Re: Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft; Proposed Rule
Docket No. FAA-2001-11133; Notice no. 02-03
Dear Sir:
As member of the aviation community for more than 20 years, a Ultralight pilot, basic flight instructor, Hang glider pilot and FAA private pilot certificate holder, I would like to submit the following comments.
In general I think the Sport Pilot NPRM is a good thing for sport aviation and I strongly support it in principal, but as is often the case, the devil is to be found in the details.
The following comments are aimed at the items that I believe need to be modified if the Sport Pilot NPRM is to be successful in achieving its goals.
1) PART 103 TRAINING EXEMPTION.
Under the proposal, the part 103 training exemption would be eliminated. It is my opinion that this is a serious mistake. The part 103 training exemption has been responsible for the incredible growth and success of light sport aviation over the last 20 years. Eliminating the exemption would be cutting the very root from which light sport aviation sprouts. The training exemption should be codified as a SFAR and made PERMANENT.
The elimination of the exemption would also leave powered two seat para-gliders out in the cold. The elimination of the exemption would make these highly effective and useful training aircraft illegal.
Powered para-gliders are not covered under the LSA definitions currently written into the NPRM and neither are para-gliders.
The Part 103 training exemption in its current form has been an overwhelming success with an outstanding 20-year safety record. I can see no valid reason for not making it permanent under a SFAR.
2) FAT UL to EXP LSA (24 months or bust!)
The proposal as currently written allows "Fat Ultralights" or ultralight type aircraft not meeting part 103 definitions to be registered as experimental light aircraft. This is a wonderful provision, however the 24-month time limit is unreasonable.
Currently it is not known how many DAR’s will accept or be willing to put currently existing Ultralight aircraft into the experimental light sport category. The vast majority of DAR’s I have spoken to decline to consider it for liability reasons. The FAA recognizes the need for more DAR’s familiar with these types of aircraft, however it is not known how long it will take to develop the additional resources, or even how many will be required to meet the needs of current aircraft owners.
My recommendation is to remove the 24-month time limit for registration and allow aircraft owners to register in the experimental light aircraft category at any time. This would allow sufficient time for the necessary resources to be developed, without the risk of forever grounding a significant number of aircraft.
The emphasis should be on airworthiness, and in this regard the DAR is the gatekeeper. Why should it matter WHEN the determination of airworthiness is made? The only item of concern should be the airworthiness of the aircraft and not when it was determined.
In addition to the above, two seat training aircraft in current use under the part 103 exemption should be allowed to operate as experimental light sport aircraft for compensation and hire, indefinitely, so long as the airworthy condition is maintained. Currently two seat training aircraft have been operating under the part 103 exemption without annual inspections, and without an initial AW inspection for 20 years, and the safety record has been by all accounts excellent. Adding the requirements of annual condition and 100 hr inspections can only serve to enhance this already excellent safety record. I can see no just cause for not continuing with the current and successful practice. In addition, requiring aircraft owners to purchase a NEW aircraft after 3 years or stop instructing for compensation will drive the vast majority of instructors out of the sport, severely limit the availability of qualified instruction, and drive up the price of instruction at the same time.
3)AIRCRAFT LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
Under the current definition, Light Sport Aircraft would not include in-flight adjustable propellers, or "retractable" landing gear and multi engines. Why? Current Ultralight aircraft employ all of these features and are flown by pilots without ANY formal training or FAA certification. These features should be allowed on Light sport aircraft. If any restrictions are to be placed, they should be covered under logbook endorsements like is currently done for self-launch gliders.
4) MAKE AND MODEL RESTRICTIONS.
The proposal restricts sport pilots from flying any other make or model aircraft which they do not have a log book endorsement. This provision is not reasonable, however I do understand the intention. The Make and model restrictions should be changed to "type" restrictions, such as TRIKE, PPC, FIXED WING, GLIDER etc. The make and model restrictions should also be removed for instructors. Instructors should be allowed to instruct in "types" and should not be required to have additional model endorsements.
In addition the proposed change to FAR 61.31 (K)(iii) requiring category and class ratings for experimental aircraft be dropped.
What if a new type of aircraft is constructed which does not fit into the current category or class designations?
5) Altitude limited to 10,000 feet or 2000 feet agl, whichever is greater.
In the interest of safety this should be eliminated. This provision forces pilots in mountainous terrain to fly dangerously close to the ground, limiting the number of safe landing options and subjecting the pilot to increased risk from mountain rotor and other weather hazards.
Private pilots have no altitude restrictions, and are not required to obtain any special high altitude instruction or training so neither should sport pilots.
6) TOWING
The NPRM prohibits towing of any kind. This should be amended so as to allow the continued practice of towing Hang gliders and Ultralight gliders after suitable training has been received. A simple log book endorsement should be all that is required to obtain towing privileges.
In addition, a special provision should be created which would allow towing for compensation. This would allow the continuation of hang glider and Ultralight glider towing which has been highly successful and has contributed immensely to the growth of sport aviation.
Many general aviation pilots got their start flying simple hang gliders or powered ultralight aircraft. Maintaining the towing exemption, or modifying the sport pilot proposal so as to include towing is not only in the best interest of sport aviation, but is also in the best interest of aviation in general.
7) AIRCRAFT SALES PERSONS
The NPRM states that an aircraft sales person must have a private pilots certificate and 200 hours of logged flight time.
The effect this has is to prevent instructors from demonstrating an aircraft to a prospective buyer. Most Ultralight aircraft dealers are also BFI instructors who often as a part of the aircraft purchase, add instruction.
My recommendation is to change the wording so as to allow a sport pilot instructor to demonstrate aircraft to prospective buyers.
8) STUDENT SOLO 87KT LIMITATION.
The NPRM states that a student pilot may not solo a light sport aircraft that exceeds 87kts. Why? If the student has had training in this aircraft to solo proficiency then why can’t he or she exorcise that ability? The wording should be changed so as to state that a student couldn’t solo an aircraft that exceeds 87kts without an instructor’s logbook endorsement.
9) FLIGHT TRAINING
Spins required for weight shift aircraft instructors. This requirement must be removed. Not only are weight shift aircraft such as trikes extremely spin resistant (virtually impossible to spin), attempts to make one spin are extremely hazardous and can result in a tumble.
The wording should be changed so as to require ground training in spin avoidance and the hazards created by spins.
Nighttime 100 mile cross country for trikes. This is probably the most ill advised and dangerous requirement I can imagine. I have extensive experience flying trikes at night and know first hand how dangerous this can be "if" the flight is to be made outside gliding distance to a safe landing zone. My own limitation is to never fly cross country at night unless under a full moon, perfectly clear sky and over extremely familiar terrain, and I fly a 4 cycle equipped trike! It is my opinion that nighttime proficiency should be demonstrated, however the requirement should not be for long XC flight. My recommendation would be to show nighttime proficiency without any requirement to ever leave the airport traffic pattern where presumably a safe landing can be made in the event of an emergency.
The reason I am of this opinion is because it is possible to get caught out late, after sunset, perhaps on a XC flight. The last portion may need to be made at night and a competent pilot should know how to handle this situation. I am not however an advocate of long distance night flying in these types of aircraft.
Conclusion
In addition to the changes I recommend in the above text, I would like to request that the Sport Pilot proposal be delayed for the following reasons.
Currently it is not known how many DAR’s will be willing to issue AW certificates to Ultralight type aircraft, and it is not known how many new DAR’s will emerge in the near future. A shortage of DAR’s is enough to severely hamper the success of the Sport pilot initiative.
Additionally there is an EXTREME shortage of DPE’s or "pilot examiners" who can or will conduct check rides in Ultralight type aircraft. We have no way of knowing if or when the new DPE’s will emerge to satisfy even the current requirements.
Instructors. We have no way of knowing how many current Ultralight BFI’s/AFI’s will make the transition to Sport pilot instructor. My opinion is not many. In all likelihood we will not have enough instructors to satisfy the requirement.
In addition to the above, we have no consensus standard for Light sport aircraft developed yet, no training requirements for repairmen clearly identified, along with countless other details which will be presumably ironed out as we go along. All the while, the clock is running out for Ultralight type aircraft owners and instructors with no assurance that the "details" will be identified before time runs out.
In summery, no DAR’s, no DPE’s, no consensus standard, no repairmen syllabus and no instructors, equals complete failure of the sport pilot proposal. In its current state, the Sport pilot proposal will cause the demise of sport aviation, as we currently know it, resulting in the long term a further reduction in General aviation and the aviation industry at large.
In light of the above, I would strongly urge the FAA to make the part 103 training exemption permanent so as to allow enough time for the necessary "sport pilot" infrastructure to be adequately developed.
Making the part 103 training exemption permanent would continue the 20 year long success record of light sport aviation, and provide an obtainable entry level position, with "sport pilot" as a natural progression for those interested in pursuing the advantages that type of flying would offer.
I would like to thank the FAA for this opportunity to comment on the Sport pilot proposal.
Sincerely
Barry Palmatier
[an error occurred while processing this directive]