Thank you Marty. You took the words out of my mouth. However, I will point out that Dana does have a point (that professionalism is more than blind following of regulations) but that the way most people who thumb their nose at the regulations is extremely unprofessional, namely insofar as the "I'm immune to the laws of physics/too good of a pilot" crap is concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by martymayes
I used to be one of those "let's update the regulations!" people, but it was explained to me in no uncertain terms that this is the LAST thing we want to happen. If they start updating Part 103, there is NO WAY IN HELL that we will end up with anything as flexible as we have now. ULs occupy a very real "sweet spot" in aviation, and any changes are going to move us out of that spot. I do consider the 254 lb limit to be a challenge, and seeing what Belite et al have done, wonder how hard some others have tried to meet the challenge, versus just ignoring the limit.
I agree, technology has made it easier to design a compliant ultralight. And that's what it will take to legitimize the business -- COMPLIANCE. That's the only way Buzz's idea is going to work. Ignoring the regs and hiding from the FAA isn't a workable solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Finney
I think Part 103 gives us an unbelievable opportunity to get teenagers actively aviating. The first time they fly an ultralight around the pattern as PIC and land it, a good many of them will be fully hooked on participating in aviation in some way or means for life. They may not all be buying Rans or Cirrus' later in life, but they'll be doing something to feed their passion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riley Winglowe
I've been tinkering with this idea since October 2010. Have actually put a lot of thought and work into it. I started this thread to really explore the scalability of the idea. I have enough local interest to get an initial group started. But I wonder where it goes from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by martymayes
As for compliance, there is no way this could ever work without it. Liability is the major hurdle to any action activity. Liability is reduced by having strict operating limitations. If one operates outside of legal operating limitations, it is "game/set/match" in any lawsuit. One might as well not even show up at the liability hearing.
I believe for this to succeed, there needs to be a series of "ratings", each with their own operating limitations. As the aviator earns higher ratings, the operating limitations become broader. [Keep in mind that, in exchange for compliance, the aviator gets membership in the organization and access to the organization's aircraft.]
The organization I've looked at modeling our rating system after is the United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association. That organization gets compliance because without their ratings, one can't get access to hang gliding launch sites. What I like about their rating system is it takes into account the light wing loading of hang gliders. Their ratings are more detailed than one would see in the heavier wing loading of a Cessna 150.
Their ratings take into account a wind component and crosswind component. In my experience, those two elements "bite" a beginning ultralight aviator the most.
-Buzz
P.S. Have already worked up a logo that encompasses the concept.
Attachment 2405
[QUOTE=Ken Finney;21874 If they start updating Part 103, there is NO WAY IN HELL that we will end up with anything as flexible as we have now. ULs occupy a very real "sweet spot" in aviation, and any changes are going to move us out of that spot.[/QUOTE]Amen. As I understand it, many aviators in other places would die for the flexibility and freedom we have under Part 103.
I don't think any government agency ever works to increase access to something. They work mostly on limits. Part 103 was in response to the growing number of ultralights and accepting the reality that the desire for them wasn't going away. The FAA had to come up with some limiting guidelines. While a 254 lb machine that can only go 55mph might not fufill everyones aviating desires, it wasn't going to do a lot of damage when it hit something. And the idea that we could fly it without any mandated proficiency rating and few operating restrictions is huge.
I think the FAA has generally been very lenient towards ultralights, too. While there are those local exceptions, most take a "don't ask, don't tell" approach on the strict legality of an "ultralight". The FAA position I've heard recounted most has been "Don't fly in a way that is outside the regs and I won't hassle you on the strict legality of your machine."
I think we are lucky to have 103. I would just like to see it used by more teen aviators.
Jedi-Quote:
Originally Posted by jedi
I toyed with this part of the concept for a long time. There is a shortage of hangar space in my area. Even if we could get "a" hangar space, we'd rapidly need more space.
Maybe at some point the local chapter could fundraise enough to build or buy a hangar, but what do we do in the interim?
I was reminded of what we did in the "old days". The local Quicksilver dealer initially operated out of a couple of trailers they towed to a local grass strip. That worked until the U/L club got large enough to build a building that had 8-10 "T" hangars.
Central to this idea is to have a concentration of training activity at one spot. We need to do that both for the learning element and the social element. Aviators need to compare notes to increase their learning. They also need to be able to socialize with each other.
What I have found is that, with the early basic Quicksilver MX I can put 3 machines in an ultralight trailer I have that has a tow weight when filled of less than 2500 lbs. That means it can be towed behind nearly any mini-van.
In addition to overcoming the shortage of hangar space in the area, trailering initially also gives us the freedom to train at nearly any field that could be suitable for ultralights. It doesn't necessarily need to be an airfield. [I believe the ideal operating location would be a sod farm with the right layout. I'd love to find one we could get permission to use in our area.]
As for being close to the kids for transportation purposes, I think about all the soccer moms and dads. Soccer is a sport that no teen can get to on their own. If we have an active enough club, teens will carpool with each other.
Lastly, I know there will be some comments about assembly and disassembly and what a hassle that is. Agreed.
However, there are some other factors. First, the MX is a simple machine. This is entry level training and we are not going to have a lot of bells and whistles that slow down the assembly process. Second, imagine how well the average aviator will get to know their machine when they have participated in the assembly and disassembly. This is not just about learning to aviate but learning about aviation. Lastly, most training sessions are going to be either weekend evenings or mornings. I believe many weekends we will assemble on Friday night and then not break down until Sunday night unless there is weather forecast. Entry level kids will use the machines first thing in the morning and last at night. The more experienced aviators will be using them during the day when there is more wind.
As we scale up, I believe we can continue to keep operating costs down by trailering. The trailer I have now can hold either 3 complete machines or the wings and tails for 6. With 6, the trikes can go on pontoon boat trailer we put a plywood deck on. Those cost a fraction of an enclosed trailer.
While my first desire would be to have a hangar at a perfect teaching airfield with X trainers in it, that's not going to be a reality for sometime. Initially we'll work around that and operate from trailers. The ultralight trainer design we are standardizing on [the MX] makes trailering an initial solution to finding places to operate.
-Buzz
Good stuff Buzz....
Your emphasis on GROUPS is important. Teen years are an important socializing period. If we can make learning to fly more of a group/social activity, it increases the enjoyment. I believe it was the group or informal club aspect that contributed greatly to the initial growth of ultralights. Ultralights seemed to lend themselves better to flying with others. More than other forms of aviation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riley Winglowe
Harley certainly learned the importance of creating a community structure with their HOG groups. By getting people to ride with others, they increased the enjoyment of the product. I think having teens learn to aviate with other teens would contribute greatly to the participation level. [Although I think there is already a demand for this type of opportunity. It just needs to be made available.]
[QUOTE=Buzz;21917]
Harley certainly learned the importance of creating a community structure with their HOG groups.
Don't forget about GWRRA.
I'm sure liking this whole idea. As I read all this, I keep thinking about all the "out of the way" small municipal airports that would be easily accessible. Lots of small towns, at least here in Oklahoma, don't have much, if any, activity at all on the weekends.
[I am hoping this post will not be a duplicate. I believe I locked up when I did this post a couple minutes ago.]
A couple additional thoughts.
The organization would be a training club and not a flying club. The goal is to create as many new aviators as possible. It's goal is not to provide ultralights to rent for teenagers once they are trained aviators. Consequently, every use of the aircraft would be to train on a particular aviation skill. The flight would be pre-planned with the instructor and then flown by the Aviator. Every flight would be working towards the next rating level in the organization. By design, this would be an "up and out" organization. [While not a flying club, the existence of this organization would either expand existing ultralight clubs or create new ones. That would be the natural by-product of an expanding population of trained ultralight aviators.]
Anyone that has done GA training knows that a lot of the training is done solo once the student has soloed. The majority of this training would be done solo as the intent would be to transition to an ultralight as soon as possible.
Which poses the question, “How does one train effectively when most flying is solo?”
The real problem with solo flying away from the airport is the lack of instructor observation and feedback.
This would be solved by collecting digital data on each flight. Each aircraft would be equipped with a GPS datalogger [$30 on Amazon] and a GoPro video camera.
The instructor would review the flight and provide feedback using the GPS track on Google Earth and the video. The GPS track shows where the aircraft flew and the video would show the control inputs. E.g. the GPS track would show if they were always within gliding distance of a safe landing area. Video would show if they are scanning the sky enough, etc.
The Aviators GPS track and video would then be entered into a digital logbook software that was written in Europe for gliding that generates the logbook statistics off the GPS track. [Aviators can also have their own digital logbook. About $35.]
In addition to instructor feedback, the digital data would serve other purposes:
Risk Management A risk in aviation training is a pilot flying beyond their skill level. They often don’t get hurt the first time they do it but on the 10th time. Being able to closely monitor their flying when away from direct instructor observation, this can be prevented.
Liability reduction Liability is greatly reduced when there are strict operating guidelines and there is a way of documenting someone was outside those guidelines. I believe if the ratings scale is gradual enough and there are strict operating guidelines for each rating, this training can be done safely. If a student were to get hurt, there would be clear documentation whether they were operating within or outside the stated guidelines.
Public relations There is no documentation of the safety record of ultralights. So when someone says “they are unsafe”, there is no data to refute that claim. This organization would have digital documentation of it’s operation. There would be no question on it’s safety record. I think teens would naturally be sharing their videos with the parents simply as a matter of pride. It would also give the parent a lot of confidence about the training process and make that parent an advocate to other parents about the high level of monitoring and attention to safety.
Organizational growth Aviators will post some of their training videos on YouTube and Facebook. This is going to get the interest of their peers. Once that happens, the interest in the organization may grow rapidly. Flying is not an activity that has been previously available to teens.
Although the most important use of the digital data is for instructors being able to monitor and give feedback on the Aviator's flying, these are the other advantages of the organization collecting that digital data. It also may seem like a lot of overkill to some, but the scalability of an organization like this depends on maintaining a really tight control over safety. It's the "Hang Rating" system, the operating limitations contained in them and how they have been used to limit access to flying sites to only qualified pilots that has allowed hang gliding to grow and prevent a couple of bad flyers to close down sites for others. It's a rating system and tight adherence to operating limitations by monitoring the use of the aircraft that would allow this organization to grow.
I'll post some images of the things I've mentioned.
-Buzz
Attachment 2410Attachment 2411Attachment 2412
Given the lack of registration of ultralights, it's hard to obtain good data (because you have nothing to compare it against, e.g., "X crashes per 100,000 flights" or "Y percent of fleet involved in a crash per year/decade/etc")Quote:
There is no documentation of the safety record of ultralights. So when someone says “they are unsafe”, there is no data to refute that claim. This organization would have digital documentation of it’s operation. There would be no question on it’s safety record. I think teens would naturally be sharing their videos with the parents simply as a matter of pride. It would also give the parent a lot of confidence about the training process and make that parent an advocate to other parents about the high level of monitoring and attention to safety.
However, I will point out that we are currently working on a plan to try to put together an "investigation team" for ultralight crashes and minor incidents in concert with local law enforcement agencies and/or coroners and medical examiners.
Amen. That's why collecting operational data would be so key to the growth of this type of organization.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveinindy
I think anyone that has any first-hand knowledge of properly maintained ultralights knows the greatest inherent danger in them is not in the machines but that one can legally fly one without any or insufficient instruction. An organization dedicated TO instruction should have a pretty high safety record.
------------------------
It's good to hear that there is an effort to investigate ultralight crashes. Finding out the "why" of accidents is the best way to avoid re-occurences.
I only wonder how much cooperation it'll get if the FAA [or some other agency] isn't involved. People tend not to want to report accidents or incidents unless mandated to do so. Unfortunately, that would probably carry over into providing information to an investigation team.
If you have the local cops investigating (or even more so the coroner or ME) then they don't really have any more choice to say "screw off" than if the FAA or NTSB is involved. The general rule is play nice or face charges for what you've done. If you are honest and seem willing to learn from an honest mistake, you're unlikely to get charged with reckless endangerment, interfering with a police investigation or whatever charges come with damaging private property. Act like a self-righteous jerk and you'll probably not have a good day. That's what happened to the one guy I have personally seen get arrested following an ultralight crash. He told the cops to go do something anatomically impossible because "these planes here are unregulated" after crashing into someone's house with one. You can imagine how quickly that situation went downhill.Quote:
It's good to hear that there is an effort to investigate ultralight crashes. Finding out the "why" of accidents is the best way to avoid re-occurences.
I only wonder how much cooperation it'll get if the FAA [or some other agency] isn't involved. People tend not to want to report accidents or incidents unless mandated to do so. Unfortunately, that would probably carry over into providing information to an investigation team.
I've had no issues with a organizations offering to assist me once we get funding and some other things lined up (which is waiting for our non-profit status to avoid tax liabilities, etc). The biggest hurdle is from the "don't tread on me, it's perfectly OK if I want to do stupid stuff in my ultralight" folks in the hobby who seem only to care about their own immediate short-sighted gratification. They seem to forget that every time they leave a mark in the ground or annoy someone by buzzing their car or house, they leave a mark on the reputation of all non-commercial aviation.
Small little data point: For the first time in three years, this weekend I attended the best run little fly in I know, www.wingsoverrepublic.com. Although with 100-150 planes, it doesn't really qualify as a small fly-in anymore. This was their 13th fly-in, and I've been to about half of them. For the first time in my attendance, there wasn't a single UL, all the Titan Tornado types were N-numbered. Back when they were getting 80 or so planes, there were always at least 3 or 4 true ULs, but not anymore. Sad.
Some really interesting comments here, and great suggestions. Isn't the basic problem though that aviation is hard to get into at any level these days, especially if you're an "outsider"? I was reading this article, which perhaps gets even more to the root of the problem:
http://airfactsjournal.com/2012/08/o..._content=email
Like many small airports, we hold an "Open House" day so that townspeople can come and hang out at the airport, watch the planes, and kids are taken up for free rides and get a certificate. But we don't normally see these people from one Open House to the next. Perhaps an Ultralight Club would encourage them to come back, so some kind of national organization giving support, sharing ideas and providing a framework, would be an excellent way to attract youngsters. Buzz has some great ideas concerning its operation. I agree with others who talk about the social aspect - teenagers want to be doing what their friends are doing.
Since this thread has slowed down a bit, I'd like to make a tangential comment on the previous post by Angela. There is a natural animosity between airports/FBOs and ULs that no one has brought up yet. NO ONE MAKES ANY MONEY OFF OF ULs! A "normal" airplane is going to pay (depending on lots of variables) some combination of landing fees, hanger fees, tie down fees, profit on fuel sales, etc. to the airport/FBO. Contrast that to a ULer, who stops on the way to the airport to fuel up his jerry cans, arrives at the airport, unloads the UL, gets it through/over the fence, fuels it up, spends a couple of hours flying around, and then reverses the process. He uses all of the facilities a "normal " airplane would (including the restrooms and eating the FBOs cookies) and no one makes any money off of the ULer. If you were an airport/FBO manager, why would you do anything to encourage ULs?
That is certainly a factor, but the resistance to ultralights I've seen in our area is due to the behavior and attitudes of a few ULers over the past three decades. There have been far too many instances of unsafe, inconsiderate, and downright stupid flying in the vicinity of an airport. No wonder the "real pilots" shake their head in derision every time a UL gets dragged out of the trees or scraped up off the runway. The fact that too many of the people flying the ultralights have practically no formal flight training seals their reputation among pilots who have spent thousands of dollars learning their craft. And the Home Depot hardware holding the aircraft together only promotes the idea that ultralighters and their planes are a bunch of yahoos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Finney
In contrast, I have had wonderful acceptance of my Legal Eagle at our local airport. I've been a part of the airport community for twenty years, am well-known as an EAA Technical Counselor, fly my planes in a professional manner with a radio, and yield right-of-way to heavier aircraft when they need the airspace. Several local pilots have commented that the Eagle looks like a ton of fun and they envy the lack of regulatory burdens associated with it.
So.......most of the time ULers are our worst enemy. If we act like a bunch of idiots we will be treated as idiots. But if we show respect for others and the regulations all pilots expect to follow, and maintain our little planes as if they are real aircraft, we gain respect in our community and more "real pilots" will be interested in sampling very light aviation. Bad reputations can take decades to repair, but good behavior can yeild immediate positive results.
The choice is ours, let's choose wisely.
I am glad to hear that an EAA Technical Counselor is available for ultralight help and consultation. Need more of that, I think.
Regarding "idiot" ULers, I think they are mostly gone now.
The future may see mostly certificated pilots (like me) turning to UL.
The training for new ultralight pilots is virtually not available in the U.S. anymore. (locally)
The Canadian ultralight rules make more sense to me, especially with regard to using two seat training ultralights (which is allowed in Canada). I wish we had the freedom to use Canadian ultralight rules here in the U.S. It would stimulate the entire aviation industry.
That's largely true, and it probably explains individual attitudes. However, I bristle when I hear of airports banning ULs because someone doesn't like them or had a bad experience with a UL pilot in, say, 1986. Like every other citizen, UL pilots pay taxes and have just as much right to use the public airport facilities as any other person. I'm not advocating ULs at Hartsfield, but there are established procedures for ULs to access controlled airports. As long as the pilot abides by those procedures and doesn't make himself a nuisance, he should have access. You'll probably never change FBO managers' minds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Finney
Actually, one of the ideas that has been floating around in my head (lots of room to float in there!) is some sort of "good neighbor fund" that ULers could contribute to that would go to their local airport(s). Something like a voluntary $50 a year contribution in lieu of all the fees not being paid, and the payer would get stickers to apply to their UL/car/whatever to show that they are "a good neighbor". Seems like a lot of goodwill could be created, and probably change some minds.
These are the same guys you're talking about that use Home Depot hardware in lieu of aircraft hardware to save a few bucks?
Ouch! Well, some of them are, but since even John Walton succumbed to this, I expect in many cases this is done due to availability rather than cost. And, I've seen the same thing on certified airplanes. But if part of the problem is to somehow differentiate the "good" ULers from the "bad" ULers, this might be a way to do it! Remember, I said there is a lot of room for things to float around in my head! :^)
The availability excuse might have worked in the 80's, but not today, with the ease of ordering the correct hardware online. I just got a box from Aircraft Spruce yesterday with nothing but a few feet of MIL-W-22759 wire in it for an airplane electronics project I'm working on. I could have used PVC coated automotive wire, but it's just too easy to get the proper stuff.
Having just returned from a trip to do some single seat ultralight instruction I thought this might be a good time to note my two cents worth on procedures.
- I think this is a good concept.
- It is necessary to start young, before teen age interests set in. I think 9 or ten would be a good minimum age.
- Start them on non pilot projects, kites and model airplanes. This will get them involved and teach aerodynamics and construction.
- 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.
- Transition to powered ultralights is the ultimate goal.
- I believe pilots, in general, make safer drivers. They learn to manage safety issues. Pitch the safety aspect. A teenager that has gone through the ultralight program will be a safer driver.
- 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.
- Once the members are old enough to drive they should be converted to support activities or go out on their own. The objective is to support the youngsters. Much like the Hitler youth programs. (But do not emphasize the similarities.)
- 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).
- Now, what if you actually built and test flew the craft you are flying? Would that increase your sense of accomplishment?
- 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?
Please tell me you're not thinking about someone's first flying experience being by themselves in a single seat ultralight.Quote:
Originally Posted by jedi
:confused:Yes I am!Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyfalcons
That is the way the pioneers did it and that is the way the FAA expects FAR 103 ultralight training to be accomplished. The FAA is now enforcing the ban on dual training in powered paragliders and perhaps hang gliders if they have wheels attached to the airframe or engine mount.
This technique has been used successfully in the past.
By the way, the instructor does not need to have FAA certificates either.
If you like you can follow the thread “Learning to Fly Ultralights” on the EAA "Learning to Fly" strip.
Go back and look at how many of the "pioneers" died very early in their flying careers (Eugene Ely, Otto Lilienthal, Lincoln Beachey, Karl Jatho, John Joseph Montgomery, a lot of WWI pilot trainees, et al) in part due to the "trial and error" learning approach that we have moved past. Just because "They did it that way back in the good ol' days" does not mean that it was a good idea.Quote:
That is the way the pioneers did it
....or you start them out in a registered "fat ultralight" and then move them over to a single seat model once they have the basics down. That is how most ultralight pilots I know- including myself- learned to fly.Quote:
that is the way the FAA expects FAR 103 ultralight training to be accomplished. The FAA is now enforcing the ban on dual training in powered paragliders and perhaps hang gliders if they have wheels attached to the airframe or engine mount.
I don't believe he's referring to the pioneers of aviation. He’s talking about the pioneers in ultralight instruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveinindy
Safe, effective ultralight training did not start with the FAA 2-place exemption. There was safe, effective ultralight training being by done knowledgeable, experienced instructors using the early basic designs [like the 2-axis Quicksilver MX] and a proven single place training methodology.
Those of us that were around in the pioneering days know from first-hand knowledge that the safety record of the single place training methodology was every bit as good as the 2-seat training methodology [when done by an instructor experienced in the method].
The reason why the single place training methodology got a bad reputation is because too many people tried to figure it out by themselves and self-teach. As they say, “Any doctor that treats himself has fool for a patient.” Anyone that thought they could instruct themselves using a single place ultralight had a fool for an instructor.
Had you started out learning to fly ultralights before the 2-seat exemption, those of us instructing at the time would have instructed you in a single place.
Rather than talking about the “good old days” of the 2-seat ultralight exemption, maybe it’s time to remember what the early pioneers learned about ultralight instruction. We didn’t NEED the 2-seat exemption to get people safely flying ultralights. We could and did safely instruct using a single seat method.
The main thing the 2-seat exemption gave the industry was the ability to get a TON of potential customers hooked on the experience of ultralight flight by a trip around the pattern. And a great way to make money giving introductory flights. Those were a better revenue generator per hour for an ultralight dealership than instruction.
The ultralight industry has never been able to stop people from trying to teach themselves. Part 103 allows it.
But if the 2-seat exemption would have never been created and you wanted to get instruction so you could safely get into ultralight flying, that instruction existed. And it had an excellent safety record.
Quote:
The reason why the single place training methodology got a bad reputation is because too many people tried to figure it out by themselves and self-teach. As they say, “Any doctor that treats himself has fool for a patient.” Anyone that thought they could instruct themselves using a single place ultralight had a fool for an instructor.
Agreed.
If I recall correctly, that exemption went into place after I learned to fly ultralights in the mid-1990s.Quote:
Had you started out learning to fly ultralights before the 2-seat exemption, those of us instructing at the time would have instructed you in a single place.
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.]Quote:
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
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
What was the "registration" you mentioned the 2-seat ultralight had you got dual instruction in if it was prior to the 2-seat exemption? The only legal registration it could have had was an "N" number prior to the instructor exemption.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveinindy
Which would have made any instruction you got illegal unless the instructor did it for free. I don't know of any instructors that were doing ultralight instruction for free in N-number 2-seat ultralights prior to the exemption. All the 2-seat instruction prior to the exemption was charged for an done illegally in my experience.
The only legal paid ultralight flight instruction that could ever be given in 2-seat ultralights happened during the exemption. The problem the ultralight industry faces today.
As for your instruction and the other ultralight pilots you know that learned in the 1990s, it was undoubtably a 2-seat ultralight being used legally under the exemption. Part 103 went into effect October of 1982. The 2-seat exemption happened several months after that. There would have been no reason for an ultralight instructor to instruct illegally [with all the associated liability that entails] when the exemption was in existence.
-Buzz
No that's okay, I was just making sure. Have fun with your endeavor, I wouldn't want any part of the liability in that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jedi
No clue what the N number was. I lost most of my logbooks when my apartment was robbed a year or so ago which is why I don't give a hard number for my total time (somewhere between 500 and 600 hours, maybe 700 hours on the high end; all but about 100 was in ultralights). I've flown in so many aircraft- nearly every ultralight I've flown has been registered so that adds to the mix- that I can't recall the tail numbers for more than a handful of them.Quote:
What was the "registration" you mentioned the 2-seat ultralight had you got dual instruction in if it was prior to the 2-seat exemption? The only legal registration it could have had was an "N" number prior to the instructor exemption.
I didn't realize that permutation of 103 was put into place so long ago but I probably should point out that my original instructor (in fact all of the instructors I knew back then) was a CFI. Not sure how that effects anything but it was a registered (N-numbered) ultralight and my instructor was qualified as previously mentioned so that might have overridden the "exemption" issue.Quote:
As for your instruction and the other ultralight pilots you know that learned in the 1990s, it was undoubtably a 2-seat ultralight being used legally under the exemption. Part 103 went into effect October of 1982. The 2-seat exemption happened several months after that. There would have been no reason for an ultralight instructor to instruct illegally [with all the associated liability that entails] when the exemption was in existence.
The only way to register an ultralight would be in the experimental category, amateur built if it meets the major portion rule.Quote:
Not sure how that effects anything but it was a registered (N-numbered) ultralight and my instructor was qualified as previously mentioned so that might have overridden the "exemption" issue.
I guess it's a good thing there is no longer any record that any of this ever happened........otherwise we have spun in on the base to final turn.....
Which is to say your instructor may have been legal to give flight instruction because he was a CFI but giving flight instruction in any category that 2-seat ultralight could have been N-Numbered in was illegal. So if it did have an N-number on it, he wasn't teaching you legally unless he wasn't charging you. [Which I believe is legal.]Quote:
Originally Posted by steveinindy
I suspect the greatest majority of ultralight instructors in your area were operating under the training exemption. Maybe there were a lot of ultralight instructors in your area that were also CFIs. If so, I don't think that was common in my experience.
But it still remains that if they were legal [charging] they were doing so in a 2-seat registered under the exemption. And those aircraft are gone under the rule change.
-Buzz
One example of where it is legal is when the student owns the aircraft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzz
The issue is providing flight training for hire, which is what this would be otherwise.
No, our instructors were volunteers and part of the group. No money was exchanged for the training itself. We were kind of a loose confederation where we bought into what amounted fractional ownership of several ultralights. I'm not sure if we were counted as "owners" though for the purposes of the training issue in experimental aircraft. However, since the aircraft was not being 'rented' for training use, I don't believe that it was an issue. I do know that one of the guys in the group worked for the FSDO and never said anything about our arrangement.Quote:
The issue is providing flight training for hire, which is what this would be otherwise.
The premise of the organization that I talked about at the start of the thread is that it would be a 501(c)(3) non-profit with the mission of training teens to aviate. Instructors would be unpaid volunteers.Quote:
Originally Posted by martymayes
The organization would be reimbursed by the trainees for the use of the ultralights at cost. I believe that would be a "non-commercial" use of the ultralight if no one profits from it's operation. I would believe someone would need to profit financially for something to be considered "commercial".
-Buzz
I was referring to another post but they made a last minute recovery...