Utralight Flying

[J31]

Hi Guys,

I have been through the CAR's but have not come up with a conclusive answer.

Can a commercial pilot fly a basic or advanced ultralight without any training or change to the licence? Obviously training would be a good thing but say you have lots of time in a Taylorcraft can you jump in a Chinook II and fly away legally.

I believe that a private pilot or higher licence allows to carry passengers in advanced ultralights...am I correct?

What would be required for a Commercial pilot to instruct zero hour students on ultralights?

Thanks for any info.

[Panama Jack]

Yes, the holder of a Canadian Aeroplane Pilot Licence (Private, Commercial, ATP) or Recreational Pilot Permit has the privlege to fly a Canadian Ultralight. Pilots holding these grades of licenses are permitted to carry a passenger in Advanced Ultralights only.

Training is recommended because of the sometimes very different flight characteristics of these aircraft.

To be able to instruct in a Canadian Ultralight, you must either hold a Flight Instructor Rating (Aeroplane) or hold an Ultralight Pilot Permit with an Ultralight Instructor Rating.

Hope that helps.

[J31]

Thank you very much!

[willow burner]

"Training is recommended because of the sometimes very different flight characteristics of these aircraft."

Meaning some of them are quite hard to fly and may try to kill you unexpectedly in ways a normal airplane cant.

[J31]

"Training is recommended because of the sometimes very different flight characteristics of these aircraft."

Meaning some of them are quite hard to fly and may try to kill you unexpectedly in ways a normal airplane cant.

Much like a DHC-3 Otter on floats, on a hot day, full jag and a boat on the side!

[PilotDAR]

Training is recommended because of the sometimes very different flight characteristics of these aircraft.

There is an intentional meeting point of aircraft flying qualities (including dependably similar) and a licensing demonstrated skill set. In the certification standards it turns up in the repeated phrase: "Must not require unusual pilot skill and attention". Yeah, I agree that some more training is a good idea for other "certified" types for a newly licensed PPL, but that's more systems, than simply how the plane handles. Handling is generally very standard - for certified planes, It's required to be, or no certifcation.

It is possible that uncertified types have not demonstrated these common handling qualities. It is not required for them. Perhaps like climbing into a military type, things can be different. Might be fine, might be a surprise - it depends upon what you're ready for.

A bit of training can make a pilot ready for more....

[Big Pistons Forever]

Why would anyone want to fly their lawn furniture ?

[Colonel Sanders]

some of them are quite hard to fly and may try to kill you

+1

At the risk of offending the ultralight people here, the
first time I flew one, I thought it was broken. If all you
have ever flown is a 172, you are in for a shock.

In addition to their "unique" handling characteristics
I might suggest you look carefully at the maintenance.

[Taiser]

Why would anyone want to fly their lawn furniture ?

Maybe in the states that's what they are, but up here you can get a kick ass "BULA" that will fly like a bat out of hell... and fun ones too!!! Funnest one I've been in is a Murphy Renegade (open cockpit biplane) with a liquid cooled rotax two stroke. That thing SCREAMS and is a blast to fly, oh and it's rated at +10/-6 g's to boot!! Lots of Canadian ultralights would never be thought of as ultralights when you first see them. BULA's are just fun categories of airplanes and we are lucky we have them. I'm planning on building one after my current build is done.

Agree that it's a different story if you are buying one instead of building, the maintenance on them is not tracked so unless you know the machine, get it looked at, or build it yourself, to me that's also a very fun part of the experience.

[iflyforpie]

The Flight Designs CT is considered AULA in Canada... and it is better built and better performing than most Cessna products plodding the skies.

The problem with ultralights... and indeed homebuilts as well is the lack of standards. Like CS said in the Human Garbage thread... minimum standards don't always guarantee safety.... but there are those who build, maintain, and fly their aircraft to much higher standards than even certified aircraft.

[Taiser]

The problem with ultralights... and indeed homebuilts as well is the lack of standards. Like CS said in the Human Garbage thread... minimum standards don't always guarantee safety.... but there are those who build, maintain, and fly their aircraft to much higher standards than even certified aircraft.

Somewhat... A BULA is like that. basically you build it, call TC and say "Gimme a CofA!!!", pay a fee and off you go. Lots of restrictions on those. Have to fly with a helmet, daytime only, no passengers and very restricted where you can fly. Most of these are single seats so I guess TC figures if your going down, your only taking yourself out! The ones I see around here are just used for toys. Guys fly local, some don't even leave the pattern, just go in circles. Whatever floats your boat I guess...

Advanced ultralights have standards and must conform to their type certificates. You can't alter or change the design unless you get the go ahead from the manufacturer and they are usually pretty anal about this. Lawsuits are my guess as to why. Many advanced UL are available to be built as amateur as well, which gives you the option to change stuff. My CH750 has that option. Beware though, if you build as and Advanced UL, then you can't change it later. I know someone who tried and MD-RA said "NO!", even though, in theory, it should be possible to do. Dunno what their problem was with this...

Amateur built has all the same requirements as certified aircraft with only a few major differences. The owner can sign off on the aircraft and you can use non-certified parts. AD's also don't apply (although you'd have to be retarded to ignore one that came on your engine for example), you still have to use AN hardware through out and it's one thing my MD-RA inspector really checked on with the pre-cover inspection. An amateur built still needs logbooks and annual inspections as well.

There are always idiots out there though. The MD-RA inspector here told me he inspected a plane with all the hardware (bolts nuts, etc) bought at Canadian Tire!!! WTF? His excuse was that they were all stainless steel and should be fine. Funny part is, if you look at prices, the AN hardware is the same, if not cheaper than the stainless stuff. The inspector told him to change everything or he'd never sign off on it. Needless to say the guy was pissed, but I mean COME ON!!!

The big money saver comes from the savings on the inspections. I don't know too many people that skimp out on these, especially when it's your ass, or a family member going with you, strapped in this thing!!! All the members of the club I'm in here seem to take these pretty seriously, some even have an AME do it just to be sure! And let's face it, these little planes are NOT that complicated. Some are but most people aren't building Lancairs or Evolutions! For the most part, if you built it, then you can easily maintain it yourself since you are intimately familiar with it! I know I've literately got enough blood loss in my build for it to be a relative now! Damn aluminum parts are often sharp!

[GUMPS]

In all honesty, ultra lights scare the hell out of me.

[captcrunch2013]

Many years ago, I wanted to start an ultra-light flight school,
be it with far higher standards than the norm, which can make
it a dangerous business.

I called Transport and it was explained that a Class IV needed 5 hours
of UL time in order to be able to instruct on UL.s

I found an UL flying school, with an instructor, with a T-Bird
and endured some crazy ideas often showing a total ignorance
for things like wind sheer, which is where many UL pilots seem to
not to grasp or more to the point, never taught the margin of speed.

From there I went for a ride in a challenger on floats and he got hit
with wind sheer after take off and a wing went into the water with minor damage.

Nice guy, beautiful airplane but a lousy pilot.. The skill level was atrocious.

Then in Northern Ontario, a dedicated owner of a Murphy Rebel took me flying and
then allowed me to fly it around.. Beautiful machine fantastically built and maintained.
Very nice powerful machine on floats or wheels. A souped up Subaru powered it and
the thrust was amazing.

We flew out to another "Ultra light" field, loaded with dozens of UL and I was invited to fly
perhaps one of the smallest lightest Ultra lights imaginable.

It was a tube of aluminum, with a tractor seat riveted to the boom, a chain saw motor
and you could just about blow into the air. It got off the ground like a butterfly
and the slightest gust made you feel like a butterfly in a thermal.

The slightest thermal sent you soaring up and its rather interesting
sitting on a tractor seat with dam near nothing underneath you.

I would have felt far safer wearing a parachute and for such machines, I think a
parachute should be mandatory. Landing was another problem, despite
some Ultra light flying, this was an ultra, ultra light where the speeds were
even lower.. You were so busy flying you did not get to look at the air speed
indicator... So, I tried a safe approach speed, went around and slowly
reduced it to find the speed it wanted to land at.

You walk around them very carefully, keep your eyes open and hope you can spot
any problems.

From what I've seen, those who don't do proper maintenance or do a shoddy job
of construction stand out. As do those who do an amazing job of workmanship
and engineering.

I don't think it matters what you fly be it a Barron or an ultra-light,
the responsibility for checking its airworthiness rests with the pilot flying.

[Panama Jack]

Somewhat... A BULA is like that. basically you build it, call TC and say "Gimme a CofA!!!", pay a fee and off you go.

Except that TC does not issue Airworthiness Certificates to BULAs. Certificate of Registration, yes, and the procedure is much like you describe.

[co-joe]

some of them are quite hard to fly and may try to kill you

+1

At the risk of offending the ultralight people here, the
first time I flew one, I thought it was broken. If all you
have ever flown is a 172, you are in for a shock.

In addition to their "unique" handling characteristics
I might suggest you look carefully at the maintenance.

+1

Of coulse half the time it was broken.

It had and electrically controlled variable pitch prop. You held a button to coarsen it in cruise which gave you about 10 mph, and the same button up moved it to fine. The only way you knew it had reached full travel was the cb popped.

No nose wheel steering so imagine crosswind take offs having to hold brake to stay on the runway! Couple that with a tail far too small for a plane its size and crosswinds kept you in a copnstant state of fear.

No momentum. P=MV and M is so small that when you power back it stopped. You had to stuff the nose forward or simply stall.
I had a blast flying it and somehow lived through it.

[Shiny Side Up]

but there are those who build, maintain, and fly their aircraft to much higher standards than even certified aircraft.

True, but its really tough to tell who's one of those people sometimes. I'm not a big fan of most home builts, the standardization of them is the real question. I should say that I don't think I've ever flown one that something hasn't went wrong with it. Lots of times its detail thing, but it makes you think. Ultralights are even sketchier. Maintenance is always the issue. Too many of the ultralight crowd get into them because they don't really like working on planes and certainly don't like spending money on them. Any of the ones we've had parked on the field get horribly neglected, then the owner will just show up, spark up and go. Seen two catch on fire. Almost comical if you didn't just almost witness someone dying.

I have a personal dislike for ultralight flyers. Any sort of common sense just doesn't seem to apply. Just about hit one yesterday. Went to a nearby grass field - an infamous one around here. The student wanted to check it out. I had misgivings, I voiced them, he asked why. It didn't take long to have them made reality. Idiot cut in front of us while we were on final. Right perpendicular, about 300' Agl. Not on the radio, no sort of rhyme or reason as to why he was there.

"That's why" I said.

There's a recent video of what colliding with a 185 does to your plane, we would have chopped up that flying lawnchair like lettuce.

[righthandman]

some of them are quite hard to fly and may try to kill you

+1

At the risk of offending the ultralight people here, the
first time I flew one, I thought it was broken. If all you
have ever flown is a 172, you are in for a shock.

In addition to their "unique" handling characteristics
I might suggest you look carefully at the maintenance.

I have been up a few times in different types. Somehow my fear of heights kicked in, when I was in at least one of them. Also, a quote I once heard that I thought was amusing was (no disrespect to ultra-light pilots intended): "IF it's windy enough to fly a kite.... fly a kite."

[PilotDAR]

There's a recent video of what colliding with a 185 does to your plane, we would have chopped up that flying lawnchair like lettuce.

Haha! A few decades ago I was zipping along in the 310, just after legal dark had begun, but still a beautiful evening. I was at 3000 feet, just north of the YYZ TSRA. Out of the corner of my eye, I caught a glimpse of a whatwazat! going the opposite direction off my wingtip. Flying lawnchair - with no lights ('cause I guess you'd have to have an electrical systems for those!). He nearly found out how pointy a C310 tip tank is at 180kts+!

You really cannot generalize about ultralights, other than to say that consistent quality and operation "like other planes" may not be the norm. Some are good, some are junk. Some people seem to succeed with them for a while, but I can't think that I have seen many of them around even a decade old, looking anywhere near as airworthy as a lot of 50 year old Cessnas, Pipers and others, which probably cost little more....

They are a lot of compromise - if you're going to make that compromise, know why you are....

[NunavutPA-12]

Well, like many others, I learned to fly in a 150. I then wanted my own 'plane but didn't have much money, so I got a Challenger. Because of the logistical problems associated with my location, I had it "professionally built" in Quebec (mine was his 37th build). I flew it on wheels from St. Lazare, Quebec to St. Albert, AB in September of that year and from St. Albert to Kugluktuk (YCO) on wheel-skis the following April. Full disclosure - it made the last 100-miles long-lined under an AS350 - but that's a whole other story!

Point is, some ultralights are surprisingly capable machines. I still have my Challenger and fly it on amphib floats, "tundra tires" or retractable wheel-skis. It burns about 3 US gallons of MOGAS an hour. I replaced the entire nose gear a few years ago for less money than it costs to put spark plugs in a four cylinder Lycoming. I maintain it very well but nothing seems to break. Total maintenance costs have been less than $200 over the last five years for expendables. In short, this is one airplane that can do things and go places, and that anyone can afford.

I also fly an Amateur-Built PA-12 replica on straight floats and wheel-skis. It has an O-320-160. I flew it on floats from Sudbury to Kugluktuk in 2010. Admittedly it's more rugged, can carry more, has greater range and is a bit faster than the Challenger. I do continuous maintenance and improvements and it gets better with each passing year. Burns 8 US gallons of 100LL per hour, is more complex (but is perhaps marginally more reliable), and costs a whole pile more to maintain than the ultralight but a lot less than an equivalent certified aircraft.

The Challenger is a fun machine for local flying here in a remote area, but is capable of long cross-country flying in more civilized parts of the country. The PA-12 is closer to a real bush 'plane and is more practical when I need to haul my wife or half a moose, camping gear and enough fuel to get out 150-miles and back home again.

Personally, I would never consider owning a certified aircraft - I couldn't afford the cost of ownership. I've also surprised myself - I quite enjoy working on the airplanes even though the learning curve has been pretty steep.

So I'd have to say that one can't generalize about ultralights or home-builts. Many are good, some maybe not so good. Just my 5-cents (no more pennies).