If you're talking about ultralights, the thing that put the instructors out of business in ultralights was the general disregard for the regulations in the industry more than any imagined conspiracy by the LSA manufacturers. Ultralight regulation was almost as laughable as CB Radio.
If you're talking about LSA instruction in general, I might tend to agree with you.
There were very few true ultralights in the first place. Ultralight meaning Part 103 legal, with a <254 lb empty weight and which carried <5 gallons of fuel.
When the feds went after the fat ultralights (most of which were flaunting the rules), the entire industry collapsed because there was no market for true ultralights and the fat ultralights had been the industry's bread and butter.
OP, As you can see here there is much interest in this topic. A few points to consider. When the FAA phased out the 2 seat trainer exemption (long abused by owners who were not instructors and not using them for training but a 2 seat plane) the intent was to allow the now ELSA ( converted 2 seat trainers) to operate under a LODA ( Letter of deviation authority) to continue to offer type specific training. This LODA mechanism was delayed for years - offering the training facilities that were active to either shift to SLSA aircraft (commonly not anywhere close to a UL type aircraft) or go out of business. Many taking the latter direction. The current LODA holders have found it very difficult to get this status for training in an experimental aircraft even though they were the same aircraft that operated under the exemption just a few years ago.
https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-...s-loda-holders
There are now a few SLSA aircraft that are UL type aircraft including the just approved Quick Silver.
DHS ( http://www.dhs.gov/) had little to no influence on the FAA's lack of action re LODA. ( conspiracy interested bloggers disregarded)
What was apparent was the near universal disregard of the CFRs - part 103 ( http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieve...r=PART&ty=HTML) including the aforementioned training exemption.
RE : Airports throwing ULs off the fields. If receiving federal dollars they can not exempt part 103 vehicles from the airport but they can have FSDO come out to inspect aircraft to assure compliance. The common maverick attitude of many UL operators ( it takes but a few to label them all in the eyes of public and agency) had poor standards of airmanship and noisy overflights over homes that brought too may eyes on their aircraft.
The days of wild west 80s for part 103 aircraft are gone - there is now a continuum of regulation from part 103 up through 12,500 #
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr3zCq8JYxI
Great video if you take the time........
I agree with John, except for maybe the point that you need A&P type knowledge to get an ultralight ready to go. Buy something like the ubiquitous used everyman Quicksilver on Barnstormer.com and download the assembly manual from Quicksilveraircraftowners group on Yahoo. You'll have everything you need to get the thing ready to fly.Originally Posted by magpie@hwy2.com
As pointed out previously, you'll need to figure out how to get some training.
-Buzz
Coincidentially, Quicksilver started offering an S-LSA, which is basically one of their strut-braced kit designs. They are trying to lure someone to instruct for ultralights in it, wiith the target price of something like $45k. We'll see how well it goes.
BTW, U-Fly-It offers transition training in a Quicksilver to the buyers of Aerolite 103. I presume they do it under a LoDA.
I'd say the 20/20 exposé had more to do with it than sport flying.
Sounds like a crock. Exactly what are they insuring?I called every airport i can think of to get info on ultralight flying. They all said they had to kick em out after 9/11 for insurance purposes.
Yeah, I've never heard of an airport taking out insurance for any operation: small aircraft, ultralights, skydiving...
In fact, I suspect it's not legal for anybody who took AIP funds to exclude people even if it was "hard to insure."
Most of the UL operations I am aware of died for the lack of customers more than any other compelling reason. Of course, the cancellation of the training exemption pretty much put the nails in the coffin of an otherwise moribund industry.
I started out with a Eipper hang glider in 1974 [after already have my Private], put an engine on an Easy Riser I built for hang gliding and then started flying Eipper/Quicksilver ulralights. I'm also an hour south of Oshkosh. So I've been watching the ultralight industry for a long time.
IMHO, the 20/20 piece actually saved the ultralight segment at the time from killing off Part 103.
Early on there were a lot of adrenalin seekers that viewed getting into u/l as just another recreation vehicle like a motorcycle. Buy it, teach yourself to takeoff/land and then have-at-it. I think the "20/20" piece cooled off this Wild West factor.
No one that did their homework on getting into u/ls got scared off by the 20/20 piece. It scared away the uniformed that just looked at it as "no training required" everyman flying. Put enough of those in the air and you'll some things big enough to really get the FAA to re-think Part 103. Some near misses with some commercial aircraft, some goof trying to land in Yankee Stadium during a game or ?
Granted, there's no longer a viable commercial industry around Part 103. "20/20" did cause that.
But it's still great Part 103 is on the books for those who dream of simple, personal and reasonably affordable fun flying. It takes more of a will than it did 25 years ago when instructors were common, but there is still a way via Part 103 for those with a large enough will.
One last thought. While it's a lot harder to find local information about ultralights today, the nice thing for people today is the Internet and forums like these. At least you can find people with information to share on getting into the activity.
My thoughts.
-Buzz
Last edited by Buzz; 07-21-2014 at 07:32 AM.
Yes, some ultralight manufacturers of the day saw their order books with 100+ vehicles evaporate overnight. Doors closed and ultralight fire sales were common. That news piece, accurate or not wiped out the commercial side of the industry as we knew it.
I agree completely. Not much personal involvement with ultralight vehicles, but a fan since the '70's. When Part 103 showed up, I thought it was a good thing. One day I plan on building or rebuilding an true ultralight and flying it from my backyard. So many projects, so little time.....But it's still great Part 103 is on the books for those who dream of simple, personal and reasonably affordable fun flying. It takes more of a will than it did 25 years ago when instructors were common, but there is still a way via Part 103 for those with a large enough will.
Hi all, my name is Bob and this is my first post here. I was around prior to the UL boom, flying my old Seagull 3, then later the new Seagull Seahawk 200 in the below picture.
OK, fast forward 30 years and the itch for simple, cheap, and minimally regulated flight is still with me, however, the fitness of my body is no longer the same.
This is all I want, the freedom of flight without the hassle of intrusive government intervention and I believe 103 is still the way to go. Because of lack of training available, this segment of recreational aviation will never support a large base because about the only viable customers are the limited numbers of folks like myself that have previous experience. During my time hang gliding I also picked up some PPL training in a Cessna 150 with 15 solo hours and also flew the Waspair Tomcat UL.
This is how I hope to get back to recreational flight with minimum fuss. I'm retired and currently looking to sell my California home for a modest airpark home with hanger. This eliminates the transport and set up for a UL. My choice of flying is back country camping, flying to just my air fix, and now the big one, at least twice a year a long cross country for AirVenture and Sun and Fun.
The planes that have my interest are the Earthstar Gull, Belite ProCub lite, and the Song powered glider. All but the Song would be a good candidate for back country flying. I have zero taildragger time so would need some dual in a J3 before flying the Belite.
It really is too bad that so many folks abused the twin seat UL trainer concept for non training because IMHO part 103 will over time just atrophy and die when old timers like me are no longer around.
Looking for some feedback on these choices. Mark Beierle has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt his Gull is capable of cross country flights. I don't know much about the Belite and its Polini engine and know even less about the Song with the screaming 4 stroke Baily V5.
Bob
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote