Well let's think about those stats a bit. A good portion of the people flying LSAs are established pilots who can no longer qualify for a medical. I would be curious to see what percentage of these accidents are related to training, or from people who actually hold a sport pilot license, as opposed to someone who already had a pilot certificate and is now exercising sport pilot privileges. I would guess you would see a large portion of the latter.

As far as the 5 hour requirement goes, you do realize that sport pilot CFIs do not even need a commercial license. These "instructors" have very little experience and I think it appropriate for such a limitation. There is no requirement for a normal CFI to have any time in type to instruct in an LSA.

I have over 400 hours of dual given in LSAs. I think it's completely ridiculous to assume anyone is going to have a certificate n 20 hours. (I rarely solo students in under 20 hours.) I have made many a private pilot in LSAs. I don't think there is any difference in the level of danger when compared to your average Cessna or Piper. (I think Pipers are terrible trainers.)

There is no substitute for good instruction, and there is plenty of not-so-good instruction to be had accross the country.

if you were a bank and just lent someone 80k to go to college and then they returned 4 years later to request another 60k to become an airline pilot and maybe in three years they might find a job (if the stars line up just right) and the starting salary is 1800 dollars a month .....would you risk the banks money knowing that how is he going to pay rent/food etc and pay us back 1400 a month loan re-payment ?! very risky

Believe me, I do respect what you are saying, as I'm sure your feelings are genuine. Certain flight schools probably do a good job in this market. I think it is the kind of school that doesn't just assume LSA are easier and simpler.

I have a similar amount of dual given in LSA and still think they are terrible for the mission they were designed for. The five hours PIC thing came out after a couple years in response to the alarming accident rate of LSAs. I know several flight schools who jumped all over the LSA craze who then turned around and sold off their LSAs in about two years. I think the sharp drop in original issuance sport pilots is reflective of this across the country (even as the economy improved).

Instruction is very important of course. However, based on structural strength and forgiving handling characteristics, a 152 (etc.) can be dribbled down a runway in ways that (the average) LSA cannot. Period. Obviously this is a hot button issue for me. I am concerned about and clearly disagree with the notion that LSA are the cure to various ailements in the piloting world.

Now this I agree with. Although the planes I was flying can and did handle their fair share of beatings, they did require a little more alertness than your average Cessna.

I am of the opinion that easier is not necessarily better when it comes to a good trainer, which is why I'm not a big fan of Pipers as trainers.

Generally, the crash-worthiness of the LSAs is significantly worse than a GA aircraft, which means a lot to me. Important for a training environment too iMO.

Flying has lost the appeal it once had. Many people have proposed theories as to why (I did a guest blog on Avweb a few months ago with my thesis about instructor apathy as a contributing factor.)

I think we also need to separate out true general aviation from career track for discussion purposes. I love the ability to go throw my stuff in a (insert aircraft here...in my case it's a Grumman Cheetah right now) takeoff VFR, and go fly for whatever reason. I honestly think that's dying. It's interesting to see the demographic that shows up at GA events (AOPA, EAA, etc) - lot's of people age 60 and over, few in their 20's.

I think inaccessibility post 9/11 is a factor too. Before that you could roll up to any GA airport and wander around, talking to pilots and getting close to airplanes; building excitement. Now the part time instructing I do is at a class D airport and to get access to the school you need to pass through 2 locked coded gates. That "learn to fly" sign is not doing much when access looks like a prison. No one heads off to the airport with the kids to airplane watch and hang out - they can't. Well they can; they'll just be interrogated by a militarized airport police department.

Another challenge is that when an entire generation is disengaged and finds more joy in having 1200+ virtual friends but little social interaction with any real friends, and gets instant gratification playing Candy Crush, it's tough to get them excited about flying around a grass strip in a non air conditioned aircraft, with dials and knobs instead of touch screens, built before they were born.

Slight deviation but I think it's relevant to the discussion. On my last deadhead I sat next to an AME from OK that was vehemently opposed to eliminating the third class medical in favor of self certification (if you can get a drivers license you can get a medical). That was the crowd the LSA market was designed for.

The elephant in the room (pun intended) with the LSAs and 152's, Tomahawks, etc. (2 seat trainers) is that nearly every takeoff with seats full is above gross weight. America is getting heavier. I was 40 pounds lighter when flying 152s, but when my portly, bloated, private pilot FAA DPE told me he weighed "165" for "weight and balance purposes" I just kind of smiled. Sure. Right.

Little bit of a mixed message: the aircraft is cheaper to fly/rent but we're knowingly violating a regulation that has potential bad habits down the road written all over it. The PA28-140 was a great example: an aircraft with four seats that could only carry two people with full tanks. Several accidents with that one when density altitude and short runways were involved.

I don't disagree but at the same time I think the type of person regardless of age who are uninterested in the actual flying aspect would never care in the first place. Its hard for me to understand that they would just care about a neat looking screen in the cockpit.

I grew up in OSH, been going for 20 years in a row even after I moved away. This year was the least amount of Airplanes I have ever seen. Especially considering the Thunderbirds did a full performance for multiple days. Actual attendance seemed down, but a lot of locals showed up on Saturday for the actual airshow.

My theories:

1.) 100LL is $5.83, or WAY TO HIGH!
2.) What's a 172 rent for these days? $150-160 an hour wet?

The cost involved is the biggest detriment. It's not that people don't want to fly. They can't afford to do it at a young age as a hobby unless mommy/daddy has some $$$$ and likely access to their own plane. This is where I would fight the battle if I were the airlines. Refill the damn pipeline by lighting the candle on both ends. Has to be a little cheaper to start and pay more when you get there.

The only ab-initio I would ever consider would be for a legacy carrier. The process has gotten out of hand to get to career job. The dues paying shouldn't last 10-15 years and bankrupt you.

I was fortunate enough to bum a ride in a Decathlon on Sunday for a little bit, it's still fun. Sometimes I feel like I lost touch with that aspect of this profession. Something has to give.

I don't disagree, but not all LSAs ate created equal. The Czech built planes I was flying had a payload over 500 pounds with half tanks, (about 4 hours of fuel) way better than any 152 or Cherokee I've flown. Also climb about 1200fpm at max gross.

Well, that doesn't really help us Stateside. So it's Boeing-sponsored TransPac, just more expensive?

Who pays though? I'm sure in other countries the government probably pays.

Did you read the article? It talked about bringing in US pilots as the flight instructors, so they could work towards the 1500.

1500?
 

If it paid a decent salary with benefits, I'd consider it even with my total time being over 1500. If Boeing thru in some sim time, well even better!!!

Any updates to this?

Pilot crisis needs help from Congress

Pilot crisis needs help from Congress

Cities that operate smaller regional airports ought to be grateful for Rep. Adrian Smith's attention to the pilot shortage crisis. However, the legislation Smith introduced in July only places a Band Aid on the challenges facing smaller airports, such as Kearney's, and fails to address longer term issues, including reliability, safety and sustainability.

Those three issues are critical because, in the long run, regional airports must develop the traffic volume necessary for commuter airlines to operate without subsidies. Federal $100-$200 per ticket subsidies are a big help today, but Congress frequently has targeted the Essential Air Service program, and eventually the costly subsidies that help remote, rural airports will be eliminated.

When that happens, if airports such as Kearney's haven't developed adequate passenger volume, they can kiss commuter air service goodbye.

Although Smith's Small Airport Regulation Relief Act of 2014 is far from being a comprehensive answer to the pilot shortage dilemma, it would at least help some smaller airports qualify for $1 million annually in Federal Aviation Administration incentives to increase passenger volume.

In the past, when boardings reached 10,000 per year, airports received $1 million from the FAA. Kearney's airport has used its $1 million incentives for a variety of improvements — firefighting equipment, runway lighting, and others — that enhanced safety and expanded the airport's ability to serve larger aircraft.

If Smith is successful, his bill would continue the stream of $1 million annually to Kearney and other airports that in 2012 achieved 10,000 boardings. However, the pilot shortage likely will continue, and that means smaller rural airports face a nearly impossible challenge to maintain reliable commuter air service.

Kearney has reported a 25-percent decline in boardings this year because the pilot shortage has caused so many flight cancellations.

What's needed more than a guaranteed $1 million per year from the FAA is for Congress to lower pilot experience expectations, or implement incentives to help would-be pilots acquire the air time and training for their licenses.

Before new federal regulations took effect, co-pilots had to have 250 hours in the air. Now they must have 1,500 — a daunting figure for young people contemplating careers in which their starting pay is about $20,000 per year. No wonder there aren't enough trainees in the pipeline to stem today's pilot shortage and fill vacancies when an estimated 18,000 pilots retire.

Nebraskans appreciate Smith's help, but the situation needs a lot more attention from all of Smith's colleagues in Congress.

It is shocking - shocking - that even a small town newspaper would write "What's needed...is for Congress to lower pilot experience expectations".

I'm going to go way out on a limb and say the editorial board of the Freemont Tribune would never suggest such stupidity about doctor experience expectations, or engineer/architect expectations, or driver safety expectations, or __________.

"What's needed more than a guaranteed $1 million per year from the FAA is for Congress to lower pilot experience expectations..."

Great idea! If bet if we lowered the required experience to zero, there would be tons of pilots!