Has General Aviation Missed the Potential of Basic Ultralights?

[Dan Grunloh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.