Climer stepped down as head of 610 more than 2 years ago and had
nothing to do with the Kings. Most people were just ignorant of the change.
I'd also contend the idea that "the army of existing regular CFI's" is
refusing "to do with Sub K instruction." NAFI has actually redone their
entire Master Flight Instructor program to make it very light sport
instruction friendly, and Rod Machado, who I personally think is one of
the greatest subpart H instructors out there, is all over the blogs and
columns promoting light sport instruction. Sure, there's a certain
group of snobs out there that have stuck their nose up at it, but they
are small. I think most of the subpart H community just hasn't had
access to opportunities to teach at the light sport level. Adding to
that, from what I've seen, most of the FIRCs that keep the non-time
builder subpart H instructors current, barely touch on light sport, so
most subpart H instructors don't have an opportunity to even learn about
it second hand.
Helen
Gary Orpe wrote:
>
>
> Also, what stopped the army of existing regular CFI's from having
> anything to do with Sub K instruction? Weren't they qualified before
> King made his tapes?
>
>
> Gary Orpe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Helen Woods
> *Sent:* Friday, December 18, 2009 7:00 PM
> *To:* Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Skyscraper News
>
>
>
> Gary, I don't agree with your take on this. My take on this
> follows (I
> could be totally off base): The CPCs didn't get on board with other
> brands of LSAs because they are obligated to buy Cessnas not other
> brands of aircraft. They did get on board, and in a huge fashion when
> Cessna announced the 162, not because of the engine but because
> Cessna
> offered to wave the requirement placed upon the CPCs to buy X
> number of
> new Cessna's each year until they took delivery of their 162 if they
> purchased slots for 162s. This made it economically beneficial for
> the
> CPCs to buy 162 slots even if they didn't really want a 162. Now that
> potential delivery of the 162s is in sight, Cessna needs to make sure
> that the schools will follow through and send them the money for the
> rest of the plane. School are only going to do this if they think
> they
> can actually use the plane, and this includes use in their 141
> programs. The new sport pilot rules that are expected out any day now
> will likely allow LSAs to be used in a 141 school without a waver.
> 141
> curricula require FAA approval (which is what the press release was
> about) so King is working with Cessna and the CPCs to get this
> approval
> for their curriculum to be used with the 162 in 141 programs. 141
> programs tend to be geared towards younger and hence lighter career
> students so that makes sense to address the 162 useful load
> problem as well.
>
> BTW, I checked with 610 this week on the status of the new rule,
> which
> of course was supposed to come out this week. They said it is done
> and
> on The Administrator's desk awaiting signature, but the didn't
> know if
> he'd sign it before the holidays or not. Regardless, there will be a
> 30-60 days phase in period after signature.
>
> Helen
>
> Gary Orpe wrote:
> >
> >
> > OK, I will try to sum it all up as I understand it. Just my
> opinion of
> > course....
> >
> > Since Sport pilot inception regular CPC (Cessna Pilot Centers) or
> > normally most of the 'on airport' training schools, refuse to teach
> > Sport Pilot. That has been back to before the year 2004. They
> were not
> > going to budge on this and could see no reason to do so on there
> part.
> > I have been told by them that I don't fly a real plane, "isn't that
> > one of them Ultralights" your flying. Anyway, many sport pilot
> > instructors were going to be necessary to teach those that
> wanted to
> > participate in the Sport class. Many have done so and even set
> up shop
> > as Sport Specialist for training. Many have bought LSA's with
> the idea
> > of using it for training then renting it out for use if they
> wanted.
> > All this because CPC refused to participate. Recently, the rules
> have
> > changed to where training at the sport CFI level only, can't be
> used
> > for transition time to higher tickets. Of course this was
> because they
> > didn't want to teach it, but wanted you to learn what they
> taught for
> > (regular) airplanes because this is the way it had been done for
> years
> > and years. They had an empire out there and didn't want anyone
> messing
> > with it, and still don't. Those that were regular trainers, can
> simply
> > go back to what they did before, so won't hurt them at all. The
> smart
> > ones. right?
> >
> > Now that Cessna has decided to not use the 2000 hour Rotax 912
> engine
> > and use the continental 0-200D instead, that brought the other side
> > of the training, the repair and inspection side, along with the
> > instructors, to keep out most of the LSA (non Cessna side) and
> to keep
> > them locked out. The orgs just wanted to get their people back into
> > flying and they worked to do just that. They have not really stood
> > behind the LSA groups emerging all over the place. EAA surely
> did most
> > of the marketing of the Sport license. They made quite a project
> out
> > of it and did good with it, but don't seem to care about the
> training
> > part that much.
> >
> > Since Cessna envisioned the SkyCatcher C-162 as a sport ready
> plane it
> > put a lot of interest back into the class. They were using the
> Rotax
> > 912 at the time. They removed that engine due to concerns over the
> > pilot centers ability to repair or have parts for the Rotax. Then
> > Rotax sealed the deal by making anyone working on their engines, in
> > any way, would need to have THEIR special factory trainings to
> do so.
> > That sort of put a taboo on using their engine even more in
> favor of
> > the repair/training facilities, and hurt the LSA market even more
> > since Rotax was the 99% engine of choice of most SLSA.
> >
> > The rest should be simple to understand. As soon as Cessna
> changed the
> > engine to the 0-200D they suddenly pre-sold over 800 planes to the
> > CPC's and have started delivery recently. You can notice the
> comment,
> > "sport/private" in there statement connecting the two with the
> CPC's now.
> >
> > The word Hijacked comes to mind, but then they should have done all
> > this in the first place I think. This of course leaves the other
> than
> > SEL/S craft for the non true CFI, supposedly in tack, as they
> are. CPC
> > could care less about parachutes, trikes, weight shift and the
> like.
> > They are also trying to close out the airports they might use as
> well,
> > it seems to me.
> >
> > This is purely my take on all of this and I could be all wrong,
> but I
> > think it will help put meaning into the statement that E-Pilot
> made today.
> >
> >
> > Gary Orpe
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > *From:* Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>] *On Behalf Of *brianmacgeek
> > *Sent:* Friday, December 18, 2009 8:45 AM
> > *To:* Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>
> > *Subject:* Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Re: Skyscraper News
> >
> >
> >
> > Gary,
> >
> > I'm a little lost on this (or clueless might be a better term).
> > What is this a result of or for?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>, "Gary Orpe" <garyo@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Taken from the AOPA epilot release. They wouldn't and now they
> > will. Rotax
> > > A&P's next? Now it starts...
> > >
> > > "Four CPCs get FAA approval for sport/private training regimen
> > > Four Cessna Pilot Centers have gained FAA Part 141 approval to
> > use a new
> > > sport/private pilot training curriculum, Cessna announced Dec.
> > 14. The
> > > four flight schools are Air Fleet Training Systems Inc.,
> > Fairfield, N.J.;
> > > Pensacola Aviation Center, Pensacola, Fla.; Snohomish Flying
> > Service,
> > > Snohomish, Wash.; and Trade Winds Aviation (doing business as
> > Skyworks
> > > Inc.), San Jose, Calif. Many other CPCs are in the approval
> > process to add
> > > the course to their training programs, Cessna said. The new
> > curriculum was
> > > developed in conjunction with King Schools Inc."
> > >
> > > Gary O.
> > > "Mitfield"
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment