Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 138

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

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Switzer View Post
    The OP is talking about FBOs using ultralights for instruction as standard practice, it isn't going to be allowed.
    We're off the original premise. Think Boy Scouts teaching kayaking as opposed to a commercial business teaching kayaking.

    A teen oriented aviation club, not-for-profit, that uses one of the early basic ultralight designs to get teens "aviating". A social club around learning to "aviate" just like the EAA clubs are formed around homebuilding. Teen oriented. Cap the maximum age at 17 just as Scouts cap the max age when you can earn Eagle.

  2. #22
    Mike Switzer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    979
    Another thing to think about - How are you going to get insurance?

  3. #23
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    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
    The numbers you are talking about deriving aren't likely going to imply anything about the larger safety record of ultralights. They will apply to your own operation but may have little in the way of broader extrapolation. However, I would like to point out that I would completely support you setting a great example for the ultralight community as a whole with a focus on safety.

    We're off the original premise. Think Boy Scouts teaching kayaking as opposed to a commercial business teaching kayaking.
    A non-profit operation is still a commercial operation according to the FAA.
    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.



  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by steveinindy View Post
    A non-profit operation is still a commercial operation according to the FAA.
    Steve, is it your understanding that a non-profit ultralight club could not own aircraft for use by the members under the FAA rules?

    -Buzz

  5. #25
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Steve, is it your understanding that a non-profit ultralight club could not own aircraft for use by the members under the FAA rules?
    I don't know but it would depend most likely on how you set it up or more importantly how the FAA interprets it. If they see it as you running a flight school for all intents and purposes based around registered ultralights, then you have problems. My point is simply to tread lightly and to check with the FAA before you go ahead with this and get the official opinion in writing before you do anything.

    I'm all for people learning to fly. I'm just wanting to make sure you do it in a way that will keep you out of trouble with the FAA.
    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.



  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by steveinindy View Post
    The numbers you are talking about deriving aren't likely going to imply anything about the larger safety record of ultralights. They will apply to your own operation but may have little in the way of broader extrapolation. However, I would like to point out that I would completely support you setting a great example for the ultralight community as a whole with a focus on safety.
    Yes, agreed. Any empirical data this operation would collect would of only be of use for determining the safety of this particular operation.

    Although not the goal or objective of the organization, it might lead to some shift in public perception as a by-product of it's safety record.

    If an aviation training club using basic ultralights and operating with a strict focus on safety could get some teens safely aviating, it could be used as an example that ultralights are not inherently "unsafe". Again, changing the perceptions of the general public is not the mission. But at least creating one example of how safe ultralights can be, even for teen aviators, when there is sufficient and proper training and there are safe operating limitations used by the operation certainly would be a positive contribution.

  7. #27
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Again, changing the perceptions of the general public is not the mission. But at least creating one example of how safe ultralights can be, even for teen aviators, when there is sufficient and proper training and there are safe operating limitations used by the operation certainly would be a positive contribution.
    I actually agree with you on that. The only way to change public opinion is by providing more positive examples than negative. Unfortunately, we have long acted as though it does not matter or that any change in the way we approach things is to admit that we're not as good as we like to think we are.

    You have my support for the idea if you want or need it.
    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.



  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by steveinindy View Post
    I don't know but it would depend most likely on how you set it up or more importantly how the FAA interprets it. I'm all for people learning to fly. I'm just wanting to make sure you do it in a way that will keep you out of trouble with the FAA.
    I agree Steve. Nobody ever wants to run afoul of the FAA. I'm glad you brought this point up. It caused me to think through this aspect.

    I'm not sure I'd want to go to my local FSDO office and ask someone there his/her interpretation of "Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only;" [I don't believe there is any citation anywhere in Part 103 about "commercial" operation."]

    It would seem a very big stretch for the the FAA to consider the training to use something for recreation or sport purposes is not a "recreation" or "sport" activity itself. If one is training someone to fly an ultralight using an ultralight and ultralights can only be used for sport to recreating purposes, than I believe that training would qualify as a recreation or sport purpose. [This would also only apply to the use of the single seaters. Any dual training would need to be given in an LSA.]

    What I believe I'd essentially be asking the FAA is, "This aircraft meets the ultralight standards and will be operated in every respect consistent with Part 103. It will be operated only for recreation or sport purposes, including training on how to fly it for recreation or sport purposes." Rather than ask a bureaucrat to agree to that interpretation in writing, I thing the best course would be to let them challenge the use.

    [The FAA didn't have any issue with ultralights being used to guide whooping cranes. They had an issue when they found out the pilots were being paid for the flights. This training operation would be completely non-profit by volunteers that want to see more teens in aviation.]

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Switzer View Post
    Another thing to think about - How are you going to get insurance?
    Mike, it's something I've thought about.

    First of all, one has insurance when one has assets to protect. This club's assets would primarily be a bunch of single place ultralights. Not something that is going to interest the typical lawyer in chasing.

    Second, one needs insurance when one is in the "line of causality". When one has direct control over the aircraft, they are in the "line of causality". That is why instructors have to have insurance to give dual instruction. Initial dual instruction would be in LSAs where there is insurance.

    On any solo flight, the instructor is out of the line of causality. Once the aviator solos, they'll be continuing their training using single place ultralights. Those aircraft would be placarded the same way the FAA required the old 2-place trainers to be placarded. [Something along the lines "The Airworthiness of this vehicle has not be established by the FAA." We'd add a placard line, "The operator of this air vehicle is responsible for determining it's airworthiness before commencing operation."]

    An operation like this is not going to have many assets to be protected initially. But it will have assets if it succeeds. Insurance is based on actuarial data. Initially there won't be any. Once the club has operated for a while, it'll start to get actuarial data and will be able to get insurance to protect it's growing assets.

    [There is insurance. Kitty Hawk Kites is a large hang gliding training operation in NC. They've been in business since 1974. They also have a record of having safely trained over 300,000 people. I suspect they have been able to get insurance.]

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    1,205
    I think a club might need some sort of competition event or other social event to keep interest.
    Glider clubs, model clubs, parachute clubs, etc. all have competition. Ultralights are solo only and have no real purpose (such as travel)in the same way models have no purpose.

Posting Permissions

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