We Asked For Your Comments -- Here's Just One Interesting Reply

Note: ANN Reader Larry Stencel (shown in the Zlin pic, below) took the time to explain comments he has about some recent ANN editorial efforts as concerns a topic near and dear to much of the general and sport aviation world -- LSA and Sport Pilot. He was kind enough to grant us publication permission so that we can ratchet the dialogue up on the matter a bit higher. Thus, we might see if we can, collectively, find some ways to make the Sport pilot program more germaine to those who might someday want to become a part of it. Let us know what YOU think... -- Jim Campbell, ANN E-I-C

Larry Stencel On 'Sport Pilot'

I wanted to make a comment/observation on your "Guarded Optimism" item #4 position on 'Sport Pilot.' I think you're "guarded" position is spot on. (I hate to agree with you).

As a 58 year old CASMELI/SES pilot and A&P who has flown GA for 35 years (yikes!) and who owns both a '75 C172 and a '67 PA28-140 Cherokee, I worry about my ability to maintain a third class medical into my impending retirement years. I've prepared for and patiently waited a long time for the freedom to go flying any nice day I want without first being burdened with going to work. I recently built a summer home and nearby hangar up north as my 'clubhouse' in preparation for that time. In retirement, I want to fly, to maintain and hang out at the airport. My life's dream has been realized and now that the day is here (2006), I worry about my medical even more.

My love for the freedom of flight hasn't waned in the least. My ability to absorb the financial cost of same is still viable (being a baby boomer and all). I'm fortunate to own a pair of pretty darn nice yet simple GA airplanes; the C172 has been my 'friend' and joy in life for more than 20 years -- no one else has flown or maintained her during that time. But when I go to Oshkosh or other large air shows, I note that growing numbers of pilot/owners I see are also aging - much like the aging airplanes we fly.

So you'd think that I'd be ecstatic over Sport Pilot -- but I'm not.

Personally, I think it's too little and too late and, worst of all, too restrictive for those of us who seem to be MOST interested in it. I think the folks who worked doggedly to pass the Regulation were admirably well intentioned, but aimed it (initially) at the wrong target population. And I predict that if the cost of Sport Pilot qualified airplanes doesn't come down and the overly restrictive LSA specs don't get relaxed, it is ultimately doomed to the same failure as the Recreational Pilot license.

Let's face reality here folks! Most young people interested in learning to fly aren't going to be financially able to purchase an $80K+ light sport aircraft -- at least not in numbers sufficient to bring production numbers up so as to bring unit costs down to reasonable affordability for the masses. Most can't (or won't) afford just the current average cost to obtain a Private certificate. So even if the aircraft cost could somehow magically be cut in half, it would still be too expensive for most given the additional cost of hangars and maintenance and training etc.

So, here's my point. I predict that the arbitrarily low maximum weight limitation for Sport Pilot qualified airplanes is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back. It's kinda like the ridiculous 50 mile radius of the home airport rule when Recreational Pilot initially came out. When I can buy a used Cessna 150 -- a much more capable and useful airplane -- for less than a third the cost of a new light sport airplane, but can't legally use it because the rules are too stringent, this idea just isn't going to work. I could buy BOTH of my airplanes today for less than the cost of one LSA! First we have to spawn new and retain older pilots who will ultimately want airplanes they can AFFORD or keep flying. THEN we can spawn technologically advanced LSA airplanes. Let's not put the chicken ahead of the egg here, guys.

In MY case, if I'm faced with the specter of trading my two wonderful GA airplanes for an $80K LSA, it ain't gonna happen -- period. I'll quit flying first. Or I'll find another way. Or I'll take up a new hobby. I'm not going to fly a 'kite' just to meet a ridiculous weight rule. Why not amend the Sport Pilot rules to allow well-qualified persons to continue flying their own lower end GA airplanes (which exceed the LSA weight limitation but which otherwise could meet the general "intent" of the rule) under the more stringent Sport Pilot -- no medical -- rules.

If a 1300 pound LSA falls on a persons head or a 2300 pound Cessna falls on that same persons head, they are no less dead. The sole passenger who perishes in either accident is no less dead. So where the heck did the arbitrary weight limitation come from and what is its end goal? Likewise the speed limitations. My gosh, as engine technology and airframes get more efficient, that limitation will -- likewise -- have a stifling effect. Imagine a 100HP Rotax in an aerodynamically efficient single place Mooney Mite sized airplane - it'd be a rocket ship that everyone would want but no Sport Pilot would be allowed to fly. Where did the logic in these arbitrary numbers come from? I can legally drive a large and heavy RV down the road on a driver's license but I can't fly a Cessna 150 under Sport Pilot because it is 180 pounds over the weight limit. Ridiculous!

And insurance rates for LSA machines will surely quickly reflect the discovery that the accident rate for low wing loading lightweight LSA certificated airplanes being flown by inexperienced pilots will be higher per 100K hours than the heavier airplanes being flown by more experienced pilots. The accident rate numbers for C-150 airplanes used for training in MY day will ultimately wind up being lower than LSA airplanes, I predict.

Let's visit an imaginary parallel world where Sport Pilot rules were amended to allow a well qualified pilot like myself to fly either the C172 or the PA28 under Sport Pilot. Even with my Commercial certificate, I'd be limited to one passenger during day VFR. Anymore, that's all I want to do mostly anyhow. I fly for enjoyment, not to push MY envelope. I'd be MORE THAN WILLING to accept this limitation if it became necessary in my personal situation. And if a ramp check were to occur, it'd be easy for a Fed to see the back seat was empty and the sun was shining.

And what would be the positive outcome of such a change, you ask? Well, aren't we trying to expand the pilot base? Aren't we trying to spawn and mentor younger pilots? Aren't we trying to make FBOs more financially healthy? Aren't we trying to fund the Aviation Trust fund from fuel sales? Who better to do it than those of us who have been 'doing it' all these years and are financially solvent enough to help fund the 'system.' And as more FBO's flourish, won't they be in a position to potentially purchase reasonably priced LSA machines for those less fortunate than I to rent? We're trying to expand the pilot base, expand and capitalize the FBO base, and use and protect the airports. How do you do that if you take the very people who are most financially able to support flying and cut them out of the equation when their eyesight falls a little? In the end, as we all know, in between medicals it is the pilot's responsibility to make sure that he and his machine and the external world are up to the task at hand. The pilot is the person best qualified to make that decision. Sport Pilot rules without a medical don't remove that requirement.

Now let's visit a world where this change doesn't occur. The existing machines will continue to age and fall into disrepair and ultimately become collector items sitting in hangars and dying on ramps. New LSAs or certificated machines will be too expensive to rent or own or operate for growing numbers of the masses because they aren't produced in numbers sufficient to bring unit costs down to affordability. Airports will fall into disuse and be gobbled up by land developers. Oh, there will always be folks who desire and can afford a Cirrus but until we do something that will reinvigorate aviation for the MASSES, it just isn't going to work.

Despite glowing reports of Cirrus' production numbers, until we build airplanes in the numbers seen when my 1975 C-172M was new, production rates will never support lower unit costs and the Sport Pilot license will follow the Recreational Pilot license into oblivion.

So, boys, lets get rid of that weight limitation and the speed limitation and start addressing those of us who should most be courted as the saviors of aviation. We've been here all along and we want to stay here. I can continue to support aviation in the way that is MOST productive . . . with my money and by mentoring young people! Those of you who agree need to start yelling 'bloody murder' every where you can. If the Sport Pilot weight and speed limitations were raised in quantum steps for those more experienced, it'll be better for everyone. In fact, it could be the "hook" that pulls 'em in.

It's time for folks at FAA, et al, to understand that flying starts out and typically remains an avocation fueled by discretionary income and occupying spare time for most people. If it doesn't match that part of the personal situation of large numbers of people who would like to fly -- and they ARE there -- it isn't going to succeed. Let's start with and "court" what we have and go from there. If you find the pilots, the airplanes will come.

LARRY STENCEL
Palm Coast, FL

FMI: 2005 Year-in-Review Comments?