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.]It is necessary to start young, before teen age interests set in. I think 9 or ten would be a good minimum age.
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.
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.Start them on non pilot projects, kites and model airplanes. This will get them involved and teach aerodynamics and construction.
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.
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.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.
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.
We never transitioned people into single seat ultralights from some other training craft. We safely trained them in single seat ultralights.Transition to powered ultralights is the ultimate goal.
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.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.
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.
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.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).
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.Now, what if you actually built and test flew the craft you are flying? Would that increase your sense of accomplishment
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.
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.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?
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
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by steveinindy
