Big Pistons Forever wrote:I never did understand why people wanted to fly their lawn furniture.

I'd buy you a round at the local bar had I heard that in person.

AirFrame wrote:

Big Pistons Forever wrote:I never did understand why people wanted to fly their lawn furniture.

Nobody understood why Orville and Wilbur wanted to do it either, but look where we ended up 100 years later...

Exactly we are 100 years removed from that for the hope of progress so we don't have to fly contraptions like the Wright Flyer. Yet some people think 100 years later we should fly in something that is only slightly more advanced than it.

I don't hate ultralights. I think there are some great aircraft around which are built to UL specs. However, even though there are a number of professional and careful ultralight pilots, I do agree that in the group as a whole is over-represented by a people with a lax attitude towards maintenance and training.

I first started flying at an ultralight field southeast of Calgary on the Merlin EZ (I'm sure you know where that is, SSU). While the aircraft design seemed okay, we did indeed do about 5-6 hours of circuits before the instructor took me up to demonstrate a stall. He also didn't turn on the radio at all even with it being a fairly busy field just outside of Class C airspace. It wasn't until after I started training towards my PPL at another airport that I learned why his teaching methodology was lacking.

That being said, I still wouldn't mind getting something like a Quad City Challenger 2 for low and slow flying out of a private airstrip one day. As far as how to maintain in though - I'm not sure about that. I doubt there would be too many AMEs that you could take one to, so that pretty much leaves owner maintenance. If the parts lists specifies a 1/4" grade 5 bolt somewhere, or an 1156 light bulb, is aircraft spruce a better place to buy those than your local auto parts store?

Ultralights are well engineered (when operated within their design parameters), cost effective solutions for people who aspire to enjoy the freedom of flight, without going bankrupt. I could be wrong, but I believe they are also the largest expanding category of general aviation. Get used to it.

The ultralight category seems to attract a larger than average number, of operators who seem to be short on appreciation for air law/aerodynamics/airmanship, more so than pilots of higher licence groups. However, most of the problems involving ultralights seem to be concentrated on operations around uncontrolled aerodromes. Perhaps a little more education/discussions with these folks to facilitate a smoother interaction with fellow aircraft operators would be in order. The simplicity of operating ultralights perhaps increases the somewhat non-chalant attitude they take toward mixing in with other traffic.

Keep a sharp lookout for these folks, accept the need to share the airspace, and let 'em fly! Canada is an awesome country in aviation related matters because we permit categories like this to exist.

As long as they are not endangering lives, creating a hazard to aircraft operations, and not permitting passengers, live and let live! I realize this is a tough concept for you Canadians that need government in every aspect of your lives, but occasionally, humans can be responsible for their own actions.

Thank God for the Wright brothers and their "flying lawnchair"

As long as they are not endangering lives, creating a hazard to aircraft operations, and not permitting passengers,

Sort of part of the theme of the thread, hence why I hate them. Since you're right its growing, the problems are getting worse.

If you think ultralights are a problem, wait till more complex UAV's become dirt cheap and everyone is flying 'em.

I am an Ultralight Pilot and, very recently, became a first-time aircraft owner (an aircraft that meets the Basic Ultralight Aeroplane [BULA] Category).

. . . AND I LOVE ULTRALIGHTS!

I know most of you guys mean well but you come off as sounding really arrogant in some of your posts, not unlike the way some airline pilots, whose GA days are behind them, talk about the Wichita tin. And that is my talk about the slippery slope, earlier on. The idea behind airport fees is partially to secure revenue, partially to exclude certain less desirable groups.

As far as the safety related comments, yes, they are valid, but it runs roughly parallel to comparing 705 companies, the equipment they have and the way they run, with 703 companies. Not all of them of course.

I know some great guys out there who take a very disciplined and professional approach to the way they fly and train in ultralights. I bring my attitude to ultralights from the certified airplane world.

So why would a guy like me, who flies Part 25 airplanes for a living, want to fly ultralight? A big part is economics. I think by the time I retire, the costs of recreational flying will have increased and the number of good, Wichita-tin out there will be so scarce, that getting something like a Challenger or some other ultralight is my best chance of getting up in the air. I don't golf.

Another aspect is fun. Like most of you guys, I held a dim view towards flying lawn-chairs until a few years ago when I read an article in the EAA magazine about weigh-shift control aircraft (trikes) that really hooked me. Tried it, loved it. Much more fun than flying in a Cessna. Part of this attitude shift is that, worldwide, many trikes are being built to an industry consensus standard which was driven by the FAA. In some countries, these aircraft actually hold Airworthiness Certificates,

Finally, in World of increasing regulatory layers and complexities, ultralights are simplified. I like that. After a few years playing with ultralights, I got my ultralight instructor rating and, although not active, that would be the only type of flight instruction I am interested in doing- showing somebody new the simple pleasures of flying an economical aircraft which a Middle-class Canadian could afford to own and fly. Given the costs, they will be able to fly it much more than a 150 or 172 and we can all agree that the more you fly, the more proficient you become.

I know most of you guys mean well but you come off as sounding really arrogant in some of your posts, not unlike the way some airline pilots, whose GA days are behind them, talk about the Wichita tin.

Keep in mind that my POV comes from long and continued contact with the ultralight side of aviation. I still deal with this side of things on a daily basis. Its too bad it is the way it is, because it doesn't have to be that way. I could see the appeal if the primary concern of most in the group was neat designs and an specific freedom of flying, but sadly that isn't the case. I've never dealt with an ultralight guy who I came away from it thinking "Wow, that guy is going to fly safely and conscientiously" rather its always "Wow, that guy is going to kill himself" or "I'm surprised that guy hasn't killed himself." There might be exceptions, but it would only be the rare few that would prove the rule.

Shiny Side Up wrote:

I know most of you guys mean well but you come off as sounding really arrogant in some of your posts, not unlike the way some airline pilots, whose GA days are behind them, talk about the Wichita tin.

I've never dealt with an ultralight guy who I came away from it thinking "Wow, that guy is going to fly safely and conscientiously" rather its always "Wow, that guy is going to kill himself" or "I'm surprised that guy hasn't killed himself." There might be exceptions, but it would only be the rare few that would prove the rule.

I can understand how and why SSU has his opinion, and while it's accurate a large amount of the time,
it is not accurate in all cases. If SSU was correct, UL's would be crashing at far greater numbers.

While I agree that I'm also left more often with the impression that " this guy is going to kill himself and or others",
it is NOT always the case and we need to encourage those who provide the UL world with
"The Exceptions"
that provide an excellent example to the rest who perhaps were not instilled with the right training.

Is that their fault?

Its' a bit like blaming delinquent teenagers, instead of looking at their parents.

The bottom line is, the training guidelines and or experience and or training for UL instructing are at present
woefully inadequate.

B52 wrote:
The bottom line is, the training guidelines and or experience and or training for UL instructing are at present
woefully inadequate.

That unfortunately is unlikely to change anytime soon and so the cycled of incompetence set by an absurdly low bar for achieving the UL pilot license, will sadly continue to make the good UL pilots very much the exception.

I agree with you. It's a sad tale.

B52 wrote: I can understand how and why SSU has his opinion, and while it's accurate a large amount of the time,
it is not accurate in all cases. If SSU was correct, UL's would be crashing at far greater numbers.

They do crash in great numbers, you just don't hear about it. In most cases they don't get off the ground, everyone walks away, and everyone thinks its cool. I don't know any ultralight guy who hasn't had some sort of incident, and I know way to many who have been hurt (but often out of sight, so oddly nothing is done - well almost, I know one fellow who's wife divorced him because he had too many near death incidents - but TC turns a blind eye to it) Engine failures are common - and one of the attitudes that prevails, is this is pretty much a right of passage to be an ultralight flyer. Fires are common. Control rigging issues are common. If you speak with an ultralight guy if he hasn't had one, he knows someone who has.

Shiny Side Up wrote: ... If you speak with an ultralight guy if he hasn't had one, he knows someone who has.

Including a first degree of separation casts a pretty big net. At that level I'm connected to some top names in Hollywood and sports, but those worlds have little to do with mine. That's nitpicking though since I agree with you otherwise. I don't even fly ULs and I know some who've had problems.

They do crash in great numbers, you just don't hear about it. In most cases they don't get off the ground, everyone walks away, and everyone thinks its cool. I don't know any ultralight guy who hasn't had some sort of incident, and I know way to many who have been hurt (but often out of sight, so oddly nothing is done - well almost, I know one fellow who's wife divorced him because he had too many near death incidents - but TC turns a blind eye to it) Engine failures are common - and one of the attitudes that prevails, is this is pretty much a right of passage to be an ultralight flyer. Fires are common. Control rigging issues are common. If you speak with an ultralight guy if he hasn't had one, he knows someone who has.

So what? No one is else is being harmed. If an operator wants to learn the hard way, let 'em. Darwinism at it's finest.

Increase the regulation, which increases the cost, which diminishes the interest, and eventually ends the category. Just what the tsk, tsk crowd wants.

While usually I agree with a live-and-let-die attitude as long as the people who hurt themselves don't hurt others with them, the problem is one of perception. The majority of the non-flying public generally doesn't distinguish between advanced ultralights, GA homebuilts, and small certified aircraft. A number of times when one of the ultralight crashes did make the news, the comments were filled with statements like "All these pilots flying small airplanes over our houses are dangerous and should be banned. Leave the flying to the airlines."

Now, the question is how do you reduce the accident rate that stems from a lax attitude? I don't think tighter regulations are the answer for the reasons already mentioned (higher costs, less pilots, eventual death of the category). I think the key is to focus on better training and education. Perhaps an ultralight license should be closer to an RPP?

New_PIC wrote:Including a first degree of separation casts a pretty big net.

I should have been more specific, that was referring to the control rigging issue. But even with the degree of separation, contrast it to regarding the same issue with certified airplanes, and the mis rigged controls is almost of mythical proportions - the only ones I know of are the few that have shown up in the same accident report that is often a part of the CPL ground school material. I don't know anyone, or even have a first degree of separation from anyone that has ever happened to, and I know a lot of pilots. On the other hand I know (no degree of separation) of at least six ultralight fliers that have crashed due to the problem (and all of them have gotten airborne before realising the problem - a short coming in their training perhaps?) and even was asked to fly an ultralight once where the problem was discovered.

Worse, was that issue was deemed acceptable by some of the ultralight guys present, "you just got to remember" seemed to be the consensus...

So what? No one is else is being harmed.

That's debateable, these guys aren't random loners after all. But what's worse I find is that those hazardous attitudes that pervade the ultralight community often sucker in the unsuspecting. I get a fair amount of business from the occasional fellow who realises (that is to say scared the shit out of himself) that there might be more to flying than what's there. Some want "just enough" training to make themselves safe, others become converts to which I'm glad.

Maybe you're cool with people being hurt in flying machines, but it bothers me. I've seen enough corpses for this lifetime.

Check out this EBay ad, I do not think it is joke?? Make sure you zoom in on the fine sheet metal work!! http://www.ebay.com/itm/ULTRA-LIGHT-WIT ... ft&afsrc=1

culver10 wrote:Check out this EBay ad, I do not think it is joke?? Make sure you zoom in on the fine sheet metal work!! http://www.ebay.com/itm/ULTRA-LIGHT-WIT ... ft&afsrc=1

Shiny, it's a thousand bucks and a tail dragger. Are you in? I'll finance it.

Jeebus, I thought that thing was maybe someone's brainchild scratch build invention that was hopefully in the prototype stage. Says its been flown 50 hours! Wonder if "quit flying due to health problems" meant "hurt self in crash in ultralight". Nothing is straight on it. Not sure he knows what carbon fiber is, the windshield is definitely not carbon fibre. But hey, the most important thing in the world is to get airborne as cheap as possible right?

LOL...she's a beaut! Gotta love how those tin bashers worked their magic with a rubber mallet on those complex curves. Clearly, this is not what I had in mind when advocating a cheap(er) flying solution!!

It's water cooled. I can't remember which side you were on in that thread.

I am thinking of sending it to that guy in Africa that was trying to fly his home built with the farm equipment wheel attached who was having issues with breaking welds on the steel angle iron construction. I think his craft would be better described as an "unintentional heavy." Of course he might be best left stuck on the ground.

Hummel makes great plans and have a lot of well respected flying planes that don't have any issues. This thing is a poor copy. Don't know what the hell this guy built, but he didn't follow any plans very well, in fact probably just went off a photo... also a reason why he's only asking 1800$. This is not a fair example representing the BULA category! LOL I think this guy got most of his metal from a blown over shed...

In other homebuilt news:

In 2007, 24-year-old Nigerian physics student Mubarak Muhammed Abdullahi spent nearly a year building a 12-metre (39ft) long helicopter out of spare parts sourced from old cars, motorcycles, and even a crashed Boeing 747, using money he saved from repairing cell phones and computers.

“When I was a kid I loved helicopters,” says Abdullahi. “Whenever I saw one in the movies, I used to ask ‘how does this thing work?”

Years later when he told his college friends of his plan to build one, they laughed. “Only whites can build things like that,” they said. His response was to build a bright yellow helicopter with push-button ignition, an accelerator lever and a joystick for thrust and bearing. It was powered by a 133-horsepower engine salvaged from a Honda Civic.

Unlike the flying machines of many other amateur aviation innovators, Abdullahi’s contraption actually flew, although never above a height of 2.1 metres (7ft). But it did earn him international recognition, a TED Global Fellowship and a scholarship to study aircraft maintenance in the UK.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2013062 ... t-builders

Good Job!

I asked in another thread about somewhere in the Caribbean to learn some float flying - or something else interesting; I found this article about a base in Guadeloupe which seemed to fit the bill:
http://www.zenith.aero/profiles/blogs/f ... -caribbean

Then looking at the webpage of the company (http://www.ulm-orizon.com/) it seems the guy there died in an ultralight accident the year after that article was written. I couldn't help but think of this thread.

It is now the summer of 2022 and it would be interesting if the members' attitudes toward ultralight or the regulations have changed significantly. I am a proponent of aviation in all forms and actively discourage OVER regulation (including those for drones).

And GOOD airline aviators not only encourage, but participate in light aviation. It is a passion that does not discriminate.