Has General Aviation Missed the Potential of Basic Ultralights?

[Buzz]

[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 10^th 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

[steveinindy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/o..._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]

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]

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]

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]

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.