Has General Aviation Missed the Potential of Basic Ultralights?

[Buzz]

I wouldn't want any part of the liability in that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Buzz

[Buzz]

The AOPA commissioned a research study in 2010 to find out why only 20% of people that start flight training ever finish it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My thoughts.

-Buzz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dana]

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

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

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

[martymayes]

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

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

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


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

[Buzz]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[csheehan99]

That is our biggest problem with the club I fly with, it is next to impossible to be above board and get commercial insurance.

[martymayes]

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

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

[Buzz]

That is our biggest problem with the club I fly with, it is next to impossible to be above board and get commercial insurance.

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

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

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

Thanks!

-Buzz

[Buzz]

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

I don't have any personal experience flying PPGs, so my comments are speculative. However, I believe the disappearance of PPGs in your area is more a function of their operating characteristics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

My thoughts.

-Buzz

[Flyfalcons]

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

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