Ultra-light Down

[Old Dog Flying]

A SeaBreeze untralight amphibian made an unscheduled arrival on Highway 91 near the 64 St overpass during brush hour this evening. Aircraft slightly damaged and reportedly one person slightly injured..if you can believe the local Vancouver area news media.

[karmutzen]

Press calling it a "commuter airplane". Damage looks minimal.

[boeingboy]

I think it's a Searay.

[titan noise]

That is a Buckeneer 2.

[arctic navigator]

Apparently they took the pilot to the hospital for evaluation. Nobody needs any more bad news in the lower mainland right now.

http://./forum/index.php/topic,164.0.html

[CFR]

Interesting read: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/pilot-who- ... -1.2340596

Apparently the pilot was advised not to fly the aircraft as it had engine issues.

[AirFrame]

Doesn't it have to get *really* bad before a group of pilots on your home airport write you a letter advising you not to fly your airplane? I know pilots occasionally talk unfavourably about some old wings on the field, but that rarely even progresses to someone pulling someone aside and talking to them privately, let alone writing something on paper...

[karmutzen]

Heard interviews on the radio today with both the pilot and with the KG Airpark owner. Lots of slagging going on, but then we do have a responsibility to control our sport so that it isn't shut down by an irate public. I heard southbound 91 didn't reopen until 8:30pm. That would be a lot of irate public, especially now discovering that the pilot apparently flew an airplane everyone knew was not airworthy.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I never did understand why people want to fly their lawn furniture around with the engine from a skidoo bolted to their backside......

Every PPL that I trained on Cessna's that went on to fly ultralights had at least one engine failure in those airplanes. One student of mine called up one day to tell me all about his third engine failure and to thank me for how well I had taught him forced approaches

[PilotDAR]

I have not flown this aircraft type, and have no special knowledge of this event. However, my experience tells me to expect a glide ratio which is poor with this aircraft. Thus, planning a route with a glide to a suitable spot is wise at all possible times.

If the owner pilot was managing maintenance ina way which troubled is fellow pilots, preparedness for a forced approachmight have been less than ideal too. As said, if his fellow pilots felt the need to document their concerns, it must have been bad. that's embarrasing, and makes us all look bad - particulalry when the media is reporting a written "I told you so". I'm very uneasy ratting out my peers (I do speak to pilots face to face occasionally). but we are our brother's keeper too - it's our pastime, and this kind of stuff makes us all look bad to the public. I hope he considers the outcome, and reconsideres his persuit of aviation....

I recall decades ago, a very proud rotax powered aircraft owner told me with great pride that he had just passed 100 hours without a total engine failure - his longest ever. That reaffirmed my confidence in Continental and Lycoming engines.

[beaverpuq]

Wow. I guess I'd add trying to defend his actions on the evening news to the list of poor decisions made. Although would have been really interesting to see what the AC pilots in Halifax had to say that soon after the event. Maybe that should be standard procedure?

[boeingboy]

I never did understand why people want to fly their lawn furniture around with the engine from a skidoo bolted to their backside......

Every PPL that I trained on Cessna's that went on to fly ultralights had at least one engine failure in those airplanes. One student of mine called up one day to tell me all about his third engine failure and to thank me for how well I had taught him forced approaches

I recall decades ago, a very proud rotax powered aircraft owner told me with great pride that he had just passed 100 hours without a total engine failure - his longest ever. That reaffirmed my confidence in Continental and Lycoming engines.

That's is such a Neanderthal way of thinking.

It's not the engine or the airframe....it's how its maintained. Rotax has a certified engine as well, it's just the same as the uncertified version - but costs twice as much. When my dads 170 got to be too expensive - he sold it and a few years later bought a kitfox. It's powered with a rotax 618. Guess what - we have 400 hrs on it and it's worked perfectly every time. That little thing is the most fun I've ever had in a small plane, but we maintain it.

[boeingboy]

I also have serious questions about this whole story.

Firstly - how did the KG airpark people know this plane had issues? Did they sell it to him this way?

Second - the KG airpark people wouldn't know safety if it bit them in the a$$. I've flown in there planes.....and wont do it again. The things I saw were SCARY! but they just shrugged it off like I had no clue what I was talking about.

There have been many incidents both at the field and in the surrounding area with planes owned/based there over the years. There has also been noise complaints from neighbors, this sounds more like KG owners trying to deflect unwanted attention away from their operation than worrying about safety. Trying to keep the angry mob from shutting them down....again!

[titan noise]

I know a lot of the fine folks at King George and I can tell you, this pilot kept to himself, didn't get involved in the airport "community" and does not represent a majority of the fine pilots and planes at kg.

There are pilots at KG who also fly commercial planes, and "certified" planes based out of larger airfields but guess what....they love flying out of King George, flying their properly maintained UL aircraft.

Please do not turn this into a PPL against UL argument. We all obviously enjoy flying and should support each other like true aviators.

Just because you hold a PPL does not make you a better pilot, you chose a PPL to fly different size aircraft, I chose UL because I enjoy flying UL planes. As an AME, mine is probably maintained just as good (if not better) than some certified planes I've seen. I've been in the industry for over 20 years.

That is my rant for today, happy flying and please stay safe.

[PilotDAR]

I agree that I was generalizing about Rotax and non certified aircraft airworthiness, when maintenance is a much more predominate factor in successful operation. My remark was more directed to my observation that this ultra light owner seemed to think it was normal or acceptable to suffer an engine failure and forced landing on average 100 hours. That attitude alone should be popping up red flags!

Perhaps it's an attitude thing. My very small sample set has shown me that it is common for pilots to choose ultra light aircraft with their perception of lower operating cost. This economizing attitude can extend to scrimping on maintenance. Equally concerning is that pilots who seek to economize on aircraft operating cost, might also attempt to minimize training and currency costs. I could wonder how many practice forced landings the accident pilot have conducted for currency. Yes, he got it on the ground with success, but more practice might have shown him that the glide characteristics of that type of aircraft demand flying it with consideration for a much smaller selection of suitable landing areas. Some aircraft just should not be flown over areas with little choice for forced landings. A combination of suspect airworthiness and poor glide is really a good reason to stay away from the public!

Yes, I have flown aircraft which I felt were a little less likely to stay running than I would like. I made a point of choosing a route which would keep me away from anyone/thing, which would be offended by a forced landing. This fellow had the added benefit of being able to forced approach onto some areas of water. When flying my 'boat, I consider areas of more calm water as suitable forced landing areas, and factor them into route planning.

I support peer mentoring, in the hope that effective mentoring negates more regulation. I have no idea of the details of the "other" pilots concern at the home field of the accident aircraft, but hats off to them for taking an interest, and expressing concern, which we all should, for the success and public perception of our common pastime.

[titan noise]

Peer mentoring works if people are willing to listen. In this case this pilot saught the services of the local Rotax certified mechanic and chose to ignore the recommendations. That is why a letter was sent because of a legal liability. Technically, this pilot didn't break any laws, this was a basic ultra light which means he can do whatever he wants with the plane.
If this was an advanced ultra light you are required by law to maintain the aircraft as per the manufacturer's requirements and specifications.
Oh by the way the parts he needed to get the engine fixed, arrived today....a bit too late now. Kind of prooves he knew the engine needed repair.
There is a lot of peer mentoring that goes on there, this letter was a legal issue between a business and client for liabily reasons, nothing else.

[awitzke]

Based on how often I see these ultralight guys blasting over White Rock at sub 500' levels I'm sure he didn't have much time to react to the failure let alone time to find a more appropriate landing area. I remember whenever I did the Alex Fraser arrival into ZBB though, there really isn't much in regards to fields.

[AirFrame]

Based on how often I see these ultralight guys blasting over White Rock at sub 500' levels I'm sure he didn't have much time to react to the failure let alone time to find a more appropriate landing area. I remember whenever I did the Alex Fraser arrival into ZBB though, there really isn't much in regards to fields.

He did say in the interview that he was at 1200 or 1500 when it quit... I forget which. Not *much* more, granted, but if he was doing water landings near Whiterock pier then he'd be near the Abbotsford extension, so he'd want to be below 1500' in any case. Going from there back to King George Airpark there's not much reason to climb any higher than that.

[boeingboy]

If he was doing touch and go's at Whiterock - what was he doing at Hwy 91 and 72nd? and in the southbound lanes to boot?

All he does is overfly Whaiterock or buzzes over the water around Cresent beach and up the river delta to KGA. When I saw it on the Hwy - I assumed he was doing water landings on the Fraser river near the Surrey/Fraser docks. That is/was KGA's favorite training ground, and I still see them there from time to time.

[AirFrame]

All he does is overfly Whaiterock or buzzes over the water around Cresent beach and up the river delta to KGA. When I saw it on the Hwy - I assumed he was doing water landings on the Fraser river near the Surrey/Fraser docks. That is/was KGA's favorite training ground, and I still see them there from time to time.

I may be incorrect... I thought he said in the interview video that he was doing water landings near Whiterock. Maybe I misheard, and he said "the docks"? He did say he left there to overfly his house before returning to KGA International... Maybe that's how he got farther north.

[boeingboy]

Oh - maybe.

Just to be clear - my statement was not directed at you personally, but rather a generalized statement.

[pelmet]

"The amphibian Buccaneer II basic ultralight aircraft, C-IJFV, was returning to the Surrey-King
George airpark (CSK8) following a 1.5 hour flight around the area of White Rock beaches. The
pilot had been practicing water landings, and after a fly-by his house on the way to the airpark, the
Rotax 582 two-stroke engine suddenly stopped. The pilot was able to clear a row of trees, but with
no open field within gliding distance, he chose to land amidst traffic on highway 91. The aircraft
encountered some turbulence and the left wing struck a road sign just before touchdown. It veered
into the concrete median, landed hard, and came to a sudden stop without hitting any automobiles.
The aircraft was damaged. The pilot suffered a back injury and was taken to hospital.

The engine manufacturer warns operators that the engine is not certified for aviation use and
engine power losses should be anticipated. It also states flight should be limited over areas where
dead stick landings can be made."

Speaking of Rotax 582 engines. Three days earlier...

"The Basic Ultralight Kitfox II, C-IJWJ, departed from a private airstrip in the vicinity of Camden
East, Ontario, for a local flight with only the pilot on board. At the end of the flight, when returning
to the same private field, at approximately 1500 ft, the engine (Rotax 582) failed. The pilot
executed a forced landing into a nearby field and during touchdown the wheels dug in the wet soil
and the aircraft flipped over. Damage was limited to the propeller and engine cowl. The
helmetless pilot was wearing a four point safety harness and was uninjured"

[JungleMonkey]

The pilot of the sea-breeze should never have taken off. Poor decision making for sure.

However, I've flown several home-built and ultralight aircraft. I've never had an engine failure on any of them but they were all well maintained. I did have one retard pilot pull a loop on me (I was right seat) while flying at about 400 AGL. This was 30 years ago. I quickly disassociated myself with him and never went near that company again. It does say something about the lack of training some of these guys have.

My experience is that ultralights are ok as long as they are well maintained. But they are getting more expensive all the time so I just quit flying them and stuck with certified aircraft. The majority of them are too slow as well. They are lighter built and should be treated accordingly.

It is interesting to note that I have had 3 engine failures on certified commercial aircraft and also a aborted takeoff due to power loss.

[pelmet]

e: 2016-10-02

C-IJGV, a Basic Ultra-light Rans S-6ES Coyote II aircraft operated by King George Aviation Ltd,
was on a familiarization flight westbound over Mud Bay Park, BC when the engine began to run
rough. The pilot checked all systems to troubleshoot the problem, initially reducing power while
turning inland. The throttle was increased with no apparent change. Since the aircraft was rapidly
losing altitude and considering the remaining distance from land, the pilot elected to ditch the
aircraft close to the shoreline at Crescent Beach, BC. The aircraft contacted the water in a nose up
attitude and overturned as the airspeed decreased. The pilot egressed and assisted the passenger
with their seatbelt before they walked their way to the beach where they were assisted by
bystanders.

The operator’s maintenance disassembled the engine and did not find any mechanical issue.
Electronic ignition component problems were suspected, however these evidences would have
been destroyed by salt water immersion.