PDA

View Full Version : Where is UL growing?



rawheels
02-28-2013, 01:58 PM
Our airport has had a lot of ultralights in the past. However, most of the pilot's in the group have transitioned through the years to LSA or GA, and nobody is back-filling the void. I get questions all the time about how someone can get into ultralights, but my standard answer is you basically have to get LSA training and then buy a used UL and train yourself in the single seat. There is one CFI in the area who spent the money to buy a SLSA powered parachute to train people, but for fixed wing it is pretty much cub/champ or plastic LSA training because the SLSA aircraft are so expensive.

So, it just makes me wonder where in the country UL flying is growing, and what is the secret?

Floatsflyer
02-28-2013, 06:35 PM
ULs are not dead, they're on life support. Two-placed ULs merged into LSA as converted E-LSA up until 2008 I think. But single seat true ultralights are still being developed as evidenced by this legal Part 103 "flying float" called the Connie, an amphibious UL still in the flying prototype stage. So for those that want to legally operate and fly with no licence and no medical, this could be the one. But you'll still have to learn in a 2 place LSA.

http://youtu.be/VMjLR_cktZo

rawheels
03-01-2013, 11:14 AM
Still no answers on where UL flying is actually growing, but there is lots of good info in the "Learning to fly ultralights" thread. http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?2714-Learning-to-fly-Ultralights Single seat training may be the answer.

An ultralight that has been in planning for 6 years and based on a rotax engine no longer in production, doesn't seem like much life support. However, if we can get the training figured out I think there will be a market again for Part 103 and a reason for manufacturers to design new products.

Ken Finney
03-01-2013, 11:41 AM
There is one area of ULs that if not red hot, is pretty close: powered paragliding. Lots of the same excitement there as there was is ULs 30 years ago.
www.footflyer.com

steveinindy
03-02-2013, 12:52 AM
Still no answers on where UL flying is actually growing

I think the answer, unpleasant as it might be, is simply to say "nowhere". Even as someone with a lot of ultralight time myself, I am hard pressed to think of any "new" ultralight pilots I have met as I travel for my work. Most of the guys I know who used to fly ultralights have either died (from reasons other than crashes; most of our de facto local group were old pilots who had lost their medicals for one reason or another), retired from flying or moved up to something like an LSA. The effective death knell of the UL world was the end of the two seat option. I just don't know many folks who are looking to put up with all of the restrictions in terms of weight and performance inherent with Part 103. If you can't easily do a hamburger run with your friend or your wife....even the speed restrictions of LSA are a bit oppressive honestly.

Maybe not as many of us fly for the pure "love of flying" as we like to claim otherwise it would stand to reason that Part 103 would probably be a little more widely used.

Norman Langlois
03-02-2013, 02:26 PM
I have to agree the UL is in a bad way. I am a late comer to the UL class .I made it through even though in a very controversial way. I tried to put a spark into the UL I am growing old fast and even if my plane has a desirable element. I can no longer see it going into production. Because of the reasons Stevenindy has stated and my own experience with the opposition to the single seat methodology.
The plane is a success if still needing refinement. It flew extensively on the labor day week end as seen here in my recently posted videos
http://youtu.be/sVD2_BR_tMg and
http://youtu.be/h-qC8E9MuYY
I had hoped to put into kit production .I have been informed VIA opinion that they wont do the work [implying that potential buyer /builder wont]

Norman Langlois
03-02-2013, 02:50 PM
I had hoped that by building a desirable looking plane and using the water , would help since there are no airport restrictions and in my case in NH no use restrictions no registration boat or other wise. The training locations are spacious and if the aircraft is well behaved as is mine with one exception. That is static not moving with wind.[needs improvement]. Otherwise with a boat and communications the training would go pretty well. for a reasonable UL training program. Water to air needs a well behaved trainer, I believe mine is.

steveinindy
03-02-2013, 03:23 PM
Nice job and well said Norman. Can I fly her some time? :)

Bill Berson
03-02-2013, 07:15 PM
Nice video.
I like the outrigger sponsons. They provide both lateral and longitudinal water stability. Almost like a tricycle gear seaplane. Much better than the typical Lake/Goose configuration with wing tip floats, I think.

Not much can be done about getting older, at least you will always know you did it!

steveinindy
03-02-2013, 07:58 PM
I like the outrigger sponsons. They provide both lateral and longitudinal water stability. Almost like a tricycle gear seaplane. Much better than the typical Lake/Goose configuration with wing tip floats, I think.

With my amphibian LSA project, I have been kicking around the idea of "removable" sponsons/floats and possibly a detachable lower hull (or at least the minimal drag and weight profile I can pull off and still operate safely). The advantage would be that you would not be hauling around the extra weight when you aren't looking to do water based operations. Basically one could relatively quickly transition between the two if you have a desire to go somewhere water based operations are feasible/desirable. If I were going to the Bahamas or Florida, a flying boat would be a great option. In the Midwest, not so much.

Bill Berson
03-02-2013, 10:43 PM
With my amphibian LSA project, I have been kicking around the idea of "removable" sponsons/floats and possibly a detachable lower hull (or at least the minimal drag and weight profile I can pull off and still operate safely). .
Yeh, I was thinking something like Norm's tri-hull could be attached to a conventional fuselage, instead of the usual twin pontoons.

zaitcev
03-02-2013, 10:45 PM
It downed on a few people that if they want to see UL continue, LODAs are unavoidable, so they set about obtaining them. There was an article in Powered Sport Flying about it. Of course it's not going to be a thriving industry, but it is some kind of instruction at least. I still need to check myself out in Belite or Aerolite, but it's not going to be a daredevil stunt.

Norman Langlois
03-03-2013, 02:07 PM
Stevenindy If you are in my neighborhood and you fit the design That could be arranged, flying her that is. the cockpit is small and the static margin fits 160# to 200# but not too wide or too tall legged. I would say a 34 inch leg is about max.

I cut from the video a problem seine. The sponsons are to small to prevent roll when static and in a breeze. I plan a significant change to the tricycle arraignment a shortening and contour mod to the hull and adding additional displacement to the sponsons. With a UL its put and take . This will of course be a pain in the you know what I'd rather fly it not work on it. as stated by Bill it has exceptional longitudinal stability High speed taxi and step turns are smooth as silk can virtually fly on the water if you choose to be like a jet ski. The landing a self straightening even if crabbed at touchdown. a little different affect with power off.Like a jet ski it needs the power to go on a favorable course. The longitudinal stability under way and the flying stability pitch an roll Make it fun and easy to fly.,

rawheels
03-04-2013, 09:52 AM
Norm,

I like the cantilevered high-dihedral wings. Maybe you could sell that design to quicksilver for the next version of the MX.

jedi
03-04-2013, 11:04 AM
ULs are not dead, they're on life support. Two-placed ULs merged into LSA as converted E-LSA up until 2008 I think. But single seat true ultralights are still being developed as evidenced by this legal Part 103 "flying float" called the Connie, an amphibious UL still in the flying prototype stage. So for those that want to legally operate and fly with no licence and no medical, this could be the one. But you'll still have to learn in a 2 place LSA.

http://youtu.be/VMjLR_cktZo

I think you will find these video's are all ten or more years old and the aircraft is or never was in production. Baily made some nice designs but none were ever produced due in part to the comments you see here. Somebody please tell me if this plane is available anyplace.

jedi
03-04-2013, 11:13 AM
Our airport has had a lot of ultralights in the past. However, most of the pilot's in the group have transitioned through the years to LSA or GA, and nobody is back-filling the void. I get questions all the time about how someone can get into ultralights, but my standard answer is you basically have to get LSA training and then buy a used UL and train yourself in the single seat. There is one CFI in the area who spent the money to buy a SLSA powered parachute to train people, but for fixed wing it is pretty much cub/champ or plastic LSA training because the SLSA aircraft are so expensive.

So, it just makes me wonder where in the country UL flying is growing, and what is the secret?

Check with the manufacturers. UL 103, Belite, etc. I just got off the phone with CGS Avation and the answer is there is no action. Aircraft are available if you want to purchase though. Follow the Flight Traing thread to get training ideas. CGS, 103, Belite and others will be at Sun n Fun, April 9th for one week. Pick up a plane there or get some introductory training or more.

Norman Langlois
03-04-2013, 06:23 PM
I have seen this kind of post . One that reflect how poorly the UL future looks. and for nearly 8 years nothing has actually come forth to solve or stave of the end of the UL. The argument over SSM and Dual will not solve anything.. Dual will not serve and SSM is not being initiated . I am not an instructor and do not wish to become one. I do believe that the way I came to fly is very acceptable. but very controversial. Because you only know half the story and will never accept the other half. My story is tainted by the test pilot action. Something I should never have done. I refer to the straight ahead hops I never flew the go around the patch till after the test flying.

Enough of that we need a program now not later . SSM needs to come back to serve and instructors need to come forth to do that job. As buzz stated in learning to fly UL's there are new tools that have come along since those days put them to use get it done the hell with the argument .Its obvious that there are people that do not agree. there always was and always will be.

steveinindy
03-04-2013, 10:34 PM
Stevenindy If you are in my neighborhood and you fit the design That could be arranged, flying her that is. the cockpit is small and the static margin fits 160# to 200# but not too wide or too tall legged. I would say a 34 inch leg is about max.

I'm smack in the middle of the weight limit (170-180 lbs depending upon clothing) and I have 34" inseam.

rawheels
03-05-2013, 06:41 AM
for nearly 8 years nothing has actually come forth to solve or stave of the end of the UL.

This all seems like a normal progression to me. However, we are probably a year or so behind. I would assume that any new aircraft regulation would be tried for 3-4 years, and if it proved to be too cumbersome, then something else would start to emerge as the alternate option. (or, that part of aviation would die out)

The 2-place ultralight exemption expired Jan 2008. So by Jan 2011 or 2012, it was probably already determined that requiring instructors to buy SLSA or Certified Aircraft wasn't working out. Three alternates have been (re)introduced; self-teaching, find a friend who will teach you illegally, or the SSTM. The first two options are too limited at best, actually killing future pilots at worst.

If you figure that any new method will take 3-4 years to catch on, then a replacement should be in place by 2014-2016. If we are starting this year with the SSTM we are probably behind. The good news is that if ultralights were originally taught in this way, there should be some good historical info and helps to get this going quickly.

Buzz
03-05-2013, 01:25 PM
If we are starting this year with the SSTM we are probably behind. The good news is that if ultralights were originally taught in this way, there should be some good historical info and helps to get this going quickly.
Rawheels-
I've been working on an "ultralight training club" idea centered around using Quicksilver MXs and the SSTM since October 2010. I've done a LOT of research. [Even attending the AOPA Summit in '10 to look at their research to why people drop out of GA flight training to see what can be learned from that to keep a training club vibrant.]

I share what I've learned and some of my ideas in my thread "Has GA Missed.........."

All my work until now has been in developing a "scalable" ultralight training club idea. My interest is in more than just being an ultralight instructor [done that] and teaching a few local people [done that].

I think one of the other things the SSTM created in the early days was a social environment for learning. All the training up through solo and then a couple hours beyond lends itself well to a group setting where students are interacting with each other. That not only accelerates a student's learning but provides a social structure that research shows is lacking in GA flight training.

As for the SSTM, if someone documented the process from start-to-finish with a couple of complete aviation neophytes with a series of youtube videos of their lessons, the conversation about the efficacy of the SSTM would be put permanently to bed. There is entirely too much misinformation and misconceptions about the methodology.

My thoughts.

-Buzz

Buzz
03-05-2013, 03:26 PM
There is one area of ULs that if not red hot, is pretty close: powered paragliding. Lots of the same excitement there as there was is ULs 30 years ago.www.footflyer.com (http://www.footflyer.com)
I think this begs the question of what people think of when they say "ultralights".

There are some powered footlaunched hanggliders out there and there are some powered paragliders. But those are very narrow segments of ultralight flying.

I'm not trying to exclude them [I started out in Rogallos], but when I think the average person is thinking "getting into flying an ultralight", they are not envisioning a powered paraglider. Especially if they are over 40.

Am I correct in assuming that powered paragliding is not taught [for the most part] using dual instruction? If so, could it's growth partially be because the dealers are able to train, unlike ultralight dealers today?

-Buzz

Dana
03-05-2013, 07:27 PM
There are "some" powered hang gliders-- they're quite difficult to set up and launch without assistance-- but there are many thousands of active powered paraglider pilots in the US today. It may not be what people think of when people think of "getting into ultralights", but it has its own appeal... it's a blast! The easy transportability and lack of need for a hangar is also a big plus. Many PPGers, including myself, are also (and first) airplane pilots... and I think the average age is well over 40. Few younger adults have the $7-10K for such an impractical toy (of course, this applies to all forms of ultralights).

Re training, yes, most PPG instruction is not dual. There is some controversy over whether this is advisable, but it works because the most difficult part of PPG is getting the wing inflated and getting airborne. Once you learn to control the wing on the ground-- takes most people about 10 hours of practice before even strapping the motor on-- the rest is easy... and the low speeds mean even if you screw up, equipment damage (broken propellers and cages) is more likely than injury.

There is actually a 103 dual training exemption still available for PHG and PPG... but it's limited to foot launch only. A 2 seat PPG with wheels is considered a powered parachute, and must be certificated and flown by a certificated pilot.

Buzz
03-05-2013, 08:43 PM
Re training, yes, most PPG instruction is not dual. There is some controversy over whether this is advisable, but it works because the most difficult part of PPG is getting the wing inflated and getting airborne. Once you learn to control the wing on the ground-- takes most people about 10 hours of practice before even strapping the motor on-- the rest is easy... and the low speeds mean even if you screw up, equipment damage (broken propellers and cages) is more likely than injury.

This is good information Dana.

It reveals the correlation between getting into flying something and training. There is little or no training in ultralights and the activity level is plummetting. There is effective training for PPGs. Even with a pretty long period of ground training before even attempting a safe takeoff [10 hrs] the sport is still growing.

While one could say the growth of PPG has been because it's a more compelling form of flying/no hangering needed, etc., I suspect the difference in the growth is primarily because of the availability of training.


Most PPG instruction is not dual. There is some controversy over whether this is advisable, but it works because the most difficult part of PPG is getting the wing inflated and getting airborne.

This is more great information. The reason why dual instruction is not needed in a PPG is because having the instructor on-board is not necessary to learn how to inflate the wing and get it airborne.

The most difficult part to learn about flying something like the MX are landings and takeoffs. Those can be learned without an instructor on-board when the training methodology only has the student flying a hundred feet or less at an altitude of a foot or so for the initial flights. That's not a height where the student is going to get in much trouble.

[One could ask, "How can you be assured that's all the flight will involve?" The same way a CFI assesses a student is ready for their first solo. The student has acquired and demonstrated all the component skills necessary for the solo flight profile as intended by the instructor to be completed safely, successfully with deviation.]

-Buzz

Buzz
03-05-2013, 08:47 PM
There is actually a 103 dual training exemption still available for PHG and PPG... but it's limited to foot launch only. A 2 seat PPG with wheels is considered a powered parachute, and must be certificated and flown by a certificated pilot.
Hey all, this could be the solution to training in rigid wing ultralights.

Let's just modify the 2-place trainer ultralights so they are footlaunchable and then call them a "rigid wing" PPG. LOL.

We just need to find students and instructors that can run while carrying about 150 lbs. each [or more.]

-Buzz

Buzz
03-06-2013, 05:24 PM
I thought it might be useful to list the pros and cons of SSTM vs the old dual ultralight training from the instructor's perspective. Here's some I come up with.

Pros


Training aircraft are cheaper [MXs can be had for $2-3000]
Can teach beginners in groups [like they do hang gliding].
Groups = more revenue per hr. for the instructor.
Groups = a more social experience = more students will finish. [One of the primary reason AOPA found 80% of people quit GA training. No social component.]
No FAA exemption needed
Less instructor liability [instructor is not PIC]


Cons


Less flexibility in training conditions. [Need calm or near calm.]
More maintenance per operating hour on the trainer. Gets beat up more.[More time spent in ground ops, more bouncy landings, etc.]
No flying for the instructor [they are ground bound]


Let me know what pros/cons you see as an instructor.

-Buzz

Dana
03-06-2013, 07:24 PM
One big con, which I've heard of many times: Student seems fine until he gets airborne, then panics and freezes.

Buzz
03-06-2013, 11:07 PM
One big con, which I've heard of many times: Student seems fine until he gets airborne, then panics and freezes.Good comment Dana.

Two thoughts.

First, if a student panics or freezes doing SSTM in a Quicksilver MX [what we're talking about], the instructor has erred by bringing the student along too fast.

When a person freezes, it means they don't know what to do next. They've been put in a position where they don't know the correct response to the situation. By bringing them along too quickly, the instructor has "put them behind the ultralight".

That can be prevented by breaking the learning process down into smaller steps so the chance of the student getting behind the airplane is eliminated. The SSTM process used for the MX pretty much prevents a student from getting behind the airplane [or far enough to cause a feeling of panic and freezing].

The most likely time for a student to panic is the first time they ever leave the ground. They can feel overwhelmed by the experience. The key is to have them only have to do one response to lifting off.

If one reads through the SSTM sequence in the Quicksilver MX under "Learning to Fly Ultralights" in the Learning To Fly area, the first flights are very very short and there are really no variables the student needs to deal with.

On the first flight[s], the only response they make to breaking ground is a smooth closing of the throttle. That's it. It's the only response they need to be trained to do. They don't change the pitch position of the stick from the start of the ground run through the landing.

With the SSTM, the instructor is talking to the student on a dedicated radio channel. During the the penguin training they have had the student practice responding to "Ease off". The student has demonstrated they respond properly and understand how fast that means to come off the throttle.

The student knows the response to lift off is smoothly closing the throttle before they start the ground run. They've rehearsed it mentally.

If someone still manages panic, the instructor just tells them to do so. Most a panicked student is going to do is slam the throttle close rather than ease it closed. That's going to result in a bounce.

If the flights are done in calm air, the only thing the student is learning on the first flights is how power makes them lift off and then land. Power is the only thing they are changing and working with.

Lastly, in my posting today under "Learning to Fly Ultralights" there is a video where Dan Johnston makes a point about how effective SSTM was using radios with the MX.

I would suspect the people that have frozen during SSTM were being trained a friend that was trying to teach them pitch control and throttle control at the same time, wasn't talking them through their flights on a radio and probably were not training in an MX.

I suspect Dan Johnston had very few students ever freeze on the controls during their initial flights when he was doing SSTM. I don't think he would have spoken so positively about his experiences if he had.

My thoughts.

-Buzz

Bill Berson
03-07-2013, 09:48 AM
I think it would help if the student had at least one flight in a small airplane just to see the ground from above for the first time as a passenger. I remember my first flight/ lesson in a Cessna 150. The instructor was explaining takeoff and climb and flight maneuvers and all I wanted to do and could think about my first minute in the air was looking out the window.

Also, how is stall recovery and steep turns taught from the ground?

Buzz
03-08-2013, 08:21 AM
Also, how is stall recovery and steep turns taught from the ground?Stall recovery can't be taught in the MX because it doesn't have much of a stall. It won't fall off on a wing and won't break. It mushes forward.f What the student needs to learn in the MX is to keep it flying. Don't get slow or it mushes.

As for teaching any of the more advanced manuevers, the concepts and processes are taught on the ground and the student practices them in the air. If the control inputs need to be demonstrated by the instructor, that can be done using a Go-Pro video camera.

The instructor reviews the student's practice using a $35 GPS data logger, Google Earth an a GoPro camera facing the student so he can see inputs. With those 3 things you can monitor how the student flew and what the ultralight did [climb and descent rate, ground track, etc.]



Again, the student is brought along so they never get behind the airplane. Very gradual steps. The first time they practice, they are not going to cut the power and hold the stick back to get into a full mush. It would be overwhelming. But the can work up to it in steps. To successful have completed that part of their training, they need to demonstrate it on the GoPro camera.

That's the way they [B]could be taught, practiced and monitored if we stayed completely single place through some of the advanced maneuver training.

However, once a student transitions out of the basic 2-axis trainer that has virtually no "stall break" and simply mushes straight ahead, then it would make sense to have them go spend some time getting some dual in an LSA that has stall characteristics more like the ultralight they are transitioning to.

Again, what we are talking about is "Is there a way of getting people who want to get into ultralight flying started now that the dual training exemption is gone?" My belief is the way is to change the training sequence and apply some of the new technologies to the SSTM [cheap aviation radios, GoPro cameras, GPS trackers and Google Earth, etc.]

-Buzz

FlyingRon
03-08-2013, 10:09 AM
The mush is the stall and you have to recognize it. In fact one might say learning to recognize stalls without a dramatic 172-ish break is somewhat harder.

jedi
03-08-2013, 11:46 AM
I thought it might be useful to list the pros and cons of SSTM vs the old dual ultralight training from the instructor's perspective. Here's some I come up with.

Pros


Training aircraft are cheaper [MXs can be had for $2-3000]
Can teach beginners in groups [like they do hang gliding].
Groups = more revenue per hr. for the instructor.
Groups = a more social experience = more students will finish. [One of the primary reason AOPA found 80% of people quit GA training. No social component.]
No FAA exemption needed
Less instructor liability [instructor is not PIC]


Cons


Less flexibility in training conditions. [Need calm or near calm.]
More maintenance per operating hour on the trainer. Gets beat up more.[More time spent in ground ops, more bouncy landings, etc.]
No flying for the instructor [they are ground bound]


Let me know what pros/cons you see as an instructor.

-Buzz

Pros:
The dual method will forever be locked into the one on one student / instructor relationship. The SSTM has the POTENTIAL of mass training. With the proper equipment and procedures worked out it is conceivable that a human could learn to fly without one on one instruction. An instructor could handle two or possibly three students in a class for starters. Eventually larger classes could be trained and in the end an online course of self instruction with performance feedback is conceivable.
I realize many of you will find this concept far out to impossible. To that I will say that the impossible just takes a little longer. As a kid I had never seen an elevator without an elevator operator. Now I can say that I have not seen an elevator operator in the last 40 year. Times and equipment change, we must too.

Buzz
03-08-2013, 10:44 PM
Pros:
The dual method will forever be locked into the one on one student / instructor relationship. The SSTM has the POTENTIAL of mass training. You said a mouthful here Jedi.
As I have shared, Kitty Hawk Kites has trained 300,000 people to fly a hang glider since 1994 because they could train people in classes. That is only ONE hang gliding training facility. Had they been restricted to dual training, the number would have been 1/10th or less of that.

Having 6 people in a class paying $25 an hour generates an instructor a lot more money than training one person at a time one-on-one. For the instructor really dedicated to instructing, there is more income opportunity in SSTM than there is in dual.

Buzz
03-08-2013, 11:43 PM
The mush is the stall and you have to recognize it. In fact one might say learning to recognize stalls without a dramatic 172-ish break is somewhat harder.Good point. The stall characterisics of the MX make it a really safe SSTM trainer. It mushes rather than breaks, won't drop a wing and can't be spun because of all the dihedral and wing washout.

However that also means that recovery from a breaking stall or one where he wing will drop can't be taught or experienced in the MX.

I believe stall recovery needs to be taught if someone is going to fly something that will have a break or drop a wing. I also believe that should be taught with dual.

So an ultralight student transitioning out of the MX into something that will have that kind of stall should go get some dual in something that has stall characteristics like what they'll transition into.

Lastly, I don't think there is any part of the MX performance envelope that requires training first with dual instruction before it can be experienced in the MX. Certainly not entry into and recovery from the MXs mushy stall. That the student can explore on their own with sufficient altitude. They aren't going to get into any trouble exploring it with an instructor on-board.

My thoughts

-Buzz

Bill Berson
03-09-2013, 10:29 AM
You said a mouthful here Jedi.
As I have shared, Kitty Hawk Kites has trained 300,000 people to fly a hang glider since 1994 because they could train people in classes. .

Yes, primary training in a glider of any kind is a good way to start before advancing to powered flight. That's how the Wright's self taught themselves successfully.
No throttle to fuss with. The student learns how the the stick only ( well mostly) controls the airspeed. And how to plan ahead using nothing but gravity.
I soloed in a Schweizer 2-22 after only 12 flights (15 minutes each flight). That's only three hours of dual. If a motor glider trainer had been available 12 flights could almost be done in one day if the instructor did the powered climb and let the student glide back home each time.

I suspect the ground based training takes many more hours. How much time does it take?

Buzz
03-09-2013, 12:58 PM
Yes, primary training in a glider of any kind is a good way to start before advancing to powered flight. That's how the Wright's self taught themselves successfully.Bill, I talked about Kitty Hawk Kites in the context that they are able to teach groups of people in classes because hang gliding does not require dual training.

1. Would learning to fly a hang glider be beneficial to a non-pilot wanting to learn how to fly ultralights? Yes

2. Would learning to fly a sailplane with dual instruction [as you did] be beneficial to a non-pilot getting into ultralights? No more beneficial than getting dual in something powered.

3. Is it realistic that a non-pilot wanting to learn to fly ultralights is going to go out and learn to fly either a hang glider or a sailplane first? No. I believe going out and getting the non-ultralight commerical dual available today is the more direct route into ultralights for a non-pilot than learning to fly a hang glider or a sailplane.

I was not advocating non-pilots learn to glide in something before starting the SSTM training scenario that we have been discussing. I do not believe that should be part of an SSTM training solution. It was not back in the early '80s SSTM training and should not be added to the modern version for #3 above.

I only referenced hang gliders in the context of being able to teach people in groups, as we'd be able to do with SSTM.

-Buzz

Buzz
03-09-2013, 04:53 PM
Wouldn't it be great to have a way for fathers and teenage sons to learn to fly an ultralight TOGETHER.

With other fathers and sons!

How much easier would it be for a guy that has finally started making enough money to afford an ultralight to justify the expenditure because it's an activity that he does with his teenager?

How much demand would there be for ultralight instruction when a teen says to his peers, "Hey, my Dad & I are learning to fly ultralights together. It's really cool. You should talk to your dad about it."

What kind of activity would there be in the ultralight area at EAA when fathers and sons are coming to EAA because they BOTH fly ultralights.

When the first several hours of flying are spent over in some practice area under the dual instruction method, it's not exactly a "together" activity learning to fly an ultralight.

It becomes a "together" and class-based activity under the SSTM. Because of that, the SSTM approach could potentially infuse more participants into the ultralight community than was ever possible with dual instruction. [AOPA's research has shown a lack of a "social" component is one of the key people get turned off on learning to fly after they start lessons. There is a lack of peers.]

Wouldn't it be ironic if we looked back in 5-7 years and said the loss of the dual exemption and the return to SSTM actually increased the rate of people coming into the activity over the levels just before the loss of the exemption. That the loss of the dual exemption.

Bill Berson
03-09-2013, 06:57 PM
It becomes a "together" and class-based activity under the SSTM. Because of that, the SSTM approach could potentially infuse more participants into the ultralight community than was ever possible with dual instruction. [AOPA's research has shown a lack of a "social" component is one of the key people get turned off on learning to fly after they start lessons. There is a lack of peers.]
.
My glider club did provide a social component. The club owned the gliders and bought insurance. I joined the club at age 18 and for $300 entry fee got free instruction for a private glider certificate. (I also paid aero tow cost)
The club instructor was volunteer.
Do ultralight clubs exist like this?

Buzz
03-10-2013, 08:51 AM
My glider club did provide a social component. The club owned the gliders and bought insurance. I joined the club at age 18 and for $300 entry fee got free instruction for a private glider certificate. (I also paid aero tow cost)
The club instructor was volunteer.
Do ultralight clubs exist like this?This sounds like it was a great club for someone wanting to learn to fly a glider. It's terrific that it made learning to fly a glider a social experience and accessible and affordable to an 18 yr old.

As for ultralight clubs that own ultralights and provide instruction to non-pilots, I have never personally heard of one.

I believe they've never existed because these clubs were virtually impossible under the old ultralight dual exemption. However, if a SSTM can be restored, it would make these clubs more possible in the ultralight community.

A main barrier to these clubs in the ultralight community previously was the lack of instructor liability insurance available for ultralights.

That insurance has always been available for aircraft and glider CFIs. The reason why CFIs are insurable for instruction is because they have to meet established testing standards by the FAA.

The personal liability an instructor incurs during instruction is during the time they are in the aircraft. They are pilot-in-command at all times they are in the aircraft. If there is an accident during dual instruction, it's the instructor that is liable.

While not impossible, it's very hard to hold an instructor negligent for what a student does when flying alone. [This was established by case law in just the last two years. The estate of someone that killed themselves in a Cirrus tried to claim instructional negligence. I provided the details in the case in one of my other postings on the EAA forum sometime last year.]

If your club instructor was an unpaid volunteer, the club probably bought his instructor insurance as part of their policy.

Under the SSTM, the liability of an accident is going to fall on the organization. The members can be shielded from that personal liability by having the club be an LLC.

The club is not going to be able to get hull insurance on the trainers. That's the bad news. The good news is that the amount of damage down to them in training is probably going to be pretty minor. And the club membership would be able to do the maintenance.

The other thing about the club operating under SSTM is that it could develop it's own volunteer instructors easier as it grows then it can when the instructors require an FAA rating as your glider club did. If the club developed a rating system that the student advanced through, it could set operating limitations and required skill levels that would reduce the likelihood of a student bending a club ultralight. Instructor quality would be maintained by having their students have to test to advance to the next rating/operating limitations.

[I've been developing a rating system for a SSTM club idea I've been toying with myself. I am using the United States Hang Gliding Rating system as a template for the SSTM club rating system. That USHGA rating system is built around single seat instruction and includes operating limitation on wind at the lower levels. Their systems is VERY well developed because the USHGA goal is to prevent hang gliding accidents that will cause the numerous flying sites on public lands to be closed. The USHGA has been assigned controlling authority at virtually all these sites from what I understand.]

After some operating history, the club would be able to determine how much to build into the rental rate of the ultralights to make the club self-insurable with respect to hull insurance.

I bet the club you belonged to got a lot of non-pilots into flying gliders. If we can tap the potential of the SSTM that the early ultralight industry shows it has, it is possible to tap all the value your glider club provided for non-pilots wanting to get into flying ultralights.

-Buzz

Bill Berson
03-10-2013, 10:25 AM
The glider club was in Anchorage, Alaska, a major aviation community. I doubt anything similar exists today.

Back to your ground based training schemes, a few more ideas....

1) incorporate some RC model training to demonstrate stalls etc.
2) incorporate significant ground based flight simulation. X-Plane has a variety of simulation options, from home based to FAA approved.
A group is using X-Plane in schools as a teaching aid.
It's called: Fly To Learn, Powered by X-Plane. Listen to an EAA radio archive about it here:http://www.airventure.org/radio/archives.html
Scroll to Judy Rice and click on her name, then you need to go back to top and click play.

Bill Berson
03-11-2013, 10:56 PM
I found a free download for Quicksilver MX simulation here for X-Plane.

http://www.x-hangar.com/mxsport.htm

Probably more ultralights available at X-Plane site, but I couldn't find a way to search that site. Found the above from google search .

jedi
03-13-2013, 05:36 AM
This sounds like it was a great club for someone wanting to learn to fly a glider. It's terrific that it made learning to fly a glider a social experience and accessible and affordable to an 18 yr old.

As for ultralight clubs that own ultralights and provide instruction to non-pilots, I have never personally heard of one.

I believe they've never existed because these clubs were virtually impossible under the old ultralight dual exemption. However, if a SSTM can be restored, it would make these clubs more possible in the ultralight community.

A main barrier to these clubs in the ultralight community previously was the lack of instructor liability insurance available for ultralights.

.....



Buzz.

You are in a position to start just such a club. Insurance for the instructor should not be an issue as the instructor has no authority to instruct other than his agreeing to help others and the others willingness to accept his assistance. The fact that the instructor is not licenced or certificitated to teach does a lot to remove him from being liable (my opinion and I am not a lawyer). He should not hold himself out as any kind of expert, only that he has flown before. I needs to be clear, and in writing, that the student alone is responsable for his safety.

You have proposed a workable system here. It is time to put it into action. I think you have a good chance to succeed and demonstrate how well the system can work.

This is what the industry needs and you are in a unique position to demonstrate it. Make a list and post here what additional materials or ideas you need to put your plan into action.

jedi
03-13-2013, 05:51 AM
.....

I believe they've never existed because these clubs were virtually impossible under the old ultralight dual exemption. However, if a SSTM can be restored, it would make these clubs more possible in the ultralight community.



When the exemption was available it was an alternative to the SSTM but did not prohibit if. The SSTM was and still is a viable training method. It does not need to be restrored, it needs to be implemented. That is the point of my previous post. The time has come to do it. You must determine if you have the desire and ability. Others can provide encouragement and assistance.

I think the primary reason this was not common in prior years is because the equipment owner was not comfortable allowing the club like access to his equipment. The club should probably be a non profit and the equipment purchased by or donated to the club. The club need not make a up front payment for the equipment, it may enter a purchase agreement to make payments as membership grows and useage continues.

jedi

jedi
03-13-2013, 05:53 AM
Duplicate post deleted.

Dana
03-13-2013, 06:45 PM
...The club need not make a up front payment for the equipment, it may enter a purchase agreement to make payments as membership grows and useage continues.


Problem is, if a student damages the aircraft and the club doesn't have the funds to repair it, how will membership grow with no aircraft?

Re instructional liability, even if the instructor is on the ground he is still likely to be sued if a student is hurt or killed. All the lawyer has to do is to claim that the instructor sent the student up when the instructor knew the student wasn't ready, and the student didn't know any better, trusting the instructor... the jury is horrified...

In theory, a SP CFI can get a LODA for primary ultralight instruction in an experimental (ELSA or E-AB), and it does not have to be a prior "ultralight trainer" as was required during the transition. There have been very few LODAs issued, though... One hurdle is that the instructor has to submit a complete training syllabus to the FAA, which is a lot of work to create. I'm surprised that USUA or ASC hasn't jumped on this, and dusted off their old BFI training materials to sell to instructors. But if this could be done, a club with a 2-seater and one or more single seaters could be viable.

Buzz
03-14-2013, 04:03 AM
I found a free download for Quicksilver MX simulation here for X-Plane.

http://www.x-hangar.com/mxsport.htm

Probably more ultralights available at X-Plane site, but I couldn't find a way to search that site. Found the above from google search .Thanks Bill!!

Buzz
03-15-2013, 01:34 PM
Re instructional liability, even if the instructor is on the ground he is still likely to be sued if a student is hurt or killed. All the lawyer has to do is to claim that the instructor sent the student up when the instructor knew the student wasn't ready, and the student didn't know any better, trusting the instructor... the jury is horrified...Dana,

Cirrus was successfully sued for insufficient instruction. I quote from the case when the ruling was overtuned in Appeals. "A negligence claim against an aviation-training provider is barred under the educational-malpractice doctrine where the essence of the claim is that the provider failed to provide an effective education".

A personal injury lawyer is not going to be motivated to take the case [because they work on a contingency] with that legal precedent of Cirrus being found NOT liable on Appeals now sitting out there. Their chance of winning is essentially zero.

A lot of people are of the opinion taking the instructor out of the aircraft INCREASES liability to the instructor. Not according to the courts.

The educational-malpractice doctrine kicks in and protects him from personal liability when the instructor gets out of the airplane. [The educational-malpractice doctrine is why I can't sue my ski instructor when I break my leg, my college professors because I couldn't get a job, etc. etc.]

-Buzz

Buzz
03-15-2013, 02:23 PM
Problem is, if a student damages the aircraft and the club doesn't have the funds to repair it, how will membership grow with no aircraft?
The way you keep student damage to aircraft to a known and predictable minimum is the same way an FAA training school does. With a rating system. A flight school uses Student Pilot, Private, Instrument, Multi, etc. Each of those ratings requires the demonstration of certain skill levels and has clear operating limitations [visibilities, airspace, ceilings, # of engines, etc. etc. etc.] Ditto with a GA flying club.

One hurdle is that the instructor has to submit a complete training syllabus to the FAA, which is a lot of work to create. There needs to be a new rating system developed around the SSTM. Been working on that for two years. For a template I used the the United States Hang Gliding rating system, which is based on SSTM method and also is for a flight vehicle with operating limitations [wind gradient, cross wind, etc.] akin to the 2-axis MX trainer I envision for this.

By having a rating system with skills required and operating limitations, I believe a club can be self-insured with respect to hull damage.

There is one other KEY part of club design that I believe is necessary. That is the monitoring of the student's adherence to the operating limitations while away from the direct observation of the instructor. For instance, while we can teach a student how to make a power out landing, how do we monitor that he has always flown at a place an altitude where he can reach a suitable field to even make the landing. Each aircraft will have a GPS datalogger that has to be running at all times [or the student gets fined]. The GPS track of every flight is logged into the club on-line logbook. Those logs are reviewed by the instructor to ensure the flight was made within the operating limitations of the club. It's the things a student does when he is no longer in the direct observation of an instructor that will wipe an aircraft out the quickest.

One's share in the club buys one's share in the airplanes. A portion of the rental rate per hour will go into maintenance fund and replacement fund for the airplane. If set properly, there will be enough funds in the reserve to fix/replace the airplane if it's ever damaged or destroyed. Be it by a student or by a freak thunderstorm. The rating system AND operational limitations AND strict monitoring of adherence to the operating limitations on ALL flight operations are what keep that likelihood to a manageable limit. I think we can manage the risk to a member's investment in their club share through those 3 things.

There will need to be a fixed number of shares per trainer. One would not be able to join the club until another member wants to leave and sell their share. However, if this is a training club there should be a steady in-flow of new members and out-flow of graduates ready to sell their share and go buy their first ultralight [either alone or maybe with another graduate]. Hopefully.

Experience will tell how workable this whole concept is.

Buzz
03-15-2013, 02:49 PM
You must determine if you have the desire and ability. Others can provide encouragement and assistance.

I think the primary reason this was not common in prior years is because the equipment owner was not comfortable allowing club like access to his equipment. The club should probably be a non profit and the equipment purchased by or donated to the club. The club need not make a up front payment for the equipment, it may enter a purchase agreement to make payments as membership grows and useage continues. jedi
Jedi, I started working on an utralight club training concept using the SSTM, as I may have shared elsewhere, in October '10. There were MANY hurdles to overcome. The largest being a limitation of hangar space within a reasonable drive of my house. Lots of grass airports to use easily accessible to students. No hangars.

The breakthrough came when I stumbled across a super steal on an MX in an enclosed trailer. I bought it for the MX and realized the trailer was the bigger find for me. It will hold 3 MXs. Suddenly I was able to easily scale from 1 trainer to 3 and could operate at virtually any of the available airports.

Will trailering get old at some point? Absolutely. But there are some operational advantages. The biggest is that it allows the club to "scale" and not be held back by the shortage of hangars in the area.

I could not get at the project at all last year. This year I'll be starting. I have a showroom quality MX that came in the trailer that I'll be selling to liquidate the funds and then another MX I bought that is more "trainer quality". No frills.

I'm going to get some operational experience and data with the one MX in the trailer. Once I get 5-10 students through the SSTM process and have some knowledge of wear and tear on the trainer, costs, equipment needs, etc. I'll be ready to form the club, determine what shares will cost, etc. Then I'll sell the club entity the trainer and have the club entity pay me back as the shares are sold.

I don't know how many trainers will need per X members for members to get reasonable access at a reasonable share price. That'll come with some operating experience.

If this club is successful, I'll share our blueprint with whoever can learn from my/our experience.

As you said, I think I've put enough thought and research into the idea and blogged about it enough publicly to where any of the the "woodchucks in the woodpile" I haven't been able to see myself have been brought into the light of day. I can't see any reason WHY it wouldn't work and have committed some personal bucks into it.

Time to get it off the drawing board and into the air. Like all good aviation ideas. [Or try anyway!]

-Buzz

Buzz
03-15-2013, 08:25 PM
The club should probably be a non profit and the equipment purchased by or donated to the club. By "non-profit" what you may mean is 501(3)(c). I looked at setting one up so anyone that would donate to the club could take a tax write-off.

For the little benefit that would provide, the work involved in setting one up didn't make it seem worth it.

What the club would need to be is an LLC. Those are fairly easy to set up. The members are going to have partial ownership in assets [trainers] that could land on something, hit something etc. An LLC will protect the members from any personal liability from their partial ownership of the asset.

They'll be personally liable for their flying. But that is a risk every ultralight pilot takes now and has always taken. Nothing new there.

-Buzz

Buzz
03-16-2013, 06:56 AM
Buzz. You are in a position to start just such a club. You have proposed a workable system here. It is time to put it into action. I think you have a good chance to succeed and demonstrate how well the system can work. This is what the industry needs and you are in a unique position to demonstrate it. Make a list and post here what additional materials or ideas you need to put your plan into action.Jedi, my experience in starting some businesses that were successful "paradigm shifters" is that one has to put their idea other there and invite knowledgeable people to critique it. It is a whole lot cheaper for others to point out what you "don't know you don't know" that finding that out during the launch.

So those that have challenged the idea here have made a great contribution already.

jedi
03-16-2013, 11:27 AM
.....I started working on an utralight club training concept using the SSTM, as I may have shared elsewhere, in October '10. There were MANY hurdles to overcome. The largest being a limitation of hangar space within a reasonable drive of my house. Lots of grass airports to use easily accessible to students. No hangars.

The breakthrough came when I stumbled across a super steal on an MX in an enclosed trailer. I bought it for the MX and realized the trailer was the bigger find for me. It will hold 3 MXs. Suddenly I was able to easily scale from 1 trainer to 3 and could operate at virtually any of the available airports.

Will trailering get old at some point? Absolutely. But there are some operational advantages. The biggest is that it allows the club to "scale" and not be held back by the shortage of hangars in the area.


There is a good chance you will be primarily a weekend operation. Not sure what part of the country you are in weather wise with regard to thunderstorms etc. but you may find a Friday set up and Sunday teardown works well. Also, one of the clubs next big purchases may be a temporary hanger for summer storage if the operation is seasonal. Sometimes hanger storage is more efficient flight time wise than having a second trainer that seldom gets assembled.

Buzz
03-16-2013, 12:30 PM
There is a good chance you will be primarily a weekend operation. Not sure what part of the country you are in weather wise with regard to thunderstorms etc. but you may find a Friday set up and Sunday teardown works well. Yep. I anticipate nearly all the training is going to be done at sunrise and suset starting on Friday nite and going through Sunday. Watching the weather and tearing down during the weekend as necessary.


Also, one of the clubs next big purchases may be a temporary hanger for summer storage if the operation is seasonal. Sometimes hanger storage is more efficient flight time wise than having a second trainer that seldom gets assembled.Not having to trailer and setup will be a huge improvement as the club grows. trailering now got me past the hangar space limitation in my area. And also has let me work on the trainer at home when I have time.[Cleaning it up, pulling off the engine, etc.]

At least the fact that the SSTM can be done in a class format provides the manpower needed to speed up the setup and teardown. 4-5 people unloading and assemblying an MX will make it go pretty fast. Also, if the manpower is students, there is at least some training benefit in that they are getting to know the airplane better they are flying.

Buzz
03-16-2013, 01:19 PM
Buzz. You are in a position to start just such a club. You have proposed a workable system here. It is time to put it into action. I think you have a good chance to succeed and demonstrate how well the system can work. This is what the industry needs and you are in a unique position to demonstrate it. Make a list and post here what additional materials or ideas you need to put your plan into action.Jedi, thanks for both your words of encouragement and your offer of support.

My experience in starting some organizations that were successful "paradigm shifters" is that one has to put their idea other there and invite knowledgeable people to critique it. It is a whole lot cheaper for others to point out what you "don't know you don't know" than finding that out when the idea flops in execution.

So those that have challenged the idea here have made a great contribution already.

As for materials or ideas, I'm thinking the help I need is how to structure a club around fractional ownership. Wonder what experience anyone has?

-Buzz

Dana
03-16-2013, 06:29 PM
The way you keep student damage to aircraft to a known and predictable minimum is the same way an FAA training school does. With a rating system. A flight school uses Student Pilot, Private, Instrument, Multi, etc. Each of those ratings requires the demonstration of certain skill levels and has clear operating limitations [visibilities, airspace, ceilings, # of engines, etc. etc. etc.] Ditto with a GA flying club.

Doesn't help when the student's first solo is his first flight, what rating does he have? The early history of ultralights shows this, Quicksilver dealers took lots of parts orders on Monday mornings...

Most PPG instructors require the student to own his own gear prior to solo, or agree to pay for any damages.

Buzz
03-17-2013, 12:55 PM
Doesn't help when the student's first solo is his first flight, what rating does he have? Dana- You ask really great questions and bring up key points that need to be discussed.

Re: rating. A "rating" as I am using it is a "training phase". There are prerequisites one has to meet before entering the phase. A particular set of skills are worked on in the phase and there are operation limitations for the training phase.

The operating limitations of the particular training phase ensures the student doesn't get into a situation beyond their current skill level. I can't fly into instrument conditions on my Private license because I'll get behind the airplane in IMC. So there are operating limitations on my rating regarding weather, ceilings, etc. [One of the operating limitations of every phase is that you successfully completed the last one. I can't go from Student Pilot to Instrument Pilot, for example, in GA. I need to complete the Private first.]

There is a certain set of skills required to advance to each level. For instance, in the PPG training I suspect the student has to be able to launch the PPG overhead with consistent skill before they get into the training phase where they learn to run with the PPG for launch. If students are allowed to go into the launch training before they’ve learned to master getting the PPG overhead and controlling it, then I suspect there will be a lot of PPGs wrecked during training.

When I join the club I am in my “penguin” phase. That’s my rating. The prerequisite is I’ve joined the club and bought my share.

During this training phase I never leave the ground. I am working on the skills necessary for me to have so I am always ahead of the MX in my first crow hop.

My [limited] experience with the SSTM is that the “penquin” phase can be several hours of practice taxing and learning throttle control in the MX. Often over several sessions. Also learning preflight, etc. is also done during this training phase.

There is a lot of training that occurs during the “penguin” rating under the SSTM method in an MX. In contrast, my penguin phase when I learned to fly GA, was very short. I was in the airplane 15 minutes before we left the ground the first time. But that’s all the penguin phase needed to be because I was not not the one that needed to be ahead of the airplane at all times. He was.

A training club is going to need a rating system to have established training phases with established operating limitations for the phase. The ratings/operating limits is what will ensure a consistent quality of instruction for each student and ensure each student is not advanced to the next stage util they are ready.


The early history of ultralights shows this, Quicksilver dealers took lots of parts orders on Monday mornings...Yep!

Anyone reading this thread that believes they can teach themselves to fly their ultralight needs to keep that in mind. If they try to teach themselves, history has shown they will likely be buying parts for it.

However, those parts orders were not an indictment of the SSTM in the hands of an instructor knowledgeable in the methodology and using the right ultralight.

Instructors like Dan Johnston and Mark Smith at Tri-State Kites who did lots of SSTM will tell you they were not replacing parts on their MXs because their students were damaging them during the training process.

The ultralight community needs to figure out how get non-pilots ultralight training and overcome the loss of 2-place ultralight training exemption. One way is use the training methodology and particular ultralights that very successful instructors like Dan and Mark were using to train before the 2-place ultralights even existed.


Most PPG instructors require the student to own his own gear prior to solo, or agree to pay for any damages.I believe PPGs are taught using SSTM in most cases, aren’t they?

None of the instructors I know that taught SSTM in the early days using MXs required the student to own the aircraft or agree to pay for damages. [Which I take as a pretty good indicator of how much easier it is to train someone to fly an MX using SSTM than to train someone to fly a PPG.]

That they did not require that, is also more support for the idea that an ultralight training club involving fractional ownership

Thanks for your thoughts Dana.

-Buzz

jedi
03-22-2013, 10:57 PM
...... As for materials or ideas, I'm thinking the help I need is how to structure a club around fractional ownership. Wonder what experience anyone has? .........

-Buzz

Start with a ground school and get people interested. Also, computer simulation will help a lot without need for aircraft ownership or dammage deposit. Those in the club at that point may be able to help with bylaws and other formal requirements. Once interest is verified it will be much easier to get vollunteers to come forward. Local chamber of commerce, Lyons club, etc. will have experiance helpers.

Buzz
03-25-2013, 12:15 PM
Start with a ground school and get people interested. Also, computer simulation will help a lot without need for aircraft ownership or damage deposit. Those in the club at that point may be able to help with bylaws and other formal requirements. Once interest is verified it will be much easier to get volunteers to come forward. Local chamber of commerce, Lyons club, etc. will have experience helpers.The USUA has a very good written training guide that can be adapted to the SSTM method. The illustrations even use a “MX” type ultralight. While the course was based on dual, it’s ultralight oriented with respect to weather, flight theory, etc. The sections in the manual just need to be read by the student in a different sequence.

Re: sim. One thing about the SSTM is that it does not lend itself well to simulation because there is a lot more visual reference to the ground in the early training portion. The first accumulated hour of flight time is flown at 1-5ft of altitude using the ground for atltitude/attitude reference. The student is sensing a lot with the peripheral vision both to sides and down. Whereas in dual, they are using mostly horizon reference, which lends itself well to simulation.

If we can have the same success the pioneer UL instructors using SSTM had, we should avoid the need for any damage deposit even without simulation.

All speculation now. 5-10 adults through SSTM will provide more data. That’s the goal