# What Kind of Country Have We Become...

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

#### Turd Ferguson

##### Well-Known Member
Correct. So read the definition of "Pilot of command" in FAR1.1 (Solo isn't defined).
For Pilot in command it says: "(3) Holds the appropriate category, class and type rating, if appropriate, for the conduct of the flight."
Only time category and class and type rating are required is for turbojet or weights > 12,500.

Only time a EAB requires category and class and type rating is if that EAB is turbojet or weights > 12,500

In practical terms, Ace Student Pilot Joe Moneybags can't fly his SubSonex jet. The OL's require category and class and type rating (or LOA) which a student pilot can not obtain.

Most all other EAB's can be flown solo by a student pilot with appropriate endorsements issued by an authorized instructor.

#### BBerson

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Ok, so I should ignore comments from people on these forums that claim I need a seaplane rating to fly solo in a seaplane.
Thanks.

#### Turd Ferguson

##### Well-Known Member
Ok, so I should ignore comments from people on these forums that claim I need a seaplane rating to fly solo in a seaplane.
Thanks.
don't need a rating if you have an endorsement from an authorized instructor.

#### pictsidhe

##### Well-Known Member
I have a idea for you pictsidhe. Get a hold of chopper girl and the two of you can get her plane Dorthy in the air and look for who finds the "When" first. All the football gear and pads don't help much rather at 50 mph or 150. Heck if ya feel real gutsy jump a train and watch for a tree coming on the side of the tracks and jump! :shock: Tell me then the difference between a soft landing or hard.:gig:
Dorothy seems like a good plane to learn in. I'll scrub the planned glider training. Now, let's see someone try their first ever landing in, oh, an F-104?

#### Tiger Tim

##### Well-Known Member
Now, let's see someone try their first ever landing in, oh, an F-104?
Should be doable as long as no second landing is planned.

#### BBerson

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
don't need a rating if you have an endorsement from an authorized instructor.
Why would I need an endorsement if I don't need a rating?

If I do need an endorsement, what would that entail? Specific hull type Amphibian flight time? Or ground instruction only?
To get an endorsement in my aircraft could be problematic. I would need an endorsement prior to the test flight.
Or finding a suitable qualified test pilot is also problematic. I don't think I want someone else doing the test flight on water.

Edit: maybe you meant endorsement to take passengers under Light Spott. I was talking about solo EA-B (EA-B can be 3 seats).

Last edited:

#### pictsidhe

##### Well-Known Member
I'm beginning to suspect that a law degree is needed first?

#### BBerson

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Ok, I found this in AC 61.65F, see below in brackets.
Page 48 lists the sample logbook endorsement for a Private Pilot seeking solo privileges in a different class of Type Certificated aircraft.
But I still don't think this applies to EA-B since no rating is required at all for EA-B, see 61.31(d)(1)

[2/25/16 AC 61-65F Appendix 1
70. To act as PIC of an aircraft in solo operations when the pilot does not hold an appropriate category/class rating: § 61.31(d)(2).
I certify that (First name, MI, Last name) has received the training as required by § 61.31(d)(2) to serve as a PIC in a (specific category and class of aircraft). I have determined that he/she is prepared to serve as PIC in that (make and model) aircraft. Limitations: (optional).
/s/ [date] J. J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-19]

#### Mark Z

##### Well-Known Member
*** The FAA sure does everything it can to birth new pilots by encouraging them. ***

#### Doggzilla

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
If we are going to encourage pilots, we need to develop a cheaper SEL and Instrument aircraft.

Everyone forgets that aircraft with 100hp can still be SEL or instrument rated. A tandem aircraft with an O-200 or other similar engine would allow schools to dramatically reduce the cost of flight hours.

Something like a miniature Tacano. Would probably be able to do over 120 knots with an O-200, very close to a Cessna 172. And would be much more comfortable than a 152, and maybe even better than a 172. Both of which have horrible leg room for taller pilots.

#### Turd Ferguson

##### Well-Known Member
Ok, I found this in AC 61.65F, see below in brackets.
Page 48 lists the sample logbook endorsement for a Private Pilot seeking solo privileges in a different class of Type Certificated aircraft.
But I still don't think this applies to EA-B since no rating is required at all for EA-B, see 61.31(d)(1)
You need a class rating or an endorsement.

§ 61.31
d)Aircraft category, class, and type ratings: Limitations on operating an aircraft as the pilot in command.
To serve as the pilot in command of an aircraft, a person must -
(1) Hold the appropriate category, class, and type rating (if a class or type rating is required) for the aircraft to be flown

The current EAB OL matrix just published a few months ago will require pilot to have category and class rating, in this example a SES class rating

Or, will have to have an training type endorsement for solo.

What you don't need is a type rating unless it fits under the FAA requirement for type rating.

#### Turd Ferguson

##### Well-Known Member
If we are going to encourage pilots, we need to
rip out the instrument panel and put a realtime social media interface in it's place so the pilot can snapchat or facebook his/her friends while they wist along amongst the clouds. All this training needs to be free, the rich people have plenty of money so can just add a tax which sends that revenue to flight schools to fund new pilot applicants. The machine also need to be completely autonomous or self-driving. At the end of every lesson, students will stand in a circle hold hands and sing kumbaya

#### Turd Ferguson

##### Well-Known Member
Something like a miniature Tacano.
I would like that idea but to get it miniature enough for an O-200 it would need miniature pilots to fly it.

BJC

#### BBerson

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
So back to "What Kind of Country Have We Become".

The FAA is directly violating the FAR's by putting contradictory Operating Limitations on EA-B. Does EAA know this is happening?

#### Doggzilla

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
I would like that idea but to get it miniature enough for an O-200 it would need miniature pilots to fly it.
If we completely ignore aircraft like the T-51 or Baby Mustang.

The O-200 powers Cessna 152 just fine. They just dont have the room, which a tandem will greatly improve.

#### Turd Ferguson

##### Well-Known Member
If we completely ignore aircraft like the T-51 or Baby Mustang.

The O-200 powers Cessna 152 just fine. They just dont have the room, which a tandem will greatly improve.
The Lycoming O-235 powers the Cessna 152.
With any scaled project, there are scale issues, if you scale a plane to 75%, the cockpit area has to be scaled out of proportion or it will require a 75% size pilot. Sometimes can make it work, sometimes not so much.

The reason planes like the C-150 became so popular was because of the side by side seating. In the early '70's when new trainers were being developed, e.g. PA-38, the overwhelming consensus from industry was side by side seating. Actually, the Tomahawk is quite comfortable for 2 people and it performs well enough on it's 115 hp. Unfortunately, nobody is going to build a plane like that today because there is no market for it.

#### Doggzilla

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
The Lycoming O-235 powers the Cessna 152.
With any scaled project, there are scale issues, if you scale a plane to 75%, the cockpit area has to be scaled out of proportion or it will require a 75% size pilot. Sometimes can make it work, sometimes not so much.

The reason planes like the C-150 became so popular was because of the side by side seating. In the early '70's when new trainers were being developed, e.g. PA-38, the overwhelming consensus from industry was side by side seating. Actually, the Tomahawk is quite comfortable for 2 people and it performs well enough on it's 115 hp. Unfortunately, nobody is going to build a plane like that today because there is no market for it.
They were still using them when I got my Private license back in 2006. The reason there is no market for aircraft in that class is because nobody is going to pay $150,000 for a piece of crap like the Skycatcher. I guarantee you that schools would be interested in a certified tandem in the same class for the same price, but certified as a SEL. Especially if they are saving$30 an hour on fuel, and have a payment 40% lower than a C172 or SR22. Schools often run on the skin of their teeth, any savings is a huge incentive.

There simply arent any aircraft under 180hp or under $250,000 that can accomplish what the C172 or SR22 can. Schools just dont throw that money away because they like to throw money away, its because they dont have a choice of anything lighter or cheaper. Theyre forced into it. #### Turd Ferguson ##### Well-Known Member They were still using them when I got my Private license back in 2006. The reason there is no market for aircraft in that class is because nobody is going to pay$150,000 for a piece of crap like the Skycatcher.

I guarantee you that schools would be interested in a certified tandem in the same class for the same price, but certified as a SEL.
If there was enough interest, they would be built. No manufacturer is going to put up that kind of investment and hope people show up to buy it. They spend a lot of effort with marketing surveys and such so they know what the market is doing.

Especially if they are saving $30 an hour on fuel, and have a payment 40% lower than a C172 or SR22. Schools often run on the skin of their teeth, any savings is a huge incentive. There simply arent any aircraft under 180hp or under$250,000 that can accomplish what the C172 or SR22 can.

Schools just dont throw that money away because they like to throw money away, its because they dont have a choice of anything lighter or cheaper. Theyre forced into it.

A mom & pop shop offering FBO type flight training can't afford a new anything. They scrape by with 1970's Cessna 172's or PA-28's that may see 200 hrs of use per yr. When I learned to fly in the '70's a rental C-150 on the flight line was doing 100hrs a month or it was sold off. Planes lose money when they sit around and a plane that didn't fly 100 hr a month was considered a liability. Get rid of it.

At the other end. the pilot mills and universities all want a glass panel Cirrus for training. A university program here where I'm at has 40 Cirrus on the flight line. They don't care about the cost because that is passed on the the student. They are salivating over getting a Cirrus Vision jet for future advanced / turbine / jet flight training. What about the cost I ask? If the students want the training, they will pay for it. And they are already lining up.

That same flight school has 2 C-150's that they use for national intercollegiate flying association safecon competition. Those planes were getting long in the tooth so they had to either replace them or refurb them. They chose to refurb. $100k each. To refurb a C-150. Mom and Pop can't afford that with their low activity flight training. Numerous studies have been done by alphabet groups and other industry groups and cost just isn't that big a deal for people that want to learn how to fly. Problem is not many people want to learn how to fly anymore. There has been a cultural shift away from flying and flying your own plane and we will probably never see activity in GA like there was at the 1980 peak. Just the way it is. #### Doggzilla ##### Well-Known Member HBA Supporter If there was enough interest, they would be built. No manufacturer is going to put up that kind of investment and hope people show up to buy it. They spend a lot of effort with marketing surveys and such so they know what the market is doing. A mom & pop shop offering FBO type flight training can't afford a new anything. They scrape by with 1970's Cessna 172's or PA-28's that may see 200 hrs of use per yr. When I learned to fly in the '70's a rental C-150 on the flight line was doing 100hrs a month or it was sold off. Planes lose money when they sit around and a plane that didn't fly 100 hr a month was considered a liability. Get rid of it. At the other end. the pilot mills and universities all want a glass panel Cirrus for training. A university program here where I'm at has 40 Cirrus on the flight line. They don't care about the cost because that is passed on the the student. They are salivating over getting a Cirrus Vision jet for future advanced / turbine / jet flight training. What about the cost I ask? If the students want the training, they will pay for it. And they are already lining up. That same flight school has 2 C-150's that they use for national intercollegiate flying association safecon competition. Those planes were getting long in the tooth so they had to either replace them or refurb them. They chose to refurb.$100k each. To refurb a C-150. Mom and Pop can't afford that with their low activity flight training.

Numerous studies have been done by alphabet groups and other industry groups and cost just isn't that big a deal for people that want to learn how to fly. Problem is not many people want to learn how to fly anymore. There has been a cultural shift away from flying and flying your own plane and we will probably never see activity in GA like there was at the 1980 peak. Just the way it is.
Apparently not, if they managed to completely botch the Skycatcher. To say corporations understand anything about consumer demands is absurd. They are always the last to the game.

And the majority of new customers are schools who do not have any other options but to buy the C172 or SR22.

And who says cost isnt a factor? The majority of GA flight hours a students taking on loans. And flight schools make a very small profit margin. Both the students and the schools are interested in savings.

Those are some incredibly important things to ignore.

You are essentially telling me you disagree because you refuse to acknowledge my points. That is not an argument, that is an emotion.

#### BJC

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
...And who says cost isnt a factor? The majority of GA flight hours a students taking on loans. And flight schools make a very small profit margin. Both the students and the schools are interested in savings.
The majority of after high school career training, whether it be learning a trade or going to college, involves student loans. Why would one expect learning to fly to be any different?

As discussed in another thread last year, the cost of such a program has increased dramatically - much faster than inflation - since the advent of student loans.

BJC

2