Many remember back on 1 September 2004, when a new license and aircraft category was created. It was called the Sport Pilot License, and the aircraft that Sport Pilots are allowed to fly are Light Sport Aircraft. I was still active in flight training at the time, but I did express interest in getting the license.
Sport Pilot License holders do not need to take a medical exam, as would a person with any other type of pilot license. This automatically would take a hurdle down from many people who are interested in flying.
Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) cannot weigh more than 1,320 pounds max gross. If your plane has floats, it cannot weigh more than 1,430 pounds max gross. And when I say "gross weight", it is the maximum weight that an airplane can have to safely fly (note that performance in aircraft manuals are in this condition). It needs fuel, oil, two people (that's the maximum seating an LSA can have), and whatever cargo one may carry and not exceed that weight if your aircraft were to taxi on a "scale" to be weighed.
Since LSAs are so small, their engines are also tiny little things, the most being put out on average of 100 horsepower (and that's pushing it). Fuel flow is minimal. Those little things are fuel efficient, rivaling the efficiency of some small cars.
Costs are supposed to be lower, which was the intent behind this license and class. Boosting the pilot population was also part of that intent. But what have we seen in the past four years?
The LSA Movement has been a little slow than previously predicted (or as I may have expected). But it's getting there. Costs of ownership and maintenance are significantly lower than that of a four-seat aircraft. Reason being that systems in LSAs are simpler, if at all necessary. Sport Pilots can only fly during the day in VFR conditions. So, there is no need for an attitude indicator (I like to call it the artificial horizon).
So explain to me why these aircraft, with their lower costs and lesser performance cost more to rent than a Cessna 152! I see no logic behind this! I absolutely see no logic behind this at all!
I asked one flight school owner why she has her LSA renting for the same cost as her Cessna 172. She said it was because the LSA is newer than the Cessna.
If it costs more per hour to fly a smaller, slower airplane, I'll save money per hour flying a bigger, and faster airplane. It would be more comfortable, for one, and less time in the air means less money flying out of my already thin wallet.
I simply find it unreal why anyone would fly something with less performance and capability and be willing to be charged more. That flies against the logic behind the LSA Movement in the first place! The idea was to lower the cost of flying, and to make flying easier, and more accessible.
Well, airports still have high fences with written warnings on what the government would do to you if you were inside that fence. That wasn't fixed, and cannot possibly be fixed unless regulatory changes take place, which will probably never happen in this post-9/11 world.
The LSA movement has made it easier to fly. Don't get me wrong. Those LSAs must be fun to fly. I've heard nothing but good things about them from pilots who have flown them. It even has me tempted to get in one and feel it out in that ocean of sky that I miss so much.
But, going back to my predicament, the cost of renting has not gone down. Rather it has gone up. Fuel is a common issue that is not isolated only to aviation. All one needs to do is look back a few months ago to see those ridiculously high fuel prices, and the drastic measures people were taking to get by in spite of, not stratospheric, but mesospheric price levels for gas. But in spite of that, and in spite of imposing fuel surcharges to cover the cost of fuel that is still needlessly high, there is no reason to charge more for an aircraft with lesser performance than one that is more advanced, even if it was built only last week for all we care!
But I should correct myself. The cost of owning and aircraft has gone down with this new aircraft family. Maintenance and fuel costs are lower. But you're buying a new airplane that costs at a minimum a smidge over $100,000.
But even so, as I discussed with a few other pilots (for the airline I work for, who are also airplane owners), for that price, you can easily find a nice used airplane with WAY better performance. You can easily find used Cessna 172s, Piper Cherokees, and Grumman Cheetahs and Tigers for a fraction of the price. You can find Piper Tomahawks and Cessna 150/152s for the price of a new compact car!
Eugh, maybe I'm overstressing a topic that shouldn't even exist?
I'm probably better off building my own airplane, from my design, and my own materials (gotta love Aircraft Spruce and Specialty! They have just about EVERYTHING!). I know I'm no engineer, but that doesn't mean that I cannot try. But that's another story for another day...
No comments:
Post a Comment