PDA

View Full Version : Has General Aviation Missed the Potential of Basic Ultralights?



Buzz
08-10-2012, 10:35 AM
40 years ago I cut lawns to take flying lessons and got my license at 17. I got into hang gliding a couple years later, built an Easy Riser for hang gliding and then put one of John Moody's first engine kits on it after he did his famous Oshkosh flight. So I've been around GA and ultralights for a good part of my life.

I've always felt it's unfortunate that the basic ultralights like the Quicksilver MX have never been seen by the aviation community for what they could do for the growth of fuure of aviation participation.

The MX got literally thousands of adults safely flying in spite of the relative unavailability and/or low utilization of decent instruction. The accident rate of early ultralight designs caused by "self-teaching" masked the fact that a design like the Quicksilver MX was probably the most successful basic aviation trainer ever built. It got more people aviating at a lower investment of time and money than any other aviation trainer ever produced.

What I have longed believed is that aviation misses the potential of entry-level ultralight designs like the Quicksilver MX to build the next generation of aviation enthusiasts.

Many yacht clubs on the inland lakes of the upper Midwest have dingy fleets to teach teens how to sail. Designs like the MX could be aviation's "dingy" with it's simple 2-axis controls and docile dihedral. If a 14 yr old can solo a glider with proper 2-place instruction, they can certainly learn to fly a 2-axis MX.

I think we've missed the mark not using some simple basic ultralights to get teens doing entry level, basic aviating. The focus seems to be on producing licensed pilots when we could be producing a lot of teenage aviators.

I'm one of the rare kids that was so bit by the aviation bug that I actually got a license as a teen. However, I would have jumped at the chance to learn to fly an ultralight instead. I would have started earlier because I would have been legally able to at a younger age in an ultralight. It would have been a much smaller, easier step for me.

For every kid like me that does go from a "Young Eagle experience" to a license, there could be hundreds of kids that could go from Young Eagle to entry level aviator with a well organized youth program based around an entry level ultralight design. [I was "Young Eagled" by an EAA member next door that took me flying in his Mooney.]

The aviation community might argue it would not be worth the effort to support a youth program around learning to fly ultralights because ultralight aviators don't transition to GA. I would argue differently. Not every ultralight flying teen would transition to the GA level, just as every kid doesn't move up from dingys. But I think the allure of begin able to carry a passenger would get a lot chasing at least the LSA license at a future date.

I believe the stat I calculated it's an average of 5.4 years from when the average Young Eagle takes their flight until they could actually become an aviator going the GA route. With the number of other activities or pursuits that could capture their interest in the interim, I believe that's too long to convert YE's into aviation participants. I think we need to convert them from "Young Eagle spectator" to "aviator" faster. And I think the basic ultralight designs hold that promise with a well organized youth aviating program.

My thoughts. Would be interested in what others think.

-Buzz

Flyfalcons
08-10-2012, 11:21 AM
I think current LSA manufacturers are too concerned with stuffing as many glass displays into their panels to worry about the actual intent of the new LSA class.

taylorcraftbc65
08-10-2012, 09:05 PM
In 1964, I started learning to fly at 14. Any questions of "legality" were far from my mind, My grand father, father, and two of my uncles flew in two wars in the military, I had only ONE DESIRE since I was four, and that was to FLY. MY advantage was that my relatives owned the 7AC that I learned to fly in, and you didn't ride in the plane without being able to FLY IT. At 15 1/5, my dad died, and there went the plane. At 16, I started flying gliders, ANYTHING to get where I felt more at home, than in my own room. I finally gut the money up to get an old Champ, and not having the money to "Get Official", I kept it in a barn at my Aunt's place out in the farmlands of the deep south. I put a tick over 2,000 hours on it till I went into the Army. After I got out of the Army, I went back to putting illegal time on the plane due to the high cost of flying in the early eighties, when you were a minimum wage employed Disabled Veteran in a VERY hard hit area of the Country. In 1986, a friend of mine told me about these REALLY cool aircraft that were LEGAL to fly without ANY license, and you could LEGALLY work on yourself, so we went on a three hour drive and took a look. When we arrived, at the field there were fifteen or twenty ultralights there, most of them were MX's ans MX-2's four weedhoppers which reminded me of the Frenchman's Santos Dumont Demoselle in "Those Magnificent Men And Their Flying Machines". After three hours of transition training, I gave my instructor "three PERFECT ones", and he cleared me to buy and fly off with any of the new aircraft that he had. Being low on cash, I traded him my Aeronca for an MX, AND a Weedhopper. I flew the begeebers off those two aircraft, and have owned MANY Ultralights since then, currently owning four.
As far as I am concerned, ultralights have it ALL OVER General Aviation. Brie

Buzz
08-11-2012, 09:42 AM
intent of the new LSA class. I don't know what the intent of the LSA class was. But with the Recreational pilot certificate being out there for years with very little adoption, it's clear that trying to grow aviation by "skinnying down" the regulations isn't going to work.

What makes GA training at all affordable today is that there is a fleet of cheap high-time Cessna 150's and 152 out there today that flight schools can operate pretty cheaply. I don't see a lot of flight schools in my area building their training fleet around LSAs. The aircraft are too expensive to buy for training.

As for ultralights, What Part 103 demonstrated is a very basic concept of aerodynamics. If you remove the additional weight of a passenger and all additional speed and horsepower required, you end up with an aircraft design that is simple enough and easy enough to fly and to maintain that you don't need government regulations [with all the attendant costs and hassles] to have a fairly decent safety record. What you also end up with is an aircraft that legally and affordably could covert a lot of Young Eagles to aviators.

While the Air Academy is a great program, wouldn't it contribute more to building the future generation of aviation enthusiasts to have campers learning to fly one of the basic ultralight designs rather than building model airplanes and flying model rockets?

taylorcraftbc65
08-11-2012, 12:01 PM
I agree with your last paragraph one hundred percent Buzz.

steveinindy
08-11-2012, 12:25 PM
The problem is- and it remains a vexing one despite the best efforts of those of us in the community- that people view ultralights as "not really planes" or as "incomplete" designs flown by people who are trying purposefully to cut corners. Those who are not already flying ultralights tend to view us who are as “wanting all the thrills of flying with none of the hard work, training, and maturity required to become a professional or military pilot” to quote one article looking at the aftermath of a small series of ultralight crashes. (In case anyone cares: Copeland AR. Ultralight aircraft fatalities: report of five cases. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1987;8:296-8.) While I might agree in part with Copeland's assessment based on some of the incredibly immature and pointless crap I've seen my fellow pilots do over the years, a lot of people have thrown out the "baby with the bathwater" over it. It's going to take a lot of effort, a LOT of good PR and a whole lot of luck to overcome such long standing impressions. As someone who has more UL hours than anything else at this point, it really depresses me to say that but it is at least grounded to some degree in truth given that, when it comes to the general public at least, perception is reality.

The "missing" an opportunity with the LSA niche is something that is kind of questionable although I agree with it in part (otherwise I wouldn't be building the prototype of a plans built LSA in hopes of maybe getting a few more people flying while increasing my own skills as a designer and builder) but at the same time, I see the whole sport pilot thing as primarily as something a lot of folks seem to overlook: an experiment to test the validity of self-certification from a medical standpoint. Presenting it as something else minimizes the chance of folks minding their Ps and Qs to skew the data. Just my two cents on that one but it's my take from some of the chatter I've heard in the course of my work in the aviation safety side of things.

malexander
08-11-2012, 07:06 PM
I've been reading a lot of this U/L sub forum. NOW you guys have got me hooked into wanting an ultralight.
I remember some 25 years ago, riding in a Rallye Rotec B (I think that's the correct "name") anyway, it was a 2 seater. I don't know if the guy had a PPL or not. I had/have mine so it really didn't matter, I don't think, anyway. BTW, I do remember his name too.
Anyway, as I remember it, it was really fun. But I haven't really given U/Ls much thought til now.

I think Buzz is spot on at getting new aviators using U/Ls. Everyone wants to grow GA, but I don't really know very many young people with enough money to get their license, sport or private. The LSA thing was supposed to "fix" all that, with affordable, cheap to fly, airplanes. Ha Ha, yeah, you can build your own for 60K or so, but still, you've got the fixed costs.

What does a person (me) have to do if I want a 2 seat, I know it can't be an ultralight w/2seats, b.....u......t, I want to take a passenger along. I do have my PPL. So, what would I need to do?

Bill Berson
08-11-2012, 07:29 PM
I certainly think that we need more affordable ultralight aircraft. A pilot needs to own an aircraft, not just get a pilot certificate and never fly again.
But todays ultralight should look a bit more modern, I feel. A "proper little airplane" (I think these words came from P. Poberezny)
I am working on it. But it is quite a challenge. Very few engine options.

malexander- you will need to buy or build an E-AB (experimental- amateur built) for a two seater.

malexander
08-12-2012, 06:04 AM
I certainly think that we need more affordable ultralight aircraft. A pilot needs to own an aircraft, not just get a pilot certificate and never fly again.
But todays ultralight should look a bit more modern, I feel. A "proper little airplane" (I think these words came from P. Poberezny)
I am working on it. But it is quite a challenge. Very few engine options.

malexander- you will need to buy or build an E-AB (experimental- amateur built) for a two seater.



I sort of thought I knew that. Just needed confirmation. I can still buy a 2 seat ultralight type a/c a lot cheaper than say a 150.
I do agree a person needs to own an aircraft to be able to get the full benefit of an airplane. I know I do,even though it is just a 150. But I'm build ing a Rans S19. AND looking for the ultralight type 2 place. :)

Buzz
08-12-2012, 01:38 PM
It's going to take a lot of effort, a LOT of good PR and a whole lot of luck to overcome such long standing impressions.
It is unfortunate that the actions of a few cast a bad light on the activities of a lot that are not yahoos.

The other thing that u/l aviation always has working against it with respect to the bad actions of a few is the public's general fascination with anything involving aviation.

I learned this first had back in 1986 when I had a fouled plug in a 2-place QuicksilverM, landed in a rough field and bent my landing gear. I got 2 column inches in the Milwaukee Journal when 4 people killed in a boat collision the same day got 1/4th the press. I and my passenger got some alfalfa stains on our tennis shoes but that was more newsworthy than 4 people being killed in the boat collision because planes are more interesting than boats for most people. People get killed everyday in cars and motorcycles and they get little press. But if a Cessna 172 runs lands long, takes out some runway lights and no one is hurt, that is still BIG news. That is just the nature of the public's interest in aviation.

All that said, maybe GA also needs to take a page from Apple Computer's playbook. Part of the thing that removed the perception that PCs were hard to operate was Apple's effort to get them into schools. When your 6th grader could operate a PC, that pretty much demystified them for a lot of people. A successful youth aviation program using basic ultralights that got a lot of kids actually becoming aviators would go a long way towards showing the public that aviation isn't such a hard community to get involved with. ["If a teen could learn to fly, maybe I could, too."]

What is interesting about u/l is that only GA sees them as "not real airplanes". The public does see them as "real airplanes", albeit one with a "safety" reputation. [Those with intimidate knowledge of the history of the u/l industry know it's not a "safety" problem they have/had, but too much "self-training" and people operating outside their own limitations and experience. It also let a certain number of "yahoos" into aviation that would not have been able to get into it if training was required.]

The last point I'll make is that a youth oriented aviator club utilizing basic ultralights would be a huge press bonanza for EAA. It would capture the public's attention. Aviation already has the public's fancy. Getting a new age group aviating would be hugely unique.

steveinindy
08-12-2012, 04:16 PM
The other thing that u/l aviation always has working against it with respect to the bad actions of a few is the public's general fascination with anything involving aviation.

I learned this first had back in 1986 when I had a fouled plug in a 2-place QuicksilverM, landed in a rough field and bent my landing gear. I got 2 column inches in the Milwaukee Journal when 4 people killed in a boat collision the same day got 1/4th the press. I and my passenger got some alfalfa stains on our tennis shoes but that was more newsworthy than 4 people being killed in the boat collision because planes are more interesting than boats for most people. People get killed everyday in cars and motorcycles and they get little press. But if a Cessna 172 runs lands long, takes out some runway lights and no one is hurt, that is still BIG news. That is just the nature of the public's interest in aviation.

Yeah, I understand completely as someone who acts as a "reference" for a lot of reporters (trying to keep things factual and the speculation to a minimum) as a result of my line of work.


What is interesting about u/l is that only GA sees them as "not real airplanes".

That was not my experience as one of the primary "members" of our UL flying "club".


Those with intimidate knowledge of the history of the u/l industry know it's not a "safety" problem they have/had, but too much "self-training" and people operating outside their own limitations and experience.

I'll agree that it's predominately the "human factors" issue but given that no one really conclusively investigates the UL crashes in any organized manner, there's no good data out there on the rate of mechanical failures or structural failures with which to judge things. We may just be "wishful thinking" that it's almost entirely the jerks who fly like the laws of gravity and aerodynamics don't apply to them.

Buzz
08-13-2012, 08:24 AM
The problem is...that people view ultralights as "not really planes" It's going to take a lot of effort, a LOT of good PR and a whole lot of luck to overcome such long standing impressions.

Steve, public perception would not really have an impact on this program. Whether the public's perception of ultralights is positive or negative right now is moot to the potential of this concept.

When I was flying a Cessna 150 alone at age 16 in and out of airports that also had airline service, the public perception, if there was poll taken, would probably be that I was "too young". However, the public perception about me doing it was a moot point. I didn't need the public's approval. Only the FAA's and I had that.

There is nothing in Part 103 that prevents a teen from flying an ultralight. Or from building a teen aviating program around using an entry level ultralight design. The regs are in place to do it, the aircraft designs are already available and their are a ton of kids out there that would be interested. [MS-Flight Simulator is the most popular computer game program every sold with 21 million copies in print. There are a huge number of human activities one COULD simulate on a computer. However, simulating piloting something has the most amount of appeal. We need to be moving teens from "simulating" to "aviating". Nothing holds more promise for that first step than a teen aviating program built around one of the early basic ultralight designs IMHO.]

Would every parent allow their 16 year old to solo a Cessna? No. However, mine did. And they certainly would have had no problem if I had got training to learn how to fly an Quicksilver MX rather than a Cessna 150. This also is not about providing an avenue for EVERY teen that has an interest in learning to fly something. Not every parent will approve. But getting this started would only require, initially, a small number of parents allowing some teens to participate. [Once the program had established solid safety statistics, the number of kids allowed to do it would increase.]

As I've shared, I wish this had been around when I got bit by the flying bug at 15. Had I learned to fly a Quicksilver MX rather than a Cessna 150, I believe I would have got a lot more enjoyment out of flying at 16 and had also been able to afford to do a lot more of it. [re: the enjoyment of ultralight flying. I found it interesting watching Kirk Hawkins of ICON aircraft talk in the EAA's "Voices of Aviation" about his flying experience. He came up with the concept of the A5, has flown F-16s and had flown for the airlines. He's got a pretty good perspective on types of aviation. He said the most fun he's ever had in aviation was when he got started flying in a Phantom ultralight he rebuilt. He described that as the most enjoyable form of aviation he's ever done.]

Lastly, I'm not suggesting giving some teens just enough training so they don't kill themselves and then turn them loose in ultralights. This would be an "aviating" training club concept with access to the trainers based on proficiency ratings with set operating limitations. Teens can earn higher proficiency ratings which let them fly the trainers in increasingly more challenging conditions. That would give the participants skill goals to strive for while making sure the safety record is way beyond that typically seen in ultralight flying. [There has been a lot of bent tubes by "self teachers" that tried to learn in winds and crosswind components that were beyond a beginner's capability.]

rosiejerryrosie
08-13-2012, 09:16 AM
Buzz, I believe you are on to something here. If you need any help, count me in.

Flyfalcons
08-13-2012, 09:27 AM
Steve, public perception would not really have an impact on this program. Whether the public's perception of ultralights is positive or negative right now is moot to the potential of this concept.


How many parents are going to send their kids to "ultralight camp" if they think ultralights are dangerous?

Mike Switzer
08-13-2012, 09:45 AM
One major problem. There is no ultralight out there that could ever be certified as anything but Experimental, and it is not legal to provide instruction (and charge for it) in an experimental that is not owned by the pilot receiving instruction.

Sam Buchanan
08-13-2012, 01:47 PM
One major problem. There is no ultralight out there that could ever be certified as anything but Experimental, and it is not legal to provide instruction (and charge for it) in an experimental that is not owned by the pilot receiving instruction.

A Letter of Deviation Authority (LODA) will allow instruction in a non-owned experimental aircraft and the instructor be paid for the flight. Details here:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CEUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eaa.org%2Fnews%2F2010%2FLODA_ Guidance.pdf&ei=ZlkpUJv7K-nr0gGm84HQDA&usg=AFQjCNH_XAQqDgdkCxvjjUF2t75qkEnLuQ&sig2=AkwdMht1BMCpvufDq5H53Q

There are some hurdles to jump in order to receive the LODA but it can be done. I don't know if anyone has requested a LODA for an N-numbered ultralight.

Mike Switzer
08-13-2012, 05:41 PM
Yea, I know about that, but they are granted on a very limited basis.

The OP is talking about FBOs using ultralights for instruction as standard practice, it isn't going to be allowed.

Mark Calder
08-13-2012, 08:02 PM
"I think current LSA manufacturers are too concerned with stuffing as many glass displays into their panels to worry about the actual intent of the new LSA class."

couldn't agree more, I think they all have their up up their Glass

steveinindy
08-14-2012, 07:31 AM
Steve, public perception would not really have an impact on this program. Whether the public's perception of ultralights is positive or negative right now is moot to the potential of this concept.

I sincerely hope you're right. However, but given that we need to convince members of that group to fly if we want to increase our numbers, then logic would dictate that if people are hesitant to fly then it's going to have an impact on a program to get more people flying. It's akin to getting people who are afraid of sharks to agree to learn to scuba dive in the shark tank at the local zoo. The fear/hesitance is largely misguided but it is still there.


How many parents are going to send their kids to "ultralight camp" if they think ultralights are dangerous?
This.

Buzz
08-14-2012, 07:49 AM
How many parents are going to send their kids to "ultralight camp" if they think ultralights are dangerous?
How many does one need to start collecting empirical data that teaching teens to fly with ultralights is not dangerous? I think the answer is this can be started with one teen.

Granted, not every parent will let their teen be the first. But more parents will let the teen be the 500th with a documented safety record. And many parents will let their teen be the 5,000th if the safety record is well documented.

As has been pointed out many times in the past, there is little empirical data collected on ultralight operations. One needs data to overcome perceptions. Perceptions are formed on incomplete data.

I should add that core to this concept is a flight ops documentation method and standard that exceeds anything previously seen in utralight aviation. That's what would be necessary to document the safety record.

Buzz
08-14-2012, 08:01 AM
The OP is talking about FBOs using ultralights for instruction as standard practice, it isn't going to be allowed.

We're off the original premise. Think Boy Scouts teaching kayaking as opposed to a commercial business teaching kayaking.

A teen oriented aviation club, not-for-profit, that uses one of the early basic ultralight designs to get teens "aviating". A social club around learning to "aviate" just like the EAA clubs are formed around homebuilding. Teen oriented. Cap the maximum age at 17 just as Scouts cap the max age when you can earn Eagle.

Mike Switzer
08-14-2012, 09:26 AM
Another thing to think about - How are you going to get insurance?

steveinindy
08-14-2012, 09:35 AM
I should add that core to this concept is a flight ops documentation method and standard that exceeds anything previously seen in utralight aviation. That's what would be necessary to document the safety record

The numbers you are talking about deriving aren't likely going to imply anything about the larger safety record of ultralights. They will apply to your own operation but may have little in the way of broader extrapolation. However, I would like to point out that I would completely support you setting a great example for the ultralight community as a whole with a focus on safety.


We're off the original premise. Think Boy Scouts teaching kayaking as opposed to a commercial business teaching kayaking.

A non-profit operation is still a commercial operation according to the FAA.

Buzz
08-14-2012, 01:07 PM
A non-profit operation is still a commercial operation according to the FAA.
Steve, is it your understanding that a non-profit ultralight club could not own aircraft for use by the members under the FAA rules?

-Buzz

steveinindy
08-14-2012, 01:12 PM
Steve, is it your understanding that a non-profit ultralight club could not own aircraft for use by the members under the FAA rules?
I don't know but it would depend most likely on how you set it up or more importantly how the FAA interprets it. If they see it as you running a flight school for all intents and purposes based around registered ultralights, then you have problems. My point is simply to tread lightly and to check with the FAA before you go ahead with this and get the official opinion in writing before you do anything.

I'm all for people learning to fly. I'm just wanting to make sure you do it in a way that will keep you out of trouble with the FAA.

Buzz
08-14-2012, 01:15 PM
The numbers you are talking about deriving aren't likely going to imply anything about the larger safety record of ultralights. They will apply to your own operation but may have little in the way of broader extrapolation. However, I would like to point out that I would completely support you setting a great example for the ultralight community as a whole with a focus on safety.
Yes, agreed. Any empirical data this operation would collect would of only be of use for determining the safety of this particular operation.

Although not the goal or objective of the organization, it might lead to some shift in public perception as a by-product of it's safety record.

If an aviation training club using basic ultralights and operating with a strict focus on safety could get some teens safely aviating, it could be used as an example that ultralights are not inherently "unsafe". Again, changing the perceptions of the general public is not the mission. But at least creating one example of how safe ultralights can be, even for teen aviators, when there is sufficient and proper training and there are safe operating limitations used by the operation certainly would be a positive contribution.

steveinindy
08-14-2012, 01:30 PM
Again, changing the perceptions of the general public is not the mission. But at least creating one example of how safe ultralights can be, even for teen aviators, when there is sufficient and proper training and there are safe operating limitations used by the operation certainly would be a positive contribution.

I actually agree with you on that. The only way to change public opinion is by providing more positive examples than negative. Unfortunately, we have long acted as though it does not matter or that any change in the way we approach things is to admit that we're not as good as we like to think we are.

You have my support for the idea if you want or need it.

Buzz
08-14-2012, 01:48 PM
I don't know but it would depend most likely on how you set it up or more importantly how the FAA interprets it. I'm all for people learning to fly. I'm just wanting to make sure you do it in a way that will keep you out of trouble with the FAA.
I agree Steve. Nobody ever wants to run afoul of the FAA. I'm glad you brought this point up. It caused me to think through this aspect.

I'm not sure I'd want to go to my local FSDO office and ask someone there his/her interpretation of "Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only;" [I don't believe there is any citation anywhere in Part 103 about "commercial" operation."]

It would seem a very big stretch for the the FAA to consider the training to use something for recreation or sport purposes is not a "recreation" or "sport" activity itself. If one is training someone to fly an ultralight using an ultralight and ultralights can only be used for sport to recreating purposes, than I believe that training would qualify as a recreation or sport purpose. [This would also only apply to the use of the single seaters. Any dual training would need to be given in an LSA.]

What I believe I'd essentially be asking the FAA is, "This aircraft meets the ultralight standards and will be operated in every respect consistent with Part 103. It will be operated only for recreation or sport purposes, including training on how to fly it for recreation or sport purposes." Rather than ask a bureaucrat to agree to that interpretation in writing, I thing the best course would be to let them challenge the use.

[The FAA didn't have any issue with ultralights being used to guide whooping cranes. They had an issue when they found out the pilots were being paid for the flights. This training operation would be completely non-profit by volunteers that want to see more teens in aviation.]

Buzz
08-14-2012, 02:17 PM
Another thing to think about - How are you going to get insurance?
Mike, it's something I've thought about.

First of all, one has insurance when one has assets to protect. This club's assets would primarily be a bunch of single place ultralights. Not something that is going to interest the typical lawyer in chasing.

Second, one needs insurance when one is in the "line of causality". When one has direct control over the aircraft, they are in the "line of causality". That is why instructors have to have insurance to give dual instruction. Initial dual instruction would be in LSAs where there is insurance.

On any solo flight, the instructor is out of the line of causality. Once the aviator solos, they'll be continuing their training using single place ultralights. Those aircraft would be placarded the same way the FAA required the old 2-place trainers to be placarded. [Something along the lines "The Airworthiness of this vehicle has not be established by the FAA." We'd add a placard line, "The operator of this air vehicle is responsible for determining it's airworthiness before commencing operation."]

An operation like this is not going to have many assets to be protected initially. But it will have assets if it succeeds. Insurance is based on actuarial data. Initially there won't be any. Once the club has operated for a while, it'll start to get actuarial data and will be able to get insurance to protect it's growing assets.

[There is insurance. Kitty Hawk Kites is a large hang gliding training operation in NC. They've been in business since 1974. They also have a record of having safely trained over 300,000 people. I suspect they have been able to get insurance.]

Bill Berson
08-14-2012, 02:56 PM
I think a club might need some sort of competition event or other social event to keep interest.
Glider clubs, model clubs, parachute clubs, etc. all have competition. Ultralights are solo only and have no real purpose (such as travel)in the same way models have no purpose.

taylorcraftbc65
08-14-2012, 03:04 PM
I think a club might need some sort of competition event or other social event to keep interest.
Glider clubs, model clubs, parachute clubs, etc. all have competition. Ultralights are solo only and have no real purpose (such as travel)in the same way models have no purpose.

I don't know about that, I flew one from Lantana Florida to West End Airport on G.B.I. one time.

JNicol
08-14-2012, 03:23 PM
I don't know but it would depend most likely on how you set it up or more importantly how the FAA interprets it. If they see it as you running a flight school for all intents and purposes based around registered ultralights, then you have problems. My point is simply to tread lightly and to check with the FAA before you go ahead with this and get the official opinion in writing before you do anything.

I'm all for people learning to fly. I'm just wanting to make sure you do it in a way that will keep you out of trouble with the FAA.


I really love the idea of using ultralights to get people into the air cheaply! I flew a Challenger back in New Zealand years ago and with an instructor at the local club it cost me $20 an hour. At the same time I was learning to fly tin @ $120 per hour. I thought that I had to get my PPL in order to get the most out of flying, but the most fun I ever had was low and slow in the Challenger. Practicing emergency landings on a beach and flying over the surf at 15 feet is still my favourite flying memory. I love the idea of using U/L as the gateway drug because nothing gets you hooked more IMHO! After our open source LSA, maybe we need to do an open source U/L!

Just to get back on topic, what if each club member was also a part owner of the aircraft? Form an ownership co-operative/LLC and the annual fee charged covered the share as well as insurance. This is no different to any other aircraft syndicate and should not be a regulatory issue for this?

Just as an aside, in NZ, I was able to basically use the club ultralight for instruction without owning it, however up here in Canada, the regulations don't allow an ultralight to be used for commercial purposes, so if you don't have a PPL and you want to fly an ultralight, you have to purchase a 2 seater and then get an instructor to teach you to fly it. Retarded.

Buzz
08-14-2012, 05:12 PM
I think a club might need some sort of competition event or other social event to keep interest.
Glider clubs, model clubs, parachute clubs, etc. all have competition. Ultralights are solo only and have no real purpose (such as travel)in the same way models have no purpose.Yes, there would be a very large social element to this for the teens.

We had a pretty active ultralight club back in the early 1980s. The thing that made it "active" was a concentration of ultralights at one airfield. Although they were all single seaters, people would come out on a calm night, spend some time flying and then socialize together.

The airfield got sold to a developer and the club got scattered to several airports. The club has not been the same since. From that experience, I realized that key to this concept is having a concentration of trainers.

Harley has been hugely successful with their H.O.G. organization. They created a social organization around motorcycling.

BTW, the lack of a social structure is what the AOPA study found to be [to their surprise] one of the main reasons GA flight training has an 80% dropout rate. Generally people knew the cost before starting but found it a very "socially lonely" activity. There wasn't enough contact with peers that were also training.

martymayes
08-14-2012, 07:07 PM
BTW, the lack of a social structure is what the AOPA study found to be [to their surprise] one of the main reasons GA flight training has an 80% dropout rate. Generally people knew the cost before starting but found it a very "socially lonely" activity. There wasn't enough contact with peers that were also training.

It's even worse than in the past because if you go to an airport today you have to negotiate padlocked gates, key cards, electrified fences with razor ribbon, turnstiles and tazers just to get in the airport. If you go just to socialize probably end up on a TSA watch list somewhere. None of that says "wecome." I can't imagine having a charcoal grill on a deck next to a hangar like we had back in the '70's/'80's at an aero club where we could hang out, grill, watch and critique landings. And folks think the internet is harsh, lol, should have heard some of those critiques.



I do have a question about ultralights Buzz, is the ultralight activity readily insurable? Can you get liability insurance? Can you get "hull" coverage on your vehicle? Can you get insurance for an ultralight airport operation? Just curious if insurance is readily available for those operations?

Buzz
08-14-2012, 08:06 PM
I do have a question about ultralights Buzz, is the ultralight activity readily insurable? Can you get liability insurance? Can you get "hull" coverage on your vehicle? Can you get insurance for an ultralight airport operation? Just curious if insurance is readily available for those operations?
It seems to me that ultralight insurance has come and gone over the years. I think the main demand for it has been by 3rd party requirements. [I.e. as a way to put a hurdle up for ultralights, they were required to have insurance in order to operate at some airports.]

As for hull insurance, I've never explored it for any of the ultralights I've owned over the years. I think it would be hard to get for anything without an "N" number. Fortunately, we don't need an A&P to fix something if we bend it. So there may not be a huge demand for hull insurance on an ultralight.

As for the availability of insurance for an ultralight operation. It would probably come from the same source that insures other action sports like the parasailing operations, hang gliding training ops, etc.

[I've been around ultralights for a long time and I've never know any owner that bought the insurance the periods when it was on the market.]

martymayes
08-15-2012, 12:12 PM
Buzz, I like your idea and give you credit for progressive thinking. However, without being able to at least partially shield participants from strict liability, it will be a tough sell.

steveinindy
08-15-2012, 08:45 PM
BTW, the lack of a social structure is what the AOPA study found to be [to their surprise] one of the main reasons GA flight training has an 80% dropout rate. Generally people knew the cost before starting but found it a very "socially lonely" activity. There wasn't enough contact with peers that were also training.

I must be even more odd than I thought because I always felt that flying is often too much of a social activity. Despite Marty's dire assessment of the average airport, I have yet to see one even close to that that was not a military installation. Most of them are much more like the "70's/80's at an aero club" scenario than the overbearing big brother option. Granted, I don't see that many people just bumming around (two or three in a group on most cases) but the security is lax at best.

Buzz
08-16-2012, 07:18 AM
Buzz, I like your idea and give you credit for progressive thinking. However, without being able to at least partially shield participants from strict liability, it will be a tough sell.I floated the idea out here to figure out where all the worms are in the apple. On any idea, the originator tends to look at all the pros and miss a lot of the cons.

There certainly are other activities like this that have the same liability issues. On a local lake they rent out jet skis. The average participant probably gives little thought to their potential personal liability. The AOPA sells renters insurance but, again, I don't know a lot of aircraft renters that have their own renters insurance.

So it's hard to predict whether not being able to shield participants from strict liability would affect the growth of the concept.

These are all the unknowns.

taylorcraftbc65
08-16-2012, 08:48 AM
It's even worse than in the past because if you go to an airport today you have to negotiate padlocked gates, key cards, electrified fences with razor ribbon, turnstiles and tazers just to get in the airport. If you go just to socialize probably end up on a TSA watch list somewhere. None of that says "wecome." I can't imagine having a charcoal grill on a deck next to a hangar like we had back in the '70's/'80's at an aero club where we could hang out, grill, watch and critique landings. And folks think the internet is harsh, lol, should have heard some of those critiques.



I do have a question about ultralights Buzz, is the ultralight activity readily insurable? Can you get liability insurance? Can you get "hull" coverage on your vehicle? Can you get insurance for an ultralight airport operation? Just curious if insurance is readily available for those operations?

Marty, My Sweetie Pie and I moved to Texas from Arizona in 2003, and did the owner of T-27 in the El Paso area a favor, by giving him a rest, and running the Airport for six months. There were NO locked gates, actually there were, and STILL are NO gates at the Airport. There is NO Razor wire on the small amount of fencing that IS there, and no one has ever tried to blow up any buildings with Cessna 152's or ultralights launched from there. This is no "Ultralight Flightpark, either, it is an uncontrolled, unicom only 7,000 foot lighted, paved airstrip. There are pilot's, both with aircraft hangered there, and visiting pilot's, as well as people who just want to "dream about flying", in and out of there off and on throughout the day, any day of the week. I guess if you are a Jet reliever for a major hub, and have several Hawkers, and Lears hangered, your security measures go up exponentially, but for an airport without a tower, who's "Claim to fame" is a single Aero Commander, everyone can still be very friendly, and continue to hold the monthly "Young Eagles" events.
Oh yes, and the BBQ's are occaisionally pulled out beside the hangers there, as well, I guess it's all just a part of far West Texas Hospitality. "Y'all come back real soon now, Y'a hea'ah".
Brie

iflyamphib
08-17-2012, 06:39 AM
Personally I prefer more analog panels. That said, as a kit distributor working the booths at the shows, the customers coming into the booth 'demand' glass panels. If we don't provide what the customer wants (or 'think' they want), they will go to another aircraft that WILL provide that product.


I think current LSA manufacturers are too concerned with stuffing as many glass displays into their panels to worry about the actual intent of the new LSA class.

steveinindy
08-17-2012, 08:16 AM
Personally I prefer more analog panels. That said, as a kit distributor working the booths at the shows, the customers coming into the booth 'demand' glass panels. If we don't provide what the customer wants (or 'think' they want), they will go to another aircraft that WILL provide that product.

Exactly. I'm noticed the same thing although on an LSA, I see very little point to the inclusion of a glass panel but then again with a kit the assembler can always install whatever they want.

Flyfalcons
08-17-2012, 04:41 PM
My post was more of a metaphor of the LSA industry gravitating more toward highish-end, expensive aircraft, instead of keeping the focus on affordability. The goal of the LSA aircraft category was to be able to purchase a new, built flying machine for the cost of a high end automobile (not a supercar). Instead the selection of $100K+ aircraft, that are still limited by LSA rules, is endless. What a joke it has become.

steveinindy
08-17-2012, 09:22 PM
The goal of the LSA aircraft category was to be able to purchase a new, built flying machine for the cost of a high end automobile (not a supercar).

At least that's what we have deluded ourselves into believing. I'm not sure if I believe that was the primary reason behind it.

martymayes
08-18-2012, 05:34 AM
Personally I prefer more analog panels. That said, as a kit distributor working the booths at the shows, the customers coming into the booth 'demand' glass panels. If we don't provide what the customer wants (or 'think' they want), they will go to another aircraft that WILL provide that product.

Does anyone on the supply side have access to a cost analysis of glass vs conventional instruments? I think when you consider the big picture, glass is the way to go.

steveinindy
08-18-2012, 06:40 AM
Does anyone on the supply side have access to a cost analysis of glass vs conventional instruments? I think when you consider the big picture, glass is the way to go.

At least for the Vireo (the design I am building), the cost of the glass cockpit was only two-thirds of that the "steam gauge" option for just the average VFR setup. Also, it is a lot lighter (by a couple of pounds).

taylorcraftbc65
08-18-2012, 10:01 AM
My post was more of a metaphor of the LSA industry gravitating more toward highish-end, expensive aircraft, instead of keeping the focus on affordability. The goal of the LSA aircraft category was to be able to purchase a new, built flying machine for the cost of a high end automobile (not a supercar). Instead the selection of $100K+ aircraft, that are still limited by LSA rules, is endless. What a joke it has become.

You know, this is PRECISELY where the "market", (that's us), can dictate how many of which type of aircraft are built. There is going to by a group of pilots who want the latest plastic whizz-bang, glass decked uber priced LSA's built somewhere in China, and then there are going to be a bunch of pilots that wouldn't want that type of aircraft, even if they COULD afford it, who for less than the price of an ECONOMY CAR, build a Kit, buy used from the family of a recently departed pilot, or, (probably the most inexpensive route), build from plans. I have a plans built "Old School" ultralight that cost me a tick less than three thousand dollars to build and put into the sky, and I dare say that there are a great many more of THAT type of plane flying the skies of this Country than LSA. or GA. You don't have to spend your money on some outrageously priced product that wasn't even built in this Country, when you can spend a hell of a lot less money, and give an American a job.

Bill
08-18-2012, 11:57 AM
... I dare say that there are a great many more of THAT type of plane flying the skies of this Country than LSA. or GA.

Where are they? I live in an area with a population of over 1 million and I haven't seen an ultralight actually flying for at least the last year. Several years ago, there was one that made occasional evening flights. In the same time, I've seen thousands of GA and LSA aircraft flying.

At Oshkosh, through I've never counted carefully, there are 100's of GA aircraft for every ultralight.

Eric Page
08-18-2012, 12:03 PM
Comparing analog and glass on price alone isn't very meaningful, given their vastly different capabilities. Analog can provide the basics (altitude, airspeed, engine gauges, etc.) quite easily, but has no answer for digital flight planning, moving map, GPS RNAV, visual and aural alerts, electronic checklists, and so on.

I guess it comes down to an assessment of your mission requirements or simply your desires. If you're happy with stick, throttle and airspeed, then an analog panel makes sense. If you want the additional (and in my view, compelling) capabilities offered by glass, then you better get good at crimping D-SUB pins.

Bill Berson
08-18-2012, 01:38 PM
You know, this is PRECISELY where the "market", (that's us), can dictate how many of which type of aircraft are built. There is going to by a group of pilots who want the latest plastic whizz-bang, glass decked uber priced LSA's built somewhere in China, and then there are going to be a bunch of pilots that wouldn't want that type of aircraft, even if they COULD afford it, who for less than the price of an ECONOMY CAR, build a Kit, buy used from the family of a recently departed pilot, or, (probably the most inexpensive route), build from plans. I have a plans built "Old School" ultralight that cost me a tick less than three thousand dollars to build and put into the sky, and I dare say that there are a great many more of THAT type of plane flying the skies of this Country than LSA. or GA. You don't have to spend your money on some outrageously priced product that wasn't even built in this Country, when you can spend a hell of a lot less money, and give an American a job.

I like this.

When they build and sell a complete "hand held instrument panel", maybe then I will convert to glass panel. Something for $500 that can kept dry at home.

Flyfalcons
08-18-2012, 04:19 PM
I have a plans built "Old School" ultralight that cost me a tick less than three thousand dollars to build and put into the sky, and I dare say that there are a great many more of THAT type of plane flying the skies of this Country than LSA. or GA.

No there aren't.

malexander
08-18-2012, 07:41 PM
I like this.

When they build and sell a complete "hand held instrument panel", maybe then I will convert to glass panel. Something for $500 that can kept dry at home.


Count me in on this too.

Flyfalcons
08-18-2012, 08:42 PM
Well here you go then. Not $500 but not very expensive.

http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/D1_intro.html

2383

taylorcraftbc65
08-19-2012, 06:14 AM
Where are they? I live in an area with a population of over 1 million and I haven't seen an ultralight actually flying for at least the last year. Several years ago, there was one that made occasional evening flights. In the same time, I've seen thousands of GA and LSA aircraft flying.

At Oshkosh, through I've never counted carefully, there are 100's of GA aircraft for every ultralight.

Within 20 miles of me, there are forty one that I know of, not counting my five. Why don't you see them at Oskosh? Because the overwhelming number DON'T trust the Government, and Hate / Fear the FAA, so they won't come anywhere NEAR an Air Show. The year that the director of the FAA came to give his little speech at Sun-N-Fun, there were about forty Ultralights in attendance, while at the Ultralight flightpark about twenty miles west of my private strip, there were over SIXTY tied down, with their owners making the short drive to Lindner Regional Airport, rather than being willing to run the risk of getting a 10,000 dollar fine per infraction, PLUS losing their Heavy, Fast, ultralight. In addition to THAT flightpark, I knew of three others within fifty miles of Lakeland, I knew most of the pilots at THOSE airparks, and while THEY were there, their ultralights were NOT. That does not count the twelve people that had 20 acre homesites in rural Polk County, who, like me, had their own private strips.
Yesterday, we had one of our once a month Fly-in cookouts here at our place, in the least populated county in the State of Texas, our population density is about on person per every four miles, this is BEEF COUNTRY. THIRTY SEVEN ultralights flew in for my "killer" Mesquite cooked sirloin Tip steaks, with spot landing, bomb drop, and torpedo run contests after the meal. One of the biggest reasons that you probably didn't see any ultralights, is that they are NOT allowed in controlled airspace. Is there an ARSA or TRSA within sixty miles of your place? They can't fly there. They also can't fly over "gatherings of people" so forget about flying over the suburbs. MOST of the people that own and fly these things live in RURAL America, and have VERY little trust for the Federal Government, so they tend to STAY in uncontrolled airspace. We are out here, and there are THOUSANDS of us. Next weekend, I will be at a fellow pilots ranch strip about sixty miles away, enjoying HIS BBQ'd Chicken, along with the pilots that were at my place yesterday,
Sabrina

taylorcraftbc65
08-19-2012, 06:30 AM
By the way folks, if you notice my screen name, you should notice that I own a 1940 Taylorcraft BC-65. I am not an ultralight only pilot, but then my no electrical system, built in the United States, Classic LSA that I love wowing the folks at Airports by one hand propping the A-65 only makes it to small municipal airports, I guess I just don't like crowds.
Brie2384

taylorcraftbc65
08-19-2012, 06:44 AM
Monetary case in point. I have a TOTAL of 2,200 dollars in this plane to build it, and in the 14 years that I have owned it, I have spent a TOTAL of about 900 in maintenance on it, and it flies just fine. NO FAA inspectors looking over my shoulder, NO mandatory AD's, no BFR's, that sort of thing. I would rather fly one of my ultralights, or classic American built LSA than ANY plastic plane built in China.2385

Flyfalcons
08-19-2012, 09:14 AM
We are out here, and there are THOUSANDS of us.

That's fantastic. More than 43,000 Cessna 172s alone have been built.

Bill Berson
08-19-2012, 10:00 AM
I love Brie's enthusiasm. Just to clarify the rules- legal ultralights CAN enter controlled airspace. Ultralights can fly over sparsely populated areas. Ultralights can even land at a towered airport, with permission. Amazingly, ultralights have NO altitude restrictions or distance from houses or people (no 500 foot rule).
Of course, these rules apply to LEGAL ultralights. I suppose non-compliant "ultralights" normally avoid controlled or populated areas, as mentioned.

$1425 for the portable Dynon... getting closer to my price.

taylorcraftbc65
08-19-2012, 11:46 AM
The rules say that we CAN land at tower controlled Airports with permission, true, but there are MANY airports in this country, two that I PERSONALLY know of in Arizona, that when you contact the tower on your handheld, and you are in an Ultralight, you are Always told that the pattern is full, (Goodyear LOVES to use THAT one, even when there is ONLY one aircraft in the pattern). That was no big deal, Glendale WELCOMED ultralights, and they had a really good place to eat.
In all fairness though, There ARE a fair number of airports that WILL allow ultralights in the pattern, and a TON of non-towered, unicom only airports, Horizon, on the south east edge of El Paso, and Fabens, in Fabens, Texas, where they will roll out the welcome mat for visiting Ultralight pilots who act like pilots in the pattern.
The "non compliant" Ultralights, are, in my experience, usually 20 to 30 pounds heavy because they have beefed up airframes, and sometimes 10 to 15 MPH too fast. In violation of the letter of the law, yes, but no one is trying to sneak an RV-3 in as an ultralight, these mods are mostly to make the planes safer on 80 to 100 mile cross country flights.
The Weedhopper IS absolutely legal, though not stock, I took the original engine off, and replaced it with a Kawasaki 440, that I believe is the most reliable two stroke available, though they are getting harder to find.

This is a shot of me on rollout in my slightly heavy, slightly fast Spitfire clone, (total cost, 3,000 dollars).
2386

Bill
08-19-2012, 11:48 AM
That's fantastic. More than 43,000 Cessna 172s alone have been built.

As of 2010, there were 176 thousand GA aircraft registered in the U.S. Of those, 155 thousand were piston-engine powered and 139 thousand were single-engine aircraft. I don't see much in the way of ultralights compared to the multitudes of GA aircraft in my rural, unencumbered by restricted airspace of any type, skies because there aren't very many of them in comparison.

Eric Page
08-19-2012, 01:16 PM
...Glendale [...] had a really good place to eat.
Still does. I had lunch at Left Seat West about two weeks ago with a pilot friend. Sadly, their lease at the East location (N side of KPHX, on Air Lane) wasn't renewed and that location is now closed. Good news is that all the pictures and models from KPHX were moved to KGEU, so the place is packed with cool stuff to look at!

steveinindy
08-19-2012, 04:46 PM
i would rather fly one of my ultralights, or classic american built lsa than any plastic plane built in china.

"usa! Usa! Usa! Usa!"

;)

Sam Buchanan
08-19-2012, 07:14 PM
One of the biggest reasons that you probably didn't see any ultralights, is that they are NOT allowed in controlled airspace. Is there an ARSA or TRSA within sixty miles of your place? They can't fly there. They also can't fly over "gatherings of people" so forget about flying over the suburbs. MOST of the people that own and fly these things live in RURAL America, and have VERY little trust for the Federal Government, so they tend to STAY in uncontrolled airspace.

Some points for clarification:

Man....you have really dated yourself with the ARSA and TRSA stuff, those things disappeared nearly twenty years ago (might be a couple of TRSA's still around somewhere). These were replaced by Class B and C airspace. We currently fly our ULs in class G airspace (uncontrolled) which allows us into any non-towered public airport that doesn't have a control zone. This means we can fly at hundreds of non-towered airports even if they lie under the outside zones of class C. Airports under Class E can be accessed with permission.

Not sure where the 60 miles reference came from, Class B has a 30 mile Mode C veil, but I can legally fly my Legal Eagle within five miles of the Class C airport that is seven miles away from my un-towered airport. I just need to stay below 700' AGL within the magenta shading around my airport and below 1200' AGL everywhere else. Fortunately my part of the world still has a lot of farm land that allows me to fly pretty much at will even though close to the Class C airport. But the community college adjacent to the airport is off limits. :)

The most important thing is for us to be good neighbors regardless of where we fly, particularly if flying from a public use airport populated with "real" airplanes. The GA population doesn't have a very high regard for us so we are in a bubble. Fortunately, I've had no issues so far, maybe because my fellow pilots recognize I fly by accepted GA protocol, use a radio, and give way to GA traffic. ULs can coexist with larger aircraft, but the burden of responsibility is on us.

taylorcraftbc65
08-19-2012, 09:29 PM
I had all that stuff in my head from when I first started flying ultralights in the mid Eighties, (back then, we couldn't fly over out door gatherings of people, the 60 mile veil was me hitting the wrong key when typing faster than I should. I fly my non electric Taylorcraft as if it WERE an Ultralight, even though I can go a few places that ultralights can't. Speaking about "under the veil", back in 1987, I flew my Spitfire ultralight from Lantana Airport, in Florada, to West End Airport on G.B.I.. I had to guesstimate when I was five miles east of the Florida coast before I climbed through a certain altitude, I forget how high Ft Lauterdale Exec's floor was now, and I don't have an old sectional handy. I D.R'd the whole thing, with nothing but a stopwatch, and a lensatic Compass trapped onto the stick with my right thumb. Estimated my drift angle by my track over the Sport fishing boats headed east, I hit the west end of G.B.I, about four miles north of the center line for runway 11. When the line boy at Lantana saw me put the five gallons into my red five gallon can, shake it up to mix the oil, he asked me where I wanted the flowers sent, After telling him that the people at Miami asked the same thing when I called and asked for winds aloft from one to three thousand,between Lantana and West End, and they found out that I was going to do it in an Ultralight, I also told him, "I will be back in a week with the Most Daring Pilot Trophy", for the 2nd Annual Bahamian National Airshow, and I WAS, I beat Bob Sears with his black and gold Pitts, just by flying there. You should have seen the look on their faces, when I showed them the trophy that now keeps the others company in my Living Room. "Barnstormer" Brie

steveinindy
08-19-2012, 09:51 PM
I've had no issues so far, maybe because my fellow pilots recognize I fly by accepted GA protocol, use a radio, and give way to GA traffic.

As a former UL pilot, I find that the point about radios is probably the biggest complaint (and often the most valid one) that "regular GA" has about UL pilots. Given the inexpensive nature of handheld radios, there's no excuse for someone to be operating "no radio" in this day and age. I think a lot of the people who insist on doing so are choosing that tact simply out of spite or some short-sighted "don't tread on me" crap. Probably 95% of our problems are caused by 5% of ultralight pilots- mostly the smug arrogant jerkwad variety combined with the "too stupid to live very long" version.


I flew my Spitfire ultralight from Lantana Airport, in Florida, to West End Airport on G.B.I..

So how does that brass pair affect your weight and balance? ;)

taylorcraftbc65
08-19-2012, 10:31 PM
As a former UL pilot, I find that the point about radios is probably the biggest complaint (and often the most valid one) that "regular GA" has about UL pilots. Given the inexpensive nature of handheld radios, there's no excuse for someone to be operating "no radio" in this day and age. I think a lot of the people who insist on doing so are choosing that tact simply out of spite or some short-sighted "don't tread on me" crap. Probably 95% of our problems are caused by 5% of ultralight pilots- mostly the smug arrogant jerkwad variety combined with the "too stupid to live very long" version.



So how does that brass pair affect your weight and balance? ;)

I don't know how anyone could fly that way and be able to look at themselves in the morning. There is a certain thing called "Professionalism", and even if you are a lowly Weedhopper pilot, you are STILL a PILOT, and as such, you should have enough pride in your "craft" that you would want to exhibit the professional pride as the Hawker 125 pilot. THAT would mean getting an inexpensive handheld, it doesn't need VOR capability, learning how to use it, and then DOING SO.

As far as your second statement, Their weight is figured into the weight and balance, and offset by the location of the motorcycle battery that runs my strobes, and STS Handheld radio. Brie

steveinindy
08-20-2012, 06:09 AM
I don't know how anyone could fly that way and be able to look at themselves in the morning. There is a certain thing called "Professionalism", and even if you are a lowly Weedhopper pilot, you are STILL a PILOT, and as such, you should have enough pride in your "craft" that you would want to exhibit the professional pride as the Hawker 125 pilot. THAT would mean getting an inexpensive handheld, it doesn't need VOR capability, learning how to use it, and then DOING SO.

To answer that, I'll have to mention an article written about ultralight crashes. The researcher went so far as to describe the ultralight corner of the hobby as "“wanting all the thrills of flying with none of the hard work, training, and maturity required to become a professional or military pilot” (Copeland AR. Ultralight aircraft fatalities: report of five cases. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 1987;8:296-8.). It might be harsh but given some of the antics I've witnessed first hand over the years (low altitude intentional stalls, “buzzing” houses and other structures, informal contests to demonstrate who could operate their aircraft into and out of the shortest field or the one with the most obstructed approach (basically trying to see who can come the closest to stalling without actually doing so during climbout or approach), et cetera), I can't say Copeland's attitude is not grounded in some kernel of truth.

In other words, some people treat it like an aerial dirt bike: all the "YEEE-HAW!!!!" and none of the concerns involved with a "real" motorcycle or airplane.

taylorcraftbc65
08-20-2012, 07:49 AM
I agree 100 percent Steve, those people need to get a proper attitude about the "face" that they are giving ultralight pilots.
Brie

martymayes
08-20-2012, 11:30 AM
No offense but buying a handheld radio does not make one a professional. Kinda hard to play the professionalism card after posting such comments as:
'the weight of my ultralight is slighty heavier than the rules allow' and
'my ultralight is slightly faster than the rules allow'

In those examples you have aready established what you are, the rest is just haggling over the price. None of that is representative of professional behavior.

Oh, BTW, I know pilots that fly NORDO aircraft that are 100x more "professional" than the majority of pilots holding an airman certifcate.

Buzz
08-20-2012, 12:30 PM
re: Radio use. Unfortunately, learning to use the radio is one of the most intimidating steps for many during GA training. So I suspect intimidation rather than being "cheap" is what keeps many ultralight pilots from using one.

That said, my experience is that radio use goes a long way toward an ultralight pilot being treated as "peer" by GA pilots. It's like using a blinker on the highway. It's a lot easier to operate around someone that is communicating their intentions.

taylorcraftbc65
08-20-2012, 12:45 PM
No offense but buying a handheld radio does not make one a professional. Kinda hard to play the professionalism card after posting such comments as:
'the weight of my ultralight is slighty heavier than the rules allow' and
'my ultralight is slightly faster than the rules allow'

In those examples you have aready established what you are, the rest is just haggling over the price. None of that is representative of professional behavior.

Oh, BTW, I know pilots that fly NORDO aircraft that are 100x more "professional" than the majority of pilots holding an airman certifcate.

Think that YOU can D.R. an ultralight with NO chase planes, NO chase boats, A lensatic compass, which if got get too far from straight and level you "lock" the card, at only 2000 feet MSL after spending hours flying from Gilbert Field in Winterhaven and because of the low cruise altitude to take best advantage of the quartering tail wind, (I believe it was 260 at 9 at that altitude with a wind change at a bit above 3000 MSL), I could not see the island till I was only about six or eight miles out, and hit runway centerline as close as I did? THEN there was the time that I was in an SGS 1-26D soaring the ridgelift on Ka'Ala Ridge by Dillingham Airport at about 7000 MSL, A sudden Squall built almost on top of me, turning the view in the cockpit from sunny, to diffuse light, to grey, to BLACK in UNDER two minutes. As it built, I was sucked up into the cloud at a rate that pinned the vario. Right about THIS point is when a LOT of people that YOU call "Professionals" , a term that you will not even grant me on the LOOSEST of terms, Panic. I just realized that for me to try the nose down, full speed brakes and spoilers game, would only Immediately put me straight through VNE, and tear the wings off, so I looked WHERE the ridge was in relation to the aircraft, glanced at the panel, took a quick glance where the ridge was again, and looked at the horizon for a split second to acquire a 3D picture of my location in the sky, and put my head in the instruments, trusting NOTHING but what I SAW. (So how many of the "Professionals" , by your definition, get vertigo not trusting their instruments)?? I knew how close I was to the ridge, and where it was. I knew where the ocean was, I did NOT try to "fight" my rate of accent, I pointed the nose of the aircraft to the sea, and kept my IAS 25 below VNE. Before long at all, the T-head spit me out RIGHTSIDE UP, BELOW VNE, NOT in a spin, at 15,800 feet. (I had entered the cloud at about 9,000 feet). I just put about eight miles between me and the still building cloud, while loosing altitude as quickly as was safe due to the Hypoxia danger. Once clear of the probability of CAT, I arrested my decent at 12,500, and paralleled the coast to to the point, turned 180 and flew a long final to Dillingham, parked the aircraft like nothing odd had happened, and we all had a laugh about it. It turns out that five people saw me enter the cloud, and the general consensus was that I was in the cloud for two minutes. I have been flying since I learned how in a 7AC over the Virginia farmlands in 1964. I have had my share of "interesting" things happen in 48 years, but NEVER ONCE even scratched the paint. WHY don't I panic when things get "Interesting"? In the presence of Skill and Discipline, panic vanishes.
I have tricks up my sleeve, and in my pocket that a lot of you ultralight haters are not even aware of. If you would take your exclusiveness down a notch or two, one or two of us flying SLIGHTLY heavy and fast ultralights just might share one or two of them with you. Brie

Dan Grunloh
08-20-2012, 01:19 PM
As a former UL pilot, I find that the point about radios is probably the biggest complaint (and often the most valid one) that "regular GA" has about UL pilots. Given the inexpensive nature of handheld radios, there's no excuse for someone to be operating "no radio" in this day and age. I think a lot of the people who insist on doing so are choosing that tact simply out of spite or some short-sighted "don't tread on me" crap. Probably 95% of our problems are caused by 5% of ultralight pilots- mostly the smug arrogant jerkwad variety combined with the "too stupid to live very long" version.
So how does that brass pair affect your weight and balance? ;)

I have been to a few "backwater" strips where UL pilots do not use radios but here in Illinois it is rare (for me anyway in 2012) to find a "UL" pilot who does not have a radio. In my circle of about 15 aircraft (about half have N-numbers) there are only a couple that are radioless and they mostly don't go anywhere. One of them is a GA pilot who thinks he doesn't need one since it's an ultralight). Besides having a way to talk to friends, the radio, and proper pattern usage do more to gain acceptance at uncontrolled airports than anything else. I started flying a UL trike into GA airports 14 years ago. In some case they had never even seen a trike before, but the radio and pattern flying made me welcome.

steveinindy
08-20-2012, 01:31 PM
In my circle of about 15 aircraft (about half have N-numbers) there are only a couple that are radioless and they mostly don't go anywhere. One of them is a GA pilot who thinks he doesn't need one since it's an ultralight).

Yeah, we had a couple of those in my circle of planes. Towards the time I got away from flying ultralights, the majority of folks were using radios. Like I said, it's a handful of jerks who screw it up for the rest of us.

Dana
08-23-2012, 11:07 AM
No offense but buying a handheld radio does not make one a professional. Kinda hard to play the professionalism card after posting such comments as:
'the weight of my ultralight is slighty heavier than the rules allow' and
'my ultralight is slightly faster than the rules allow'

In those examples you have aready established what you are, the rest is just haggling over the price. None of that is representative of professional behavior.

I don't think it has anything to do with it. Flying an overweight or fast ultralight doesn't indicate a lack of "professionalism", but it may indicate a pilot who recognizes that safety (and professionalism!) doesn't come from blind compliance with outdated regulations.


...We currently fly our ULs in class G airspace (uncontrolled) which allows us into any non-towered public airport that doesn't have a control zone. This means we can fly at hundreds of non-towered airports even if they lie under the outside zones of class C. Airports under Class E can be accessed with permission.

Not sure where the 60 miles reference came from, Class B has a 30 mile Mode C veil, but I can legally fly my Legal Eagle within five miles of the Class C airport that is seven miles away from my un-towered airport. I just need to stay below 700' AGL within the magenta shading around my airport and below 1200' AGL everywhere else.

Ultralights are not required to stay in class G below 700 or 1200'. You can fly in any class E airspace other than "class E designated for an airport" (surface class E). That lets you fly all the way up to 17,999'. You can fly into surface class E or class D (former "control zone" for towered fields) with prior permission, and in theory, at least, you can even enter class C or B airspace (again with prior permission, though you have a good chance of being denied if they're at all busy).

Bill Berson
08-23-2012, 01:23 PM
I am happy to see your comments here Dana.
It is unfortunate that the people that set rules and policy (EAA and FAA) do not have your experience and background.

Eric Page
08-23-2012, 01:35 PM
Flying an overweight or fast ultralight doesn't indicate a lack of "professionalism", but it may indicate a pilot who recognizes that safety (and professionalism!) doesn't come from blind compliance with outdated regulations.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that if one disagrees with the law, one is free to ignore it.

Sure, Part 103 has been around awhile now, but I disagree that it's outdated. If anything, it has become more relevant and more usable. Two examples:

Materials science has advanced since Part 103 was originally published, giving us lighter, stronger materials with which to build. For example, the Belite Aircraft Superlite, with its extensive use of carbon fiber, is Part 103 legal with a 50hp(!) Hirth F23.
FAA allows generous weight allowances for installation of ballistic recovery parachutes or floats. Many builders/owners use these allowances to install lightweight chutes or floats, and have weight left over for additional gear.
Bottom line, there's no justifiable reason to fly an overweight ultralight. Those who do are asking for a civil penalty from FAA, and if they happen to be a licensed pilot, certificate action. Accident investigations that reveal an overweight vehicle will be trumpeted by the aviation-ignorant press, and a history of non-compliance in the ultralight community will result in FAA rulemaking that none of us will be happy with (witness our loss of the two-seat training exemption, which was routinely abused).

taylorcraftbc65
08-23-2012, 02:02 PM
Living in Phoenix Eric, you know what the terrain looks like between Phoenix and just east of Salton Sea, or between Phoenix and the Pecos River, how desolate, it is, and what chance an ultralight pilot would have at being found if they had to put the plane down out there, even without even scratching the fabric. I have flown over a VERY good part of that area, and a lot of it looks like I am flying over a Martian landscape for hours. The probability of extreme CAT is not just limited to daylight hours, so if it can exist as strongly as it does at night, imagine if you will people that don't live where he and I live what it can be like during legal ultralight flying hours. It can be strong enough to tear struts light enough to be "legal weight" apart. There are enough pilots who have had two strokes fail on them that they DON'T trust them out of sight of the field, so they go with the lightest weight four strokes that they can find, but the combination of a small four stroke, and just slightly heavier struts WILL put them 20 to 30 pounds overweight, but giving them an aircraft that is MAGNITUDES SAFER than what they started with. Isn't this supposed to be about flying SAFELY?? Brie

jedi
08-23-2012, 03:45 PM
I think we need to convert them from "Young Eagle spectator" to "aviator" faster. And I think the basic ultralight designs hold that promise with a well organized youth aviating program.

My thoughts. Would be interested in what others think.

-Buzz

Short answer is YES! But there are many problems along the way not the least of which is the "airfied". Neither the local, regional, or hub airport is suitable in todays environment. None of those are an "airfield". I am referring to about 10 acres of grass in an elongated shape to allow an ultralight operation within an urban environment where the kids have access without having to drive a car to get there. I got my pilot certificate before my drivers license and I expect you did too. I grew up with 7 airfields within a 10 mile radious and learned at DTW before it was an airline hub. Only DTW and one other remains. The old business plan needs some new ideas. Got any?

Riley Winglowe
08-23-2012, 06:16 PM
Buzz, I think you hit an essential point when you said "The focus seems to be on producing license pilots when we could be producing a lot of teenage aviators." I agree with you. Introducing as many teenagers as possible to piloting using a good solid ultralight is where we should be headed. I see You Tube videos showing GROUPS of teenagers in Europe learning to fly primary gliders and being taught basic aerodynamics. I would hope we could do as well or better in this country.

martymayes
08-23-2012, 08:27 PM
I don't think it has anything to do with it. Flying an overweight or fast ultralight doesn't indicate a lack of "professionalism", but it may indicate a pilot who recognizes that safety (and professionalism!) doesn't come from blind compliance with outdated regulations.

That would be rationalization.

If one doesn't like the existing framework of regulations, why not work to change them? Wouldn't that be the professional approach?

Eric Page
08-23-2012, 10:46 PM
Brie, I wouldn't fly any plane in extreme CAT. I know you're being a little facetious, but there are conditions that are inappropriate for any aircraft. Hours of cross-country (with 5 gal of gas?) over desolate desert terrain doesn't sound like an appropriate use for an ultralight to me. If you're flying something that's made with lightweight materials, its your responsibility to choose conditions that match your aircraft's capabilities. If you can't find those conditions, then you may be asking too much of the machine. In that case, the answer isn't breaking the law by beefing it up and changing the engine, making it overweight. The answer is getting the training and equipment to match the conditions.

Anyway, we've hijacked Buzz's thread and I doubt we'll convert one another! Back to figuring out how to get more kids in the air.

steveinindy
08-24-2012, 05:41 AM
That would be rationalization.

If one doesn't like the existing framework of regulations, why not work to change them? Wouldn't that be the professional approach?

Thank you Marty. You took the words out of my mouth. However, I will point out that Dana does have a point (that professionalism is more than blind following of regulations) but that the way most people who thumb their nose at the regulations is extremely unprofessional, namely insofar as the "I'm immune to the laws of physics/too good of a pilot" crap is concerned.

Ken Finney
08-24-2012, 11:13 AM
I used to be one of those "let's update the regulations!" people, but it was explained to me in no uncertain terms that this is the LAST thing we want to happen. If they start updating Part 103, there is NO WAY IN HELL that we will end up with anything as flexible as we have now. ULs occupy a very real "sweet spot" in aviation, and any changes are going to move us out of that spot. I do consider the 254 lb limit to be a challenge, and seeing what Belite et al have done, wonder how hard some others have tried to meet the challenge, versus just ignoring the limit.

martymayes
08-24-2012, 02:23 PM
I I do consider the 254 lb limit to be a challenge, and seeing what Belite et al have done, wonder how hard some others have tried to meet the challenge, versus just ignoring the limit.

I agree, technology has made it easier to design a compliant ultralight. And that's what it will take to legitimize the business -- COMPLIANCE. That's the only way Buzz's idea is going to work. Ignoring the regs and hiding from the FAA isn't a workable solution.

Buzz
08-25-2012, 09:24 AM
Buzz, I think you hit an essential point when you said "The focus seems to be on producing license pilots when we could be producing a lot of teenage aviators." I agree with you. Introducing as many teenagers as possible to piloting using a good solid ultralight is where we should be headed. I see You Tube videos showing GROUPS of teenagers in Europe learning to fly primary gliders and being taught basic aerodynamics. I would hope we could do as well or better in this country.I think Part 103 gives us an unbelievable opportunity to get teenagers actively aviating. The first time they fly an ultralight around the pattern as PIC and land it, a good many of them will be fully hooked on participating in aviation in some way or means for life. They may not all be buying Rans or Cirrus' later in life, but they'll be doing something to feed their passion.

Buzz
08-25-2012, 10:02 AM
I agree, technology has made it easier to design a compliant ultralight. And that's what it will take to legitimize the business -- COMPLIANCE. That's the only way Buzz's idea is going to work. Ignoring the regs and hiding from the FAA isn't a workable solution.
I've been tinkering with this idea since October 2010. Have actually put a lot of thought and work into it. I started this thread to really explore the scalability of the idea. I have enough local interest to get an initial group started. But I wonder where it goes from there.

As for compliance, there is no way this could ever work without it. Liability is the major hurdle to any action activity. Liability is reduced by having strict operating limitations. If one operates outside of legal operating limitations, it is "game/set/match" in any lawsuit. One might as well not even show up at the liability hearing.

I believe for this to succeed, there needs to be a series of "ratings", each with their own operating limitations. As the aviator earns higher ratings, the operating limitations become broader. [Keep in mind that, in exchange for compliance, the aviator gets membership in the organization and access to the organization's aircraft.]

The organization I've looked at modeling our rating system after is the United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association. That organization gets compliance because without their ratings, one can't get access to hang gliding launch sites. What I like about their rating system is it takes into account the light wing loading of hang gliders. Their ratings are more detailed than one would see in the heavier wing loading of a Cessna 150.

Their ratings take into account a wind component and crosswind component. In my experience, those two elements "bite" a beginning ultralight aviator the most.

-Buzz

P.S. Have already worked up a logo that encompasses the concept.

2405

Buzz
08-25-2012, 10:25 AM
[QUOTE=Ken Finney;21874 If they start updating Part 103, there is NO WAY IN HELL that we will end up with anything as flexible as we have now. ULs occupy a very real "sweet spot" in aviation, and any changes are going to move us out of that spot.[/QUOTE]Amen. As I understand it, many aviators in other places would die for the flexibility and freedom we have under Part 103.

I don't think any government agency ever works to increase access to something. They work mostly on limits. Part 103 was in response to the growing number of ultralights and accepting the reality that the desire for them wasn't going away. The FAA had to come up with some limiting guidelines. While a 254 lb machine that can only go 55mph might not fufill everyones aviating desires, it wasn't going to do a lot of damage when it hit something. And the idea that we could fly it without any mandated proficiency rating and few operating restrictions is huge.

I think the FAA has generally been very lenient towards ultralights, too. While there are those local exceptions, most take a "don't ask, don't tell" approach on the strict legality of an "ultralight". The FAA position I've heard recounted most has been "Don't fly in a way that is outside the regs and I won't hassle you on the strict legality of your machine."

I think we are lucky to have 103. I would just like to see it used by more teen aviators.

Buzz
08-25-2012, 11:15 AM
Short answer is YES! But there are many problems along the way not the least of which is the "airfied". Neither the local, regional, or hub airport is suitable in todays environment. None of those are an "airfield". I am referring to about 10 acres of grass in an elongated shape to allow an ultralight operation within an urban environment where the kids have access without having to drive a car to get there.

Jedi-
I toyed with this part of the concept for a long time. There is a shortage of hangar space in my area. Even if we could get "a" hangar space, we'd rapidly need more space.

Maybe at some point the local chapter could fundraise enough to build or buy a hangar, but what do we do in the interim?

I was reminded of what we did in the "old days". The local Quicksilver dealer initially operated out of a couple of trailers they towed to a local grass strip. That worked until the U/L club got large enough to build a building that had 8-10 "T" hangars.

Central to this idea is to have a concentration of training activity at one spot. We need to do that both for the learning element and the social element. Aviators need to compare notes to increase their learning. They also need to be able to socialize with each other.

What I have found is that, with the early basic Quicksilver MX I can put 3 machines in an ultralight trailer I have that has a tow weight when filled of less than 2500 lbs. That means it can be towed behind nearly any mini-van.

In addition to overcoming the shortage of hangar space in the area, trailering initially also gives us the freedom to train at nearly any field that could be suitable for ultralights. It doesn't necessarily need to be an airfield. [I believe the ideal operating location would be a sod farm with the right layout. I'd love to find one we could get permission to use in our area.]

As for being close to the kids for transportation purposes, I think about all the soccer moms and dads. Soccer is a sport that no teen can get to on their own. If we have an active enough club, teens will carpool with each other.

Lastly, I know there will be some comments about assembly and disassembly and what a hassle that is. Agreed.

However, there are some other factors. First, the MX is a simple machine. This is entry level training and we are not going to have a lot of bells and whistles that slow down the assembly process. Second, imagine how well the average aviator will get to know their machine when they have participated in the assembly and disassembly. This is not just about learning to aviate but learning about aviation. Lastly, most training sessions are going to be either weekend evenings or mornings. I believe many weekends we will assemble on Friday night and then not break down until Sunday night unless there is weather forecast. Entry level kids will use the machines first thing in the morning and last at night. The more experienced aviators will be using them during the day when there is more wind.

As we scale up, I believe we can continue to keep operating costs down by trailering. The trailer I have now can hold either 3 complete machines or the wings and tails for 6. With 6, the trikes can go on pontoon boat trailer we put a plywood deck on. Those cost a fraction of an enclosed trailer.

While my first desire would be to have a hangar at a perfect teaching airfield with X trainers in it, that's not going to be a reality for sometime. Initially we'll work around that and operate from trailers. The ultralight trainer design we are standardizing on [the MX] makes trailering an initial solution to finding places to operate.

-Buzz

martymayes
08-25-2012, 11:49 AM
Good stuff Buzz....

Buzz
08-25-2012, 04:53 PM
Introducing as many teenagers as possible to piloting using a good solid ultralight is where we should be headed. I see You Tube videos showing GROUPS of teenagers in Europe learning to fly primary gliders and being taught basic aerodynamics. I would hope we could do as well or better in this country.
Your emphasis on GROUPS is important. Teen years are an important socializing period. If we can make learning to fly more of a group/social activity, it increases the enjoyment. I believe it was the group or informal club aspect that contributed greatly to the initial growth of ultralights. Ultralights seemed to lend themselves better to flying with others. More than other forms of aviation.

Harley certainly learned the importance of creating a community structure with their HOG groups. By getting people to ride with others, they increased the enjoyment of the product. I think having teens learn to aviate with other teens would contribute greatly to the participation level. [Although I think there is already a demand for this type of opportunity. It just needs to be made available.]

malexander
08-26-2012, 06:41 AM
[QUOTE=Buzz;21917]

Harley certainly learned the importance of creating a community structure with their HOG groups.


Don't forget about GWRRA.
I'm sure liking this whole idea. As I read all this, I keep thinking about all the "out of the way" small municipal airports that would be easily accessible. Lots of small towns, at least here in Oklahoma, don't have much, if any, activity at all on the weekends.

Buzz
08-26-2012, 09:51 AM
[I am hoping this post will not be a duplicate. I believe I locked up when I did this post a couple minutes ago.]

A couple additional thoughts.

The organization would be a training club and not a flying club. The goal is to create as many new aviators as possible. It's goal is not to provide ultralights to rent for teenagers once they are trained aviators. Consequently, every use of the aircraft would be to train on a particular aviation skill. The flight would be pre-planned with the instructor and then flown by the Aviator. Every flight would be working towards the next rating level in the organization. By design, this would be an "up and out" organization. [While not a flying club, the existence of this organization would either expand existing ultralight clubs or create new ones. That would be the natural by-product of an expanding population of trained ultralight aviators.]

Anyone that has done GA training knows that a lot of the training is done solo once the student has soloed. The majority of this training would be done solo as the intent would be to transition to an ultralight as soon as possible.

Which poses the question, “How does one train effectively when most flying is solo?”

The real problem with solo flying away from the airport is the lack of instructor observation and feedback.

This would be solved by collecting digital data on each flight. Each aircraft would be equipped with a GPS datalogger [$30 on Amazon] and a GoPro video camera.

The instructor would review the flight and provide feedback using the GPS track on Google Earth and the video. The GPS track shows where the aircraft flew and the video would show the control inputs. E.g. the GPS track would show if they were always within gliding distance of a safe landing area. Video would show if they are scanning the sky enough, etc.

The Aviators GPS track and video would then be entered into a digital logbook software that was written in Europe for gliding that generates the logbook statistics off the GPS track. [Aviators can also have their own digital logbook. About $35.]

In addition to instructor feedback, the digital data would serve other purposes:

Risk Management A risk in aviation training is a pilot flying beyond their skill level. They often don’t get hurt the first time they do it but on the 10th time. Being able to closely monitor their flying when away from direct instructor observation, this can be prevented.

Liability reduction Liability is greatly reduced when there are strict operating guidelines and there is a way of documenting someone was outside those guidelines. I believe if the ratings scale is gradual enough and there are strict operating guidelines for each rating, this training can be done safely. If a student were to get hurt, there would be clear documentation whether they were operating within or outside the stated guidelines.

Public relations There is no documentation of the safety record of ultralights. So when someone says “they are unsafe”, there is no data to refute that claim. This organization would have digital documentation of it’s operation. There would be no question on it’s safety record. I think teens would naturally be sharing their videos with the parents simply as a matter of pride. It would also give the parent a lot of confidence about the training process and make that parent an advocate to other parents about the high level of monitoring and attention to safety.

Organizational growth Aviators will post some of their training videos on YouTube and Facebook. This is going to get the interest of their peers. Once that happens, the interest in the organization may grow rapidly. Flying is not an activity that has been previously available to teens.

Although the most important use of the digital data is for instructors being able to monitor and give feedback on the Aviator's flying, these are the other advantages of the organization collecting that digital data. It also may seem like a lot of overkill to some, but the scalability of an organization like this depends on maintaining a really tight control over safety. It's the "Hang Rating" system, the operating limitations contained in them and how they have been used to limit access to flying sites to only qualified pilots that has allowed hang gliding to grow and prevent a couple of bad flyers to close down sites for others. It's a rating system and tight adherence to operating limitations by monitoring the use of the aircraft that would allow this organization to grow.

I'll post some images of the things I've mentioned.

-Buzz
241024112412

steveinindy
08-26-2012, 10:35 PM
There is no documentation of the safety record of ultralights. So when someone says “they are unsafe”, there is no data to refute that claim. This organization would have digital documentation of it’s operation. There would be no question on it’s safety record. I think teens would naturally be sharing their videos with the parents simply as a matter of pride. It would also give the parent a lot of confidence about the training process and make that parent an advocate to other parents about the high level of monitoring and attention to safety.

Given the lack of registration of ultralights, it's hard to obtain good data (because you have nothing to compare it against, e.g., "X crashes per 100,000 flights" or "Y percent of fleet involved in a crash per year/decade/etc")

However, I will point out that we are currently working on a plan to try to put together an "investigation team" for ultralight crashes and minor incidents in concert with local law enforcement agencies and/or coroners and medical examiners.

Buzz
08-27-2012, 09:16 AM
Given the lack of registration of ultralights, it's hard to obtain good data (because you have nothing to compare it against, e.g., "X crashes per 100,000 flights" or "Y percent of fleet involved in a crash per year/decade/etc")
Amen. That's why collecting operational data would be so key to the growth of this type of organization.

I think anyone that has any first-hand knowledge of properly maintained ultralights knows the greatest inherent danger in them is not in the machines but that one can legally fly one without any or insufficient instruction. An organization dedicated TO instruction should have a pretty high safety record.

------------------------
It's good to hear that there is an effort to investigate ultralight crashes. Finding out the "why" of accidents is the best way to avoid re-occurences.

I only wonder how much cooperation it'll get if the FAA [or some other agency] isn't involved. People tend not to want to report accidents or incidents unless mandated to do so. Unfortunately, that would probably carry over into providing information to an investigation team.

steveinindy
08-27-2012, 11:19 AM
It's good to hear that there is an effort to investigate ultralight crashes. Finding out the "why" of accidents is the best way to avoid re-occurences.

I only wonder how much cooperation it'll get if the FAA [or some other agency] isn't involved. People tend not to want to report accidents or incidents unless mandated to do so. Unfortunately, that would probably carry over into providing information to an investigation team.

If you have the local cops investigating (or even more so the coroner or ME) then they don't really have any more choice to say "screw off" than if the FAA or NTSB is involved. The general rule is play nice or face charges for what you've done. If you are honest and seem willing to learn from an honest mistake, you're unlikely to get charged with reckless endangerment, interfering with a police investigation or whatever charges come with damaging private property. Act like a self-righteous jerk and you'll probably not have a good day. That's what happened to the one guy I have personally seen get arrested following an ultralight crash. He told the cops to go do something anatomically impossible because "these planes here are unregulated" after crashing into someone's house with one. You can imagine how quickly that situation went downhill.

I've had no issues with a organizations offering to assist me once we get funding and some other things lined up (which is waiting for our non-profit status to avoid tax liabilities, etc). The biggest hurdle is from the "don't tread on me, it's perfectly OK if I want to do stupid stuff in my ultralight" folks in the hobby who seem only to care about their own immediate short-sighted gratification. They seem to forget that every time they leave a mark in the ground or annoy someone by buzzing their car or house, they leave a mark on the reputation of all non-commercial aviation.

Ken Finney
08-28-2012, 12:42 PM
Small little data point: For the first time in three years, this weekend I attended the best run little fly in I know, www.wingsoverrepublic.com. Although with 100-150 planes, it doesn't really qualify as a small fly-in anymore. This was their 13th fly-in, and I've been to about half of them. For the first time in my attendance, there wasn't a single UL, all the Titan Tornado types were N-numbered. Back when they were getting 80 or so planes, there were always at least 3 or 4 true ULs, but not anymore. Sad.

Angela
08-30-2012, 07:31 AM
Some really interesting comments here, and great suggestions. Isn't the basic problem though that aviation is hard to get into at any level these days, especially if you're an "outsider"? I was reading this article, which perhaps gets even more to the root of the problem:
http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/08/our-airports-look-like-prisons/?utm_source=PilotShop&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=A12085D&utm_content=email

Like many small airports, we hold an "Open House" day so that townspeople can come and hang out at the airport, watch the planes, and kids are taken up for free rides and get a certificate. But we don't normally see these people from one Open House to the next. Perhaps an Ultralight Club would encourage them to come back, so some kind of national organization giving support, sharing ideas and providing a framework, would be an excellent way to attract youngsters. Buzz has some great ideas concerning its operation. I agree with others who talk about the social aspect - teenagers want to be doing what their friends are doing.

Ken Finney
08-30-2012, 03:41 PM
Since this thread has slowed down a bit, I'd like to make a tangential comment on the previous post by Angela. There is a natural animosity between airports/FBOs and ULs that no one has brought up yet. NO ONE MAKES ANY MONEY OFF OF ULs! A "normal" airplane is going to pay (depending on lots of variables) some combination of landing fees, hanger fees, tie down fees, profit on fuel sales, etc. to the airport/FBO. Contrast that to a ULer, who stops on the way to the airport to fuel up his jerry cans, arrives at the airport, unloads the UL, gets it through/over the fence, fuels it up, spends a couple of hours flying around, and then reverses the process. He uses all of the facilities a "normal " airplane would (including the restrooms and eating the FBOs cookies) and no one makes any money off of the ULer. If you were an airport/FBO manager, why would you do anything to encourage ULs?

Sam Buchanan
08-30-2012, 08:59 PM
Since this thread has slowed down a bit, I'd like to make a tangential comment on the previous post by Angela. There is a natural animosity between airports/FBOs and ULs that no one has brought up yet. NO ONE MAKES ANY MONEY OFF OF ULs! A "normal" airplane is going to pay (depending on lots of variables) some combination of landing fees, hanger fees, tie down fees, profit on fuel sales, etc. to the airport/FBO. Contrast that to a ULer, who stops on the way to the airport to fuel up his jerry cans, arrives at the airport, unloads the UL, gets it through/over the fence, fuels it up, spends a couple of hours flying around, and then reverses the process. He uses all of the facilities a "normal " airplane would (including the restrooms and eating the FBOs cookies) and no one makes any money off of the ULer. If you were an airport/FBO manager, why would you do anything to encourage ULs?

That is certainly a factor, but the resistance to ultralights I've seen in our area is due to the behavior and attitudes of a few ULers over the past three decades. There have been far too many instances of unsafe, inconsiderate, and downright stupid flying in the vicinity of an airport. No wonder the "real pilots" shake their head in derision every time a UL gets dragged out of the trees or scraped up off the runway. The fact that too many of the people flying the ultralights have practically no formal flight training seals their reputation among pilots who have spent thousands of dollars learning their craft. And the Home Depot hardware holding the aircraft together only promotes the idea that ultralighters and their planes are a bunch of yahoos.

In contrast, I have had wonderful acceptance of my Legal Eagle at our local airport. I've been a part of the airport community for twenty years, am well-known as an EAA Technical Counselor, fly my planes in a professional manner with a radio, and yield right-of-way to heavier aircraft when they need the airspace. Several local pilots have commented that the Eagle looks like a ton of fun and they envy the lack of regulatory burdens associated with it.

So.......most of the time ULers are our worst enemy. If we act like a bunch of idiots we will be treated as idiots. But if we show respect for others and the regulations all pilots expect to follow, and maintain our little planes as if they are real aircraft, we gain respect in our community and more "real pilots" will be interested in sampling very light aviation. Bad reputations can take decades to repair, but good behavior can yeild immediate positive results.

The choice is ours, let's choose wisely.

Bill Berson
08-30-2012, 10:28 PM
I am glad to hear that an EAA Technical Counselor is available for ultralight help and consultation. Need more of that, I think.
Regarding "idiot" ULers, I think they are mostly gone now.
The future may see mostly certificated pilots (like me) turning to UL.
The training for new ultralight pilots is virtually not available in the U.S. anymore. (locally)

The Canadian ultralight rules make more sense to me, especially with regard to using two seat training ultralights (which is allowed in Canada). I wish we had the freedom to use Canadian ultralight rules here in the U.S. It would stimulate the entire aviation industry.

Eric Page
08-30-2012, 10:57 PM
There is a natural animosity between airports/FBOs and ULs that no one has brought up yet. NO ONE MAKES ANY MONEY OFF OF ULs!
That's largely true, and it probably explains individual attitudes. However, I bristle when I hear of airports banning ULs because someone doesn't like them or had a bad experience with a UL pilot in, say, 1986. Like every other citizen, UL pilots pay taxes and have just as much right to use the public airport facilities as any other person. I'm not advocating ULs at Hartsfield, but there are established procedures for ULs to access controlled airports. As long as the pilot abides by those procedures and doesn't make himself a nuisance, he should have access. You'll probably never change FBO managers' minds.

Ken Finney
08-31-2012, 10:45 AM
Actually, one of the ideas that has been floating around in my head (lots of room to float in there!) is some sort of "good neighbor fund" that ULers could contribute to that would go to their local airport(s). Something like a voluntary $50 a year contribution in lieu of all the fees not being paid, and the payer would get stickers to apply to their UL/car/whatever to show that they are "a good neighbor". Seems like a lot of goodwill could be created, and probably change some minds.

Flyfalcons
08-31-2012, 12:43 PM
These are the same guys you're talking about that use Home Depot hardware in lieu of aircraft hardware to save a few bucks?

Ken Finney
08-31-2012, 02:43 PM
Ouch! Well, some of them are, but since even John Walton succumbed to this, I expect in many cases this is done due to availability rather than cost. And, I've seen the same thing on certified airplanes. But if part of the problem is to somehow differentiate the "good" ULers from the "bad" ULers, this might be a way to do it! Remember, I said there is a lot of room for things to float around in my head! :^)

Eric Page
09-02-2012, 01:02 AM
The availability excuse might have worked in the 80's, but not today, with the ease of ordering the correct hardware online. I just got a box from Aircraft Spruce yesterday with nothing but a few feet of MIL-W-22759 wire in it for an airplane electronics project I'm working on. I could have used PVC coated automotive wire, but it's just too easy to get the proper stuff.

jedi
09-03-2012, 10:45 AM
Having just returned from a trip to do some single seat ultralight instruction I thought this might be a good time to note my two cents worth on procedures.
I think this is a good concept.
It is necessary to start young, before teen age interests set in. I think 9 or ten would be a good minimum age.
Start them on non pilot projects, kites and model airplanes. This will get them involved and teach aerodynamics and construction.
First flights should be in kites and gliders. These do not require the large fields that are required for powered ultralights. Costs and danger are also more controllable.
Transition to powered ultralights is the ultimate goal.
I believe pilots, in general, make safer drivers. They learn to manage safety issues. Pitch the safety aspect. A teenager that has gone through the ultralight program will be a safer driver.
The program needs to work with the AMA (American Model Airplane) clubs. They have a lot in common and older modelers will be a great asset.
Once the members are old enough to drive they should be converted to support activities or go out on their own. The objective is to support the youngsters. Much like the Hitler youth programs. (But do not emphasize the similarities.)
If you can still remember your feeling of accomplishment when you first soloed after 8 or more hours of dual, imagine the feeling of accomplishment when you first solo, like that little bird with no dual, after just working with the older, wiser more accomplished birds (or perhaps your parents).
Now, what if you actually built and test flew the craft you are flying? Would that increase your sense of accomplishment?
Could a plan with that goal in mind easily built one aircraft per year and use the funds from the sale of that UL to help fund the program?

Flyfalcons
09-03-2012, 11:44 AM
If you can still remember your feeling of accomplishment when you first soloed after 8 or more hours of dual, imagine the feeling of accomplishment when you first solo, like that little bird with no dual, after just working with the older, wiser more accomplished birds (or perhaps your parents).


Please tell me you're not thinking about someone's first flying experience being by themselves in a single seat ultralight.

jedi
09-04-2012, 01:24 PM
:confused:
Please tell me you're not thinking about someone's first flying experience being by themselves in a single seat ultralight.

Yes I am!
That is the way the pioneers did it and that is the way the FAA expects FAR 103 ultralight training to be accomplished. The FAA is now enforcing the ban on dual training in powered paragliders and perhaps hang gliders if they have wheels attached to the airframe or engine mount.
This technique has been used successfully in the past.
By the way, the instructor does not need to have FAA certificates either.
If you like you can follow the thread “Learning to Fly Ultralights” on the EAA "Learning to Fly" strip.

steveinindy
09-04-2012, 02:16 PM
That is the way the pioneers did it

Go back and look at how many of the "pioneers" died very early in their flying careers (Eugene Ely, Otto Lilienthal, Lincoln Beachey, Karl Jatho, John Joseph Montgomery, a lot of WWI pilot trainees, et al) in part due to the "trial and error" learning approach that we have moved past. Just because "They did it that way back in the good ol' days" does not mean that it was a good idea.


that is the way the FAA expects FAR 103 ultralight training to be accomplished. The FAA is now enforcing the ban on dual training in powered paragliders and perhaps hang gliders if they have wheels attached to the airframe or engine mount.

....or you start them out in a registered "fat ultralight" and then move them over to a single seat model once they have the basics down. That is how most ultralight pilots I know- including myself- learned to fly.

Buzz
09-04-2012, 03:43 PM
Go back and look at how many of the "pioneers" died very early in their flying careers

I don't believe he's referring to the pioneers of aviation. He’s talking about the pioneers in ultralight instruction.

Safe, effective ultralight training did not start with the FAA 2-place exemption. There was safe, effective ultralight training being by done knowledgeable, experienced instructors using the early basic designs [like the 2-axis Quicksilver MX] and a proven single place training methodology.

Those of us that were around in the pioneering days know from first-hand knowledge that the safety record of the single place training methodology was every bit as good as the 2-seat training methodology [when done by an instructor experienced in the method].

The reason why the single place training methodology got a bad reputation is because too many people tried to figure it out by themselves and self-teach. As they say, “Any doctor that treats himself has fool for a patient.” Anyone that thought they could instruct themselves using a single place ultralight had a fool for an instructor.

Had you started out learning to fly ultralights before the 2-seat exemption, those of us instructing at the time would have instructed you in a single place.

Rather than talking about the “good old days” of the 2-seat ultralight exemption, maybe it’s time to remember what the early pioneers learned about ultralight instruction. We didn’t NEED the 2-seat exemption to get people safely flying ultralights. We could and did safely instruct using a single seat method.

The main thing the 2-seat exemption gave the industry was the ability to get a TON of potential customers hooked on the experience of ultralight flight by a trip around the pattern. And a great way to make money giving introductory flights. Those were a better revenue generator per hour for an ultralight dealership than instruction.

The ultralight industry has never been able to stop people from trying to teach themselves. Part 103 allows it.

But if the 2-seat exemption would have never been created and you wanted to get instruction so you could safely get into ultralight flying, that instruction existed. And it had an excellent safety record.

steveinindy
09-04-2012, 05:13 PM
The reason why the single place training methodology got a bad reputation is because too many people tried to figure it out by themselves and self-teach. As they say, “Any doctor that treats himself has fool for a patient.” Anyone that thought they could instruct themselves using a single place ultralight had a fool for an instructor.

Agreed.


Had you started out learning to fly ultralights before the 2-seat exemption, those of us instructing at the time would have instructed you in a single place.

If I recall correctly, that exemption went into place after I learned to fly ultralights in the mid-1990s.

Buzz
09-04-2012, 08:41 PM
It is necessary to start young, before teen age interests set in. I think 9 or ten would be a good minimum age.
If we are talking about when we can get someone actively aviating, I don't know what the minimum age would be. [I suspect your 9 or 10 year old minimum age would be to participate in all the non flying activities below. Which I feel should not be part of the organization for the reason I outline.]

As for minimum age for teaching via the single place training methodology, that would have to be established. The first rating would be a "penguin" rating, which is accomplishing all the skills that are part of aviating that can be taught, practiced and learned on the ground. There would be performance standards on these skills they would have to meet in order to move from the penquin rating to the solo stage. What age someone could join the organization would have to be established from empirical data. If the average X year old takes 20 hours to move from penguin stage [or never moves from it], than that age is too young. We bump it up because we can't have 20 hours of training time spent on the penguin stage for them to solo safely.

I have trained someone as young as 15 with the single seat training method. I don't think he was exceptionally coordinated or exceptionally smart. He seemed like an average 15 year old. I think he got flying after 3 one hour sessions in the ultralight. So I know 15 isn't the minimum age. I suspect from my experience with him it's at least a year or two younger than that.

The one thing with him is that he learned alone. If teens care share their training experiences and watch each other practice, they'll learn a lot better and a lot faster. So as the organization grows and as the training methodology gets refined, the average age of the aviators would naturally come down.


Start them on non pilot projects, kites and model airplanes. This will get them involved and teach aerodynamics and construction.
This concept is predicated on the idea that if you can get someone actively aviating, that is what gets their passion for aviation lit the most. One does not need to understand aerodynamics to learn the mechanics of flying an ultralight. Nor do they need to understand how the ultralight is constructed. While there is some benefit to learning those things later, it is not necessary for someone to learn either of those to learn how to fly an ultralight.

To learn how to fly something, I don't need to know WHY an aircraft does what it does when I move a particular control. Only be taught what the airplane will do when I move a control [and then be able to experience it the first time safely]. Just as I didn't need to understand gyroscopic effect and why that made me able to balance on the bicycle when I was learning to ride one.

First flights should be in kites and gliders. These do not require the large fields that are required for powered ultralights. Costs and danger are also more controllable.
We never started anyone in hang gliders or gliders before training them to fly ultralights using the single seat training method. Secondly, the environment for teaching hang gliding [which I have done] or gliders is no more common than the environment for teaching how to fly ultralights. There are a lot more large fields in my area for doing ultralight training than there are hills for hang glider training or glider ports. Of course, that may be different in other areas of the country.

However, as soon as you start talking about learning to fly in a glider first, you are talking about dual instruction. And all the barriers to that, including the problem with developing instructors. We're back operating under the non-Part 103 limits of the FAA.


Transition to powered ultralights is the ultimate goal.We never transitioned people into single seat ultralights from some other training craft. We safely trained them in single seat ultralights.


The program needs to work with the AMA (American Model Airplane) clubs. They have a lot in common and older modelers will be a great asset.
Other than learning some unneeded theory from flying an RC airplane, I don't see enough benefit for getting the prospective aviators involved in RC flying first. I also don't see what asset someone with RC flying experience is to someone learning to fly an ultralight. [Or why they are more of an asset than someone really good on MS-Flight Simulator.] I flew model airplanes before I learned to fly at 16. I don't think the experience of flying a model with some hand controls did anything to teach me the hand/eye coordination and the visual references of flying an airplane I was in. Certainly not enough to conclude this needs to work with AMA clubs.

This doesn't need to work with the AMA, EAA, FAA, or the old USUA to work. It would be great if they would support it. But their support isn't necessary for it to succeed. Nor does it need to be sought.


If you can still remember your feeling of accomplishment when you first soloed after 8 or more hours of dual, imagine the feeling of accomplishment when you first solo, like that little bird with no dual, after just working with the older, wiser more accomplished birds (or perhaps your parents).
This organization would have dedicated instructors trained in the single seat training methodology. Knowing how to do something or having a lot of experience doing it does not automatically equip you in how to effectively teach it. Any parent who tries to act as their kid's ski instructor understand this. The chance that your parent will also be your instructor in this organization would probably be remote if it was using instructors that have been trained and have a lot of training experience.


Now, what if you actually built and test flew the craft you are flying? Would that increase your sense of accomplishment Not enough to make that part of this organization's operation in my view. The premise of this organization is that greatest sense of accomplishment, for the effort and time involved, is learning to fly. Becoming an aviator.

Building and test flying aircraft should not be part of an organization dedicated to getting more people flying. This organization needs to focus on one thing. Safely teaching teens how to fly an ultralight. If building the training aircraft attracted more teens to learning how to fly an ultralight, then I would agree that should be part of the organization's activities.

But teens are busy these days. If having learned to fly is what best hooks someone into the aviation community long-term, then teaching a teen the motor skills and whatever else is needed to fly an ultralight is what the organization should focus on. Every other related aviation activity [modeling, building, CAP, etc. etc. etc.] should be outside the organization.


Could a plan with that goal in mind easily built one aircraft per year and use the funds from the sale of that UL to help fund the program?
It's my belief that any organization that could get teens actively aviating will attract sufficient funding to grow. The best training aircraft for this methodology [Quicksilver MX] can be obtained right now for $3K a copy. Operating costs would be around $35/flight hour. I know from experience that it doesn't take the 9.5 hrs it took me to solo a Cessna 150 at 16 to teach a teen to solo a Quicksilver MX. So this organization can create an aviator [in their soul] for an outlay of less than $350. Well within the budget of an awful lot of parents.

As for funding, it would be needed to obtain the trainer. After that the trainer is maintained and replaced out of the hourly rental by the student.

As for the potential of funding, there is an aviation simulation camp in FL that raised $41 million dollars before they put the first camper through. While a great simulation camp, it is still simulation. "MS-Flight Simulator on Steroids". I believe getting teens actively aviating will have a great deal of interest to a lot of different sources of funding once the organization can provide empirical data it can be done safely.

A chapter in this organization could be "seeded" with 3 trainers for less than $15K if they used the Quicksilver MX [of which there are 7,000+ stuffed in hangar corners around the country]. A chapter in this organization with 3 trainers could probably create 25 aviators per Upper Midwest ultralight flying season [and every season] with that initial $15K seed funding. Rough estimate.

My thoughts.

-Buzz

Buzz
09-04-2012, 10:06 PM
If I recall correctly, that exemption went into place after I learned to fly ultralights in the mid-1990s.
What was the "registration" you mentioned the 2-seat ultralight had you got dual instruction in if it was prior to the 2-seat exemption? The only legal registration it could have had was an "N" number prior to the instructor exemption.

Which would have made any instruction you got illegal unless the instructor did it for free. I don't know of any instructors that were doing ultralight instruction for free in N-number 2-seat ultralights prior to the exemption. All the 2-seat instruction prior to the exemption was charged for an done illegally in my experience.

The only legal paid ultralight flight instruction that could ever be given in 2-seat ultralights happened during the exemption. The problem the ultralight industry faces today.

As for your instruction and the other ultralight pilots you know that learned in the 1990s, it was undoubtably a 2-seat ultralight being used legally under the exemption. Part 103 went into effect October of 1982. The 2-seat exemption happened several months after that. There would have been no reason for an ultralight instructor to instruct illegally [with all the associated liability that entails] when the exemption was in existence.

-Buzz

Flyfalcons
09-05-2012, 12:11 AM
:confused:

Yes I am!
That is the way the pioneers did it and that is the way the FAA expects FAR 103 ultralight training to be accomplished. The FAA is now enforcing the ban on dual training in powered paragliders and perhaps hang gliders if they have wheels attached to the airframe or engine mount.
This technique has been used successfully in the past.
By the way, the instructor does not need to have FAA certificates either.
If you like you can follow the thread “Learning to Fly Ultralights” on the EAA "Learning to Fly" strip.

No that's okay, I was just making sure. Have fun with your endeavor, I wouldn't want any part of the liability in that.

steveinindy
09-05-2012, 12:16 AM
What was the "registration" you mentioned the 2-seat ultralight had you got dual instruction in if it was prior to the 2-seat exemption? The only legal registration it could have had was an "N" number prior to the instructor exemption.

No clue what the N number was. I lost most of my logbooks when my apartment was robbed a year or so ago which is why I don't give a hard number for my total time (somewhere between 500 and 600 hours, maybe 700 hours on the high end; all but about 100 was in ultralights). I've flown in so many aircraft- nearly every ultralight I've flown has been registered so that adds to the mix- that I can't recall the tail numbers for more than a handful of them.


As for your instruction and the other ultralight pilots you know that learned in the 1990s, it was undoubtably a 2-seat ultralight being used legally under the exemption. Part 103 went into effect October of 1982. The 2-seat exemption happened several months after that. There would have been no reason for an ultralight instructor to instruct illegally [with all the associated liability that entails] when the exemption was in existence.

I didn't realize that permutation of 103 was put into place so long ago but I probably should point out that my original instructor (in fact all of the instructors I knew back then) was a CFI. Not sure how that effects anything but it was a registered (N-numbered) ultralight and my instructor was qualified as previously mentioned so that might have overridden the "exemption" issue.

martymayes
09-05-2012, 06:18 AM
Not sure how that effects anything but it was a registered (N-numbered) ultralight and my instructor was qualified as previously mentioned so that might have overridden the "exemption" issue.

The only way to register an ultralight would be in the experimental category, amateur built if it meets the major portion rule.




I guess it's a good thing there is no longer any record that any of this ever happened........otherwise we have spun in on the base to final turn.....

Buzz
09-05-2012, 07:33 AM
it was a registered (N-numbered) ultralight and my instructor was qualified

Which is to say your instructor may have been legal to give flight instruction because he was a CFI but giving flight instruction in any category that 2-seat ultralight could have been N-Numbered in was illegal. So if it did have an N-number on it, he wasn't teaching you legally unless he wasn't charging you. [Which I believe is legal.]

I suspect the greatest majority of ultralight instructors in your area were operating under the training exemption. Maybe there were a lot of ultralight instructors in your area that were also CFIs. If so, I don't think that was common in my experience.

But it still remains that if they were legal [charging] they were doing so in a 2-seat registered under the exemption. And those aircraft are gone under the rule change.

-Buzz

martymayes
09-05-2012, 07:49 AM
Someone more knowledgable on the whole "N" numbered registration rules can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't thing a CFI could legally give instruction [and get paid for it] in a category of N number registration that 2-place ultralight could have been put into.

One example of where it is legal is when the student owns the aircraft.

The issue is providing flight training for hire, which is what this would be otherwise.

steveinindy
09-05-2012, 03:08 PM
The issue is providing flight training for hire, which is what this would be otherwise.
No, our instructors were volunteers and part of the group. No money was exchanged for the training itself. We were kind of a loose confederation where we bought into what amounted fractional ownership of several ultralights. I'm not sure if we were counted as "owners" though for the purposes of the training issue in experimental aircraft. However, since the aircraft was not being 'rented' for training use, I don't believe that it was an issue. I do know that one of the guys in the group worked for the FSDO and never said anything about our arrangement.

Buzz
09-06-2012, 07:01 PM
The issue is providing flight training for hire, which is what this would be otherwise.

The premise of the organization that I talked about at the start of the thread is that it would be a 501(c)(3) non-profit with the mission of training teens to aviate. Instructors would be unpaid volunteers.

The organization would be reimbursed by the trainees for the use of the ultralights at cost. I believe that would be a "non-commercial" use of the ultralight if no one profits from it's operation. I would believe someone would need to profit financially for something to be considered "commercial".

-Buzz

martymayes
09-06-2012, 07:22 PM
I was referring to another post but they made a last minute recovery...

Buzz
09-06-2012, 07:26 PM
I wouldn't want any part of the liability in that.

The single seat training method creates less instructor liability compared to the amount of liability an ultralight instructor had when 2-seat training ultralights were available under the exemption.

The first reason that is the case is because of a legal term called "line of causality". When there is an accident in a 2-seat trainer, the ultralight instructor is in the direct line of causality. The instructor is always PIC while in the airplane. The PIC has all the liability for the crash because they are directly in the line of causality [or prevention].

In the case of the single seat method, the instructor is not in the line of causality. The student was PIC, not them. The instructor never had direct control of the aircraft. Nor did the student ever start training with the belief that the instructor could exercise control of the aircraft.

One could argue that improper training lead to the crash and, therefore, the instructor was liable. I.e. giving instruction put them in the line of causality and improper instruction caused the crash.

This is barred under the education-malpractice doctrine. The existence of that doctrine is why you can't go back and sue your driver's ed instructor because you had an accident. It's also why the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently overturned a jury that found against Cirrus because the plaintiff's family said the crash was the result of improper education. [See "Aftermath" in the September issue of AOPA Magazine for a review of the case.]

No ski school in America would be able to afford to give instruction if you could claim "education" malpractice when you got hurt during a ski lesson. If you break your leg during a ski lesson, you can't sue the ski school if the instructor never had physical control over your skis.

Anyone that ever instructed using the 2-seat method had a lot more liability than any instructor has using the single place training method. For anyone concerned about their liability while giving instruction, it is a great deal less under the single place method. Under the education-malpractice doctrine it is probably non-existence if you have the student sign the usual disclosures and assumption of risk documents.

-Buzz

Buzz
09-06-2012, 08:36 PM
The AOPA commissioned a research study in 2010 to find out why only 20% of people that start flight training ever finish it.

One could surmise it's the expense. But that's not the main reason. After all, who starts learning to fly without knowing what the license generally costs to get or without knowing they can afford it.

What the AOPA said was the most surprising finding is that one of the main reason people stop flying lessons is a "lack of community". It's a lonely process. One goes and spends an hour a week with the instructor and has very little interaction with other trainees. [I had zero at a reasonably busy FBO where I trained.]

The chance to build a sense of "community" around the training process is pretty hard under the 2-seat method. Everyone has to be taught one at a time and with very little chance to observe and learn from their peers. I can't observe and learn from watching another student and hearing the instructors instructions the early stages of the training process if the instructor is taking the student up to 1500 and out to a practice area where they learn straight and level flight and turns.

The single seat training method lends itself very well to training large groups of trainees together. In the 2-seat training the initial training sequence is 1000+ off the ground. In the single seat training there is lots of ground penguin time. Then when the first air work is occurs 2 feet off the ground with a flight of 75ft typically [when the prior instruction has been correctly done]. Other students can easily watch and observe all the control inputs. They can hear all the feedback given to the other student. Then they swap out and another student applies the instructions and does their application of the instruction. There is lot of opportunity for socializing and interchange between the students doing their training sessions.

2-seat training can't be done in "classes". It's all 1-on-1 because there has to be an instructor in each aircraft. In the single seat method one can have an instructor taking a "class" through the early training steps because it is all ground work or ground proximity flying. In fact, the class size an instructor can teach is primarily limited by the number of training aircraft available to the class.

It's because they use "the single seat method" that Kitty Hawk Kites has been able to put those 300,000 people through hang gliding since '74. They can teach hang gliding in "classes".

Who knows how the AOPA and GA will figure out how to get past the "lack of community" in dual method of instruction. The dual method doesn't provide for much contact between students at the early training stages where the high drop out happens. The social element is not their natural and needs to be artificially built in somehow.

But if one were to build a social organization around ultralight training [as I propose should be done for teens], the very best way to do that would be to use the single place training methodology. It's what will inject the most amount of socialization and community into the early stages of training where it is needed most to create a high "sticking factor". Colleges get this. It's why they put so much into their "Freshman Orientations" and often require 1st and 2nd year students to live in the dorms together. [At least they did in the large college I went to.]

My thoughts.

-Buzz

P.S. Here's a radical-outside-the-box-premise.

Maybe the 2-seat ultralight exemption actually REDUCED the number of people that got ultralight training if it caused instructors to abandon the single seat training methodology.

Here's the logic. If the SSTM provided more opportunity to teach groups of people and the AOPA found that the amount of community and socializing was a key factor in keeping people in flight training, maybe more people would have been attracted to ultralight flying through training if the single place method had remained dominant.

Just think about the concentration of ultralight activity for the public to watch when there is a class of people learning and there are 3-4 single place trainers being used.

Think about someone fascinated with the activity and walking up to that group of newbies and asking "Whatcha doing?" and getting the response, "We're learning to fly ultralights." and they look and see a class of 8 people all learning together and appearing to have fun together. Exposing an interested party to an excited group of people all learning to fly in a class would have been the best marketing the ultralight industry could have had.

If the industry could have provided a greater volume of ultralight instruction [or cheaper] via the single place method because of the opportunity to do it more efficiently in classes [as Kitty Hawk Kites numbers prove] and the instruction would have been more enjoyable for the student [according to the AOPA study] and therefore more attractive to the average student, then could it be time that we stop dismissing the single seat instruction method and really examine its efficacy. Could single seat training not be the pathway to a more robust ultralight industry. Maybe a lot more robust than it was BEFORE the end of the exemption??

One final thought on training economics. If I was an ultralight instructor, I'd much rather be teaching people in classes of 8 than one at a time. I can charge 1 guy x/hr for dual instruction. I'd rather be making 8x/hr. teaching 8 people at one time because I can with the single seat method.

Dana
09-07-2012, 05:15 AM
Right on about the community thing. Look at powered paragliding, which is thriving in many areas. A typical day of PPG flying involves a bunch of guys getting together at a field and making a number of short flights, and hanging out while others fly. Community.

In my area, PPG was a big thing at our local airport, until the airport closed. There are many other places to fly, but not being airports, they won't tolerate large groups or frequent flying. For one pilot it's not an issue to fly one day here, another day there, but it's fragmented the PPG scene around and almost nobody flies PPG any more.

It takes a critical mass to maintain an active group of any kind of activity, whether it's flying, sailing, whatever. Absent that, only the truly dedicated individuals will participate, and even they will do it much less frequently.

martymayes
09-07-2012, 06:55 AM
In my area, PPG was a big thing at our local airport, until the airport closed. There are many other places to fly, but not being airports, they won't tolerate large groups or frequent flying. For one pilot it's not an issue to fly one day here, another day there, but it's fragmented the PPG scene around and almost nobody flies PPG any more.

So is lack of a suitable location what curtailed PPG activities or is it the overall economy and lack of disposable income that did them in?

5-6 yrs ago I had PPG flying over my house every weekend and many times on weekday evenings. They have also disappeared. I'm not sure what the reason is..........the lake where I live is still quite busy buzzing with jetskis and $$$ wakeboard boats, so I'm not sure it if's economy or location.


In my early days of flying, its was common to have people hanging out at the flight school lounge/lobby socializing. Even more so when I was a member of and instructing in an aero club. Pool table, deck with table, chairs and grill. Viewing area where we could watch takeoffs and landings. Then we had periodic events - poker runs, flyout cities, air tours. It's not the flying aspect that curtailed all that, its the stupid airport/security rules. Not to mention the 8' fences, locked gates and "keep out" signs.

Buzz
09-07-2012, 02:35 PM
So is lack of a suitable location what curtailed PPG activities or is it the overall economy and lack of disposable income that did them in?

5-6 yrs ago I had PPG flying over my house every weekend and many times on weekday evenings. They have also disappeared. I'm not sure what the reason is..........the lake where I live is still quite busy buzzing with jetskis and $$$ wakeboard boats, so I'm not sure it if's economy or location.


In my early days of flying, its was common to have people hanging out at the flight school lounge/lobby socializing. Even more so when I was a member of and instructing in an aero club. Pool table, deck with table, chairs and grill. Viewing area where we could watch takeoffs and landings. Then we had periodic events - poker runs, flyout cities, air tours. It's not the flying aspect that curtailed all that, its the stupid airport/security rules. Not to mention the 8' fences, locked gates and "keep out" signs.

Marty-I think you may have answered your own question if one thinks about it. Jetskiis have no loss of location to operate and continue to be busy. PPGs lose a location to operate and congregate and they disappear.

Some airports, while still in existence, have become unwelcoming as a place to meet others and hang out because of the security barriers. Aviation activity at those locations has tailed off by all reports.

Seems to me it's not the economy that has reduced aviation activity so much [as you point out, the decline in other costly hobbies has not been so much], It's been the loss of places to "commune" with other aviators that has lead to the decline in aviation.

EAA UL Chapter 1 lost their home field to development maybe a decade ago. It happened in the middle of a very robust economy. The field was in close proximity to Milwaukee and saw lots of activity and the club membership was very active. The club had to relocate to an airfield nearly an hour further from the heart of Milwaukee in a very nice flying area. Members got scattered to other airports to find hangar space. It's active membership is a fraction of what it was despite always being a very welcoming club. It was clearly the loss of a location easily reachable from a large metropolitan area that impacted the membership, not the economy.

csheehan99
09-09-2012, 03:47 PM
That is our biggest problem with the club I fly with, it is next to impossible to be above board and get commercial insurance.

martymayes
09-09-2012, 04:17 PM
Marty-I think you may have answered your own question if one thinks about it. Jetskiis have no loss of location to operate and continue to be busy. PPGs lose a location to operate and congregate and they disappear.

The PPG's here didn't lose their location to operate and congregate. They just disappeared.

Buzz
09-10-2012, 04:40 AM
That is our biggest problem with the club I fly with, it is next to impossible to be above board and get commercial insurance.

There has been a lot of different tangents to this thread; can you elaborate to better understand the commercial insurance problem.

I.e. what kind of club is it you fly with [ultralight club where members own their own aircraft, flying club that offers instruction in the club aircraft, ??].

Can you also explain what generates the club's commercial insurance requirements. [E.g. members want to have insurance before they fly or the field on which the club operates has insurance requirement or ??]

Thanks!

-Buzz

Buzz
09-10-2012, 05:07 AM
The PPG's here didn't lose their location to operate and congregate. They just disappeared.
I don't have any personal experience flying PPGs, so my comments are speculative. However, I believe the disappearance of PPGs in your area is more a function of their operating characteristics.

Having had a life long passion for aviation, anything flying over my head is entertainment. However, that's not the case for non-aviation enthusiasts. Or more rapidly loses the entertainment aspect.

A phenomena of ultralights and PPGs is that they are typically flown in non urban areas where there isn't a lot of natural ambient noise. So the sound they generate can seem loud ["loud" is a relative term, after all. An ultralight would not be "loud" in a steel mill.]

Anyone that flies ultralights and PPGs know that one of the great enjoyments is flying with someone else. [Ditto with motorcycles. The main reason Harley formed the HOG organization.] But it also rapidly increases the impact of the noise of the activity on a particular location [As anyone on a quiet street has experienced when a large group Harley's has gone by.]

I suspect why you don't see the PPGS anymore is that there got to be a large concentration of them that flew together in your area[because PPGS lend themselves to that so much]. They found they had to move on [and did because they could]. While the location they fly in may still be there, they may gotten complaints on using it.

Although it was the owners retiring and wanting to cash out to developers that caused EAA UL Chapter 1 to lose their home airfield years ago, there were neighbors that were glad to see it. It had gone from a grass field and a bar that was used by a sky diving club to one buzzing with ultralights many nights and most weekends.

While concentrating is great for building participation because of the social element, concentration has it's downsides when it involves 2-cycle engines spinning propellers and all the noise that combination can generate. Especially when the ability to spread that noise around by getting away from the takeoff point is restricted as it is by the slow flying characteristics of PPGs.

My thoughts.

-Buzz

Flyfalcons
09-10-2012, 02:40 PM
The single seat training method creates less instructor liability compared to the amount of liability an ultralight instructor had when 2-seat training ultralights were available under the exemption.


LOL, okay good luck with the insurance quote then for teaching kids how to fly ultralights with zero dual training.

Bill Berson
09-10-2012, 07:55 PM
The new electric powered ultralights might help with noise in the neighborhood. Dale Kramers electric Lazair was impressive, but looked a bit complex. And the cost of batteries is still high. A good four stroke could be quiet as well.

Dana
09-11-2012, 05:28 AM
While concentrating is great for building participation because of the social element, concentration has it's downsides when it involves 2-cycle engines spinning propellers and all the noise that combination can generate. Especially when the ability to spread that noise around by getting away from the takeoff point is restricted as it is by the slow flying characteristics of PPGs.

Exactly. A PPG is essentially an aerial dirt bike in many ways... lots of fun, little utility, more fun in a group, and potentially annoying to the neighbors. We have lots of places to fly PPGs around here, and some of us still fly them, but only the now closed airport could tolerate the frequent activity of a number of PPGs. The other locations are OK for one or two guys to fly occasionally, then the next day fly somewhere else, but the neighbors would certainly get upset if there were half a dozen flying there every day.

jedi
09-11-2012, 10:19 AM
[QUOTE=Dana;22628] A PPG is essentially an aerial dirt bike in many ways... lots of fun, little utility, more fun in a group, and potentially annoying to the neighbors. QUOTE]


So the answer to reviving General Aviation is a gaggle of quiet PPGs. I can imagine a large flock of PGs/PPGs circling quietly overhead and the general public looking up with awe and saying "I would like to do that". That is basically what happens at Tiger Mountain, our local paraglider hang out. On a nice day the landing zone parking lot is overflowing with vehicles of pilots and wan bees participating in the activities, both active pilots and social participants. Sometimes there should be more of a welcoming attitude but in general it is a great place with good public acceptance.

The sight of a single silent PG circling overhead a non congested residential area at 3,000 feet is a similar to the sight of a flying saucer in the 50's.

Buzz
09-11-2012, 10:34 AM
LOL, okay good luck with the insurance quote then for teaching kids how to fly ultralights with zero dual training.
It'll be the same luck instructors had finding insurance using the dual method to do ultralight instruction under the old training exemption. Which was no luck. Didn't make any difference how old the student was.

There never was a reliable source of insurance for dual ultralight instruction in the years the dual exemption existed.

We'd be running under the same waivers all ultralight instruction has run under.

Kitty Hawk Kites has taught 300,000 people how to fly a hangglider without dual instruction. I doubt they've been running since 1974 uninsured. They've had a great safety record and have collected the data to document it and be insurable.

In the interim, we'll go the waiver route the ultralight instructor community has always had to use.

Flyfalcons
09-12-2012, 01:41 PM
Yeah, have fun telling parents "We just send your kids up. We could use two-seat machines to give actual instruction but we'd rather not." :D

Mike M
09-12-2012, 02:48 PM
Some points for clarification:

Man....you have really dated yourself with the ARSA and TRSA stuff, those things disappeared nearly twenty years ago (might be a couple of TRSA's still around somewhere)...

check the AFD, more than a couple TRSAs are still around.

lite.mite
02-26-2013, 06:09 PM
After reading this thread. I would say that:
1.it might not be a bad idea at all but you might look into NOT limiting the group to just teens.
2.the side tracks of getting the FAA to revisit Pt 103 probably not a good idea!. Look into SSDR that is now in the UK.
Briefly it is 10 K per 1 sq. meter. But that is done by empty weight! 35 kt stall max but NO max speed limit.
3.With the materials available today there is no reason to have a non compliant UL.

Buzz
03-05-2013, 09:30 AM
Yeah, have fun telling parents "We just send your kids up. We could use two-seat machines to give actual instruction but we'd rather not." :D
Your use of the word "up" indicates no firsthand understanding of the student's experience under the SSTM [single seat training method] in trainer ultralights [2-axis Quicksilver MX].

Trained properly, their first "up" a foot off the grass for a distance of a 100 ft. under complete control and with complete confidence. The next couple dozen flights might be a foot or two higher with the distances increasing. If they exceed that height or are not doing it with complete control and confidence, they were not instructed properly.

The main reason the instructor needs to be in the airplane is to take over when the student gets "behind the airplane". With the right ultralight trainer aircraft and the right single seat training methodology and an experienced SSTM instructor, the student never ever gets behind the ultralight.

If you learned to fly using the dual method, it is a COMPLETELY different teaching sequence than the SSTM.

Dual instruction is given in a way that the student starts out completely behind the airplane and slowly learns the skills to stay with the airplane. When I took my first GA lesson at 16, I was completely behind the airplane. It took me 9 hrs to get to the point I could stay with it at all times and solo.

Again, if one's only experience is dual instruction, one will be hard pressed to understand how different the SSTM learning sequence is. The difference in the trainer [beyond just having a single seat], what the student experiences [e.g. in the way of "up"], the different sequence of how the necessary skills are acquired.

-Buzz