Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 138

Thread: Has General Aviation Missed the Potential of Basic Ultralights?

  1. #11
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    The other thing that u/l aviation always has working against it with respect to the bad actions of a few is the public's general fascination with anything involving aviation.

    I learned this first had back in 1986 when I had a fouled plug in a 2-place QuicksilverM, landed in a rough field and bent my landing gear. I got 2 column inches in the Milwaukee Journal when 4 people killed in a boat collision the same day got 1/4th the press. I and my passenger got some alfalfa stains on our tennis shoes but that was more newsworthy than 4 people being killed in the boat collision because planes are more interesting than boats for most people. People get killed everyday in cars and motorcycles and they get little press. But if a Cessna 172 runs lands long, takes out some runway lights and no one is hurt, that is still BIG news. That is just the nature of the public's interest in aviation.
    Yeah, I understand completely as someone who acts as a "reference" for a lot of reporters (trying to keep things factual and the speculation to a minimum) as a result of my line of work.

    What is interesting about u/l is that only GA sees them as "not real airplanes".
    That was not my experience as one of the primary "members" of our UL flying "club".

    Those with intimidate knowledge of the history of the u/l industry know it's not a "safety" problem they have/had, but too much "self-training" and people operating outside their own limitations and experience.
    I'll agree that it's predominately the "human factors" issue but given that no one really conclusively investigates the UL crashes in any organized manner, there's no good data out there on the rate of mechanical failures or structural failures with which to judge things. We may just be "wishful thinking" that it's almost entirely the jerks who fly like the laws of gravity and aerodynamics don't apply to them.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  2. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by steveinindy View Post
    The problem is...that people view ultralights as "not really planes" It's going to take a lot of effort, a LOT of good PR and a whole lot of luck to overcome such long standing impressions.
    Steve, public perception would not really have an impact on this program. Whether the public's perception of ultralights is positive or negative right now is moot to the potential of this concept.

    When I was flying a Cessna 150 alone at age 16 in and out of airports that also had airline service, the public perception, if there was poll taken, would probably be that I was "too young". However, the public perception about me doing it was a moot point. I didn't need the public's approval. Only the FAA's and I had that.

    There is nothing in Part 103 that prevents a teen from flying an ultralight. Or from building a teen aviating program around using an entry level ultralight design. The regs are in place to do it, the aircraft designs are already available and their are a ton of kids out there that would be interested. [MS-Flight Simulator is the most popular computer game program every sold with 21 million copies in print. There are a huge number of human activities one COULD simulate on a computer. However, simulating piloting something has the most amount of appeal. We need to be moving teens from "simulating" to "aviating". Nothing holds more promise for that first step than a teen aviating program built around one of the early basic ultralight designs IMHO.]

    Would every parent allow their 16 year old to solo a Cessna? No. However, mine did. And they certainly would have had no problem if I had got training to learn how to fly an Quicksilver MX rather than a Cessna 150. This also is not about providing an avenue for EVERY teen that has an interest in learning to fly something. Not every parent will approve. But getting this started would only require, initially, a small number of parents allowing some teens to participate. [Once the program had established solid safety statistics, the number of kids allowed to do it would increase.]

    As I've shared, I wish this had been around when I got bit by the flying bug at 15. Had I learned to fly a Quicksilver MX rather than a Cessna 150, I believe I would have got a lot more enjoyment out of flying at 16 and had also been able to afford to do a lot more of it. [re: the enjoyment of ultralight flying. I found it interesting watching Kirk Hawkins of ICON aircraft talk in the EAA's "Voices of Aviation" about his flying experience. He came up with the concept of the A5, has flown F-16s and had flown for the airlines. He's got a pretty good perspective on types of aviation. He said the most fun he's ever had in aviation was when he got started flying in a Phantom ultralight he rebuilt. He described that as the most enjoyable form of aviation he's ever done.]

    Lastly, I'm not suggesting giving some teens just enough training so they don't kill themselves and then turn them loose in ultralights. This would be an "aviating" training club concept with access to the trainers based on proficiency ratings with set operating limitations. Teens can earn higher proficiency ratings which let them fly the trainers in increasingly more challenging conditions. That would give the participants skill goals to strive for while making sure the safety record is way beyond that typically seen in ultralight flying. [There has been a lot of bent tubes by "self teachers" that tried to learn in winds and crosswind components that were beyond a beginner's capability.]
    Last edited by Buzz; 08-13-2012 at 08:30 AM.

  3. #13
    rosiejerryrosie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    392
    Buzz, I believe you are on to something here. If you need any help, count me in.
    Cheers,
    Jerry

    NC22375
    65LA out of 07N Pennsylvania

  4. #14
    Flyfalcons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Bonney Lake, WA
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    Steve, public perception would not really have an impact on this program. Whether the public's perception of ultralights is positive or negative right now is moot to the potential of this concept.
    How many parents are going to send their kids to "ultralight camp" if they think ultralights are dangerous?
    Ryan Winslow
    EAA 525529
    Stinson 108-1 "Big Red", RV-7 under construction

  5. #15
    Mike Switzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    979
    One major problem. There is no ultralight out there that could ever be certified as anything but Experimental, and it is not legal to provide instruction (and charge for it) in an experimental that is not owned by the pilot receiving instruction.

  6. #16
    Sam Buchanan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    KDCU
    Posts
    567
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Switzer View Post
    One major problem. There is no ultralight out there that could ever be certified as anything but Experimental, and it is not legal to provide instruction (and charge for it) in an experimental that is not owned by the pilot receiving instruction.
    A Letter of Deviation Authority (LODA) will allow instruction in a non-owned experimental aircraft and the instructor be paid for the flight. Details here:

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...BMCpvufDq5H53Q

    There are some hurdles to jump in order to receive the LODA but it can be done. I don't know if anyone has requested a LODA for an N-numbered ultralight.
    Last edited by Sam Buchanan; 08-13-2012 at 01:49 PM.
    Sam Buchanan
    The RV Journal RV-6 build log
    Fokker D.VII semi-replica build log

  7. #17
    Mike Switzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    979
    Yea, I know about that, but they are granted on a very limited basis.

    The OP is talking about FBOs using ultralights for instruction as standard practice, it isn't going to be allowed.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Midlothian Texas
    Posts
    62
    "I think current LSA manufacturers are too concerned with stuffing as many glass displays into their panels to worry about the actual intent of the new LSA class."

    couldn't agree more, I think they all have their up up their Glass

  9. #19
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Steve, public perception would not really have an impact on this program. Whether the public's perception of ultralights is positive or negative right now is moot to the potential of this concept.
    I sincerely hope you're right. However, but given that we need to convince members of that group to fly if we want to increase our numbers, then logic would dictate that if people are hesitant to fly then it's going to have an impact on a program to get more people flying. It's akin to getting people who are afraid of sharks to agree to learn to scuba dive in the shark tank at the local zoo. The fear/hesitance is largely misguided but it is still there.

    How many parents are going to send their kids to "ultralight camp" if they think ultralights are dangerous?
    This.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by Flyfalcons View Post
    How many parents are going to send their kids to "ultralight camp" if they think ultralights are dangerous?
    How many does one need to start collecting empirical data that teaching teens to fly with ultralights is not dangerous? I think the answer is this can be started with one teen.

    Granted, not every parent will let their teen be the first. But more parents will let the teen be the 500th with a documented safety record. And many parents will let their teen be the 5,000th if the safety record is well documented.

    As has been pointed out many times in the past, there is little empirical data collected on ultralight operations. One needs data to overcome perceptions. Perceptions are formed on incomplete data.

    I should add that core to this concept is a flight ops documentation method and standard that exceeds anything previously seen in utralight aviation. That's what would be necessary to document the safety record.
    Last edited by Buzz; 08-14-2012 at 08:37 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •