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.Originally Posted by martymayes
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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-
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
Last edited by Buzz; 08-25-2012 at 11:19 AM.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote