stepping up, they will determine the success–or failure–of the effort. Right now, it seems that private pilots flying SP/LSA seem to be calling the shots because they appear to be the primary LSA customers. And for more on that subject, check out my next post (on 3.20).

And, yes, SP IS all about the flying. No matter what is in your panel, steam, glass, or otherwise, remember to look outside. Isn’t that why we fly?

I’m seeing too much dependance on the fancy electronics and the skills of basic pilotage is going by the wayside. I wonder how many now are flying by GPS only, with out even having a chart on board, much less open and following their progress on it? I feel the electronics are doing a disservice too a large segment of the flying community. Heck kids now days can’t even read an analog clock.

Uh, pardon me? I guess most of you are GA pilots that hold your noses when you move “down” to SP/LSA flying. I’m an ultralight pilot who was forced, kicking and screaming, into SP/LSA, who’s primary focus is on flight, not instrumentation. UL pilots collectively shake their heads in disbelief in the approach GA-to-SP/LSA pilots approach LSA flying… it’s not the same thing: you’re much slower, you’re rarely going somewhere, you’re just enjoying the view. Talking about VFR-into-IMC in a LSA may not be silly, but if you’re doing that kind of flying, invoking “get-there-itis”, that would put you into IMC, then you’re not really doing LSA flying, and you should really get a faster, more capable aircraft (and training) to go from Point A to Point B.

It IS all about the flying, and it’s the LSA manufacturers that are all trying to sell top-of-the-line GA-wannabe aircraft with glass cockpits that are spoiling the idea. GA pilots may look at $100k LSAs and think, “oh, how inexpensive!”, but UL pilots look at the same aircraft and think, “how absurdly expensive.” We managed to have more fun than almost anyone else with craft that cost in the range of $10k-$25k. Plus we fly for less — I use 4 gal/hr — and we fly more often.

So, show me a glass cockpit that costs less than an ASI and a CHT/EGT gauge — which is all we need to fly — and I’ll eat my headset.

In any event, the market will decide, not the product planners!

Eric

I understand what you are saying, but remember VFR students didn’t always get 3 hours of instrument training. That was added as a result of people getting themselves into IMC without _any_ instrument training at all (and often in airplanes with much less equipment than even the lightly equipped sport planes of today).

AOPA demonstrated that a few hours of instrument training could save lives and as a result the rule was changed.

“Well said, but here’s another thought: in an inadvertent VMC into IMC situation, instead of flipping a switch to turn on the magical glass cockpit, hit the button that deploys the ballistic chute. That way the cost of owning a sport plane doesn’t require installing a lot of costly avionics the operator most likely will never need. The the old KSS rule .”

That has happened before with the Cirrus, and has saved lives. Having said that, it makes you wonder what the pilot was thinking. Why didn’t he engage the autopilot upon entering the cloud instead of coming out with major injuries (broken back if I recall) and a very damaged airframe?

I think the insurance would rather you have the AP than a deployment as well.

Having a chute and knowing when to use it never hurts, though. :)

I wonder if the wider horizon line depiction isn’t signigicantly better - especially for non-IFR pilots in maintaining control in IMC. Maybe it could have saved the likes of JFK jr.. Heck, even the B-787 will have a wide horizon line.

Anyway, the pilots just need to be taught the basics, even if the cockpit is loaded with gee-whiz stuff. Then they need to be taught when and when not to use them.
- Saving your ass when running into unexpected IMC: Good.
- Heads down in the traffic pattern: Bad.

When VORs first came out it was poo-pooed as “radio trickery.” Yeah, it’s not your daddy’s J-3, but maybe it’s not all evil just because of that.

Prevention through training is, perhaps, the only solution. And it might work with new pilots who earn a sport pilot certificate because they do not receive the introduction to instrument flying required for private pilots. One would hope that SP training reinforces the decision to stay earthboud when the weather is less than ideal. Remember, sport pilot is about flying for fun, not transportation.

Only time will tell if sport pilots exhibit better judgment, and to make it accurate the data must clearly indicate whether the pilot is a pure sport pilot, or a private pilot exercising SP privileges. It’s my guess that the more easily understood attitude information glass provides might entice those with private pilot training (read, limited knowledge of IFR flight) to push the weather.

If we don’t entice more newcomers into aviation, the safety question is moot because non-pilots don’t have to make this decision. And marketing sport pilot’s advantages and the rewards of flying for fun by adopting the strategies most often used in the private pilot market will yield, I fear, less than desired results.

Many years of experience have shown us that VFR pilots get themselves in trouble chiefly by two paths.

1) Running out of gas
2) VFR into IMC

Some of the accident data that we are seeing from TAA (glass cockpits) are indicating that the more advanced monitoring and range prediction systems are saving a lot of people from themselves. Similarly, how many vfr into imc disorientation cases could have saved themselves with a flip of a switch on a simple autopilot?

No, responsible pilots do not need crutches like this, but the bottom line is that we are seeing real improvements in safety trends from their implementation. Ultimately convincing much of the world that these machines are safe is just as important as anything else.

You’re right, though, we need to sell the experience, not the equipment to reach new pilots.

Your insight re the attention span of young pilot-could-be’s is absolutely true. The sport aviation OEMs have to go after the impulse that makes kids want to get on a snowmobile, a trail bike or motor-cross, not MS FlightSim.

Mal

As far as the sport pilot thing goes, it’s somewhat of a mystery to me. I think this marketing of glass will work because people just getting into aviation don’t understand what they’re looking at and aren’t aware that they don’t need all that technology in the cockpit if they’re day-VFR only.

I wonder… if sport aviation is really where it’s at, why isn’t IAC membership on the rise, especially in light of their increasing focus on non-competition (aka “recreational”) aerobatics? I recently wrote an article on this topic in “Sport Aerobatics” magazine.

–Ron