Ultra Light crash NS

[r22captain]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/201109 ... sh-110919/

[Pavese]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/201109 ... sh-110919/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scot ... -folo.html

D

[GulfstreamVII]

How often are Ultralights involved in fatal accidents? I mean when you compare Ultralights to other fixed wing AC such as a 172, would you say ultralights are a bit more tricky / challenging to fly?

[fergusm]

Hi,

Ultalights can get a bad name. Whilst they are not certified I think they are safer. There low stall speed and wing loading is the main reason that makes them safer in the event of an engine failure. I fly both ultralights and certified and if I have an engine failure I hope it happens in the ultralight. Nice slow landing speed and a shorter landing run. What do I mean if, I already had it and was back flying the next weekend. Forgot about that. In Ireland where I fly the reasoning behind the un-certified ultalight is that i"n the event of an engine failure it is unlikely to result in the death of the pilot or passenger" due to its low mass and low landing speed.

Regards
Fergus
http://pipistrelaircraft.com

[Go Juice]

Oh yeah those are nice.


I'd like to get me a Taurus!!!!

[cdnpilot77]

Hi,

Ultalights can get a bad name. Whilst they are not certified I think they are safer. There low stall speed and wing loading is the main reason that makes them safer in the event of an engine failure. I fly both ultralights and certified and if I have an engine failure I hope it happens in the ultralight. Nice slow landing speed and a shorter landing run. What do I mean if, I already had it and was back flying the next weekend. Forgot about that. In Ireland where I fly the reasoning behind the un-certified ultalight is that i"n the event of an engine failure it is unlikely to result in the death of the pilot or passenger" due to its low mass and low landing speed.

Regards
Fergus
http://pipistrelaircraft.com

Sounds like an advertisement...what do I mean sounds like, it is an advertisement. Well played

[fergusm]

No not an ad. It would be the wrong country. I can only deal in Ireland, though I 'd sell you an aircraft if you insist but the Canadian dealer might take exemption. It is simply that I just spend too much time on the internet. I think microlights or ultralights get a bad rap and need to be defended. Most certified pilots here have a low opinion of microlights until they take a spin in one. Then, after 4 or 5 hours flying in one day and landing in places where other aircraft can't go, all without being asked to chip in, their attitudes change. I know I was one of them. Plus the general availability of BRS is a big plus.

[KK7]

FWIW, I don't think there is a problem with all ultralights in how they are designed (although some have some questionable designs with no redundancy on critical systems such as a belt driven prop). However I think that ultralights demand better skills than those required to fly a light certified aircraft, and the basic training to get an ultralight permit in Canada is lacking. It is because of their light weight and slow speed that they demand greater attention to how they are handled particularly in gusty wind conditions. I think there is less room for error when it comes to flying an ultralight, however most are lead to believe they are easier than anything else to fly.

[tsgas]

FWIW, I don't think there is a problem with all ultralights in how they are designed (although some have some questionable designs with no redundancy on critical systems such as a belt driven prop). However I think that ultralights demand better skills than those required to fly a light certified aircraft, and the basic training to get an ultralight permit in Canada is lacking. It is because of their light weight and slow speed that they demand greater attention to how they are handled particularly in gusty wind conditions. I think there is less room for error when it comes to flying an ultralight, however most are lead to believe they are easier than anything else to fly.

I agree with yout post. UL's give the pilot less margin for errors.

[Gogona]

FWIW, I don't think there is a problem with all ultralights in how they are designed (although some have some questionable designs with no redundancy on critical systems such as a belt driven prop). However I think that ultralights demand better skills than those required to fly a light certified aircraft, and the basic training to get an ultralight permit in Canada is lacking. It is because of their light weight and slow speed that they demand greater attention to how they are handled particularly in gusty wind conditions. I think there is less room for error when it comes to flying an ultralight, however most are lead to believe they are easier than anything else to fly.

I agree with yout post. UL's give the pilot less margin for errors.

I would make one important reservation: for those pilots, who were never ready for that. That's why I don't believe in recreational permit as a substitution of a PPL "for poor people".
Just imagine, you might become the UL flight instructor when you have built just 50 hrs of a total flight time on the same aircraft!

[fergusm]

The accident statistics for Ireland and the Uk were evaluated for microlights and certified aircraft by the IAA. This was done on the request of the microlight association who wanted the training hours reduced because instrument flying familiarization and radio navigation were not needed. Their study concluded that the microlights had no worse safety record than certified and they reduced the hours (not the standard of flying) required to obtain a license.

One factor that that is in microlightings favor is that the hours flown tend to be on average higher than that of recreational certified pilot. I do 12 hours every two years to keep certified PPL current , but I do about a 150 hours a year in the microlight. The cross wind landings are OK now.

[Indanao]

Having flown both, but not licensed in both, I found the Ultralight easier to fly and the need for more training unnecessary. A lot of people get into them for exactly that reason, no need for a lot of paperwork and instruction. Good for them.

The problem with most Ultralights is the engine. Two Cycles are like lawnmower engines - when they quit they quit right now, with no warning. A 4 Cycle will give you warning and is much more reliable, e.g.: 1500TBO as opposed to 300TBO. But, don't tell that to an Ultralight Group. They think it is their duty to defend their engine. See how much loyalty the engine will have for them. lol It's not about weight anymore either, the Rotax 912 is about the same weight as the Rotax 582.

Keep some altitude, it's like money in the bank.

[burhead1]

The belt drive is not a problem as long as the belt is replaced at regular intervals. (much like a timing belt on a vehicle) The two stroke is there biggest downfall, as stated they tend to just stop. The problem is that they are light and do not have stored energy. If you ballon on a landing you better be quick to get the nose down or power on, your speed will bleed off quick and if you're not quick your dead. There are ultralights that have a good safety record and there are others that do not.

Sad to hear his family was there when it happened.