Ultralights crashing due to fewer rules: expert
THE TELEGRAM
09/27/2007
Light aircraft like the one involved in a deadly crash in Nova Scotia this week are increasing in popularity across Canada due to less expensive regulatory requirements than slightly larger, federally certified airplanes, aviation experts said Wednesday.
A 64-year-old Swiss man was killed and another Swiss man in the rear seat was seriously injured on Tuesday when a RANS S-7S float plane plunged nose down into a rock quarry about 100 kilometres southwest of Halifax.
Burkhard Woelky, a veteran operator of the Sunnybrook Flight School in Nova Scotia, said the plane is part of the increasingly popular "advanced" ultralight aircraft - small airplanes that are usually equipped with four-stroke engines and aircraft-grade components.
He argued the ultralights, offered in kit form or pre-assembled, are in most respects the equivalent of small manufactured aircraft, "unlike the flimsy ultralights with two-stroke engines of the past." Woelky said the growth trend is driven by lower registration fees than slightly larger planes, such as Cessnas or Pipers.
"You buy a brand new kit and build it, and you have a better equipped aircraft and it will cost you a fragment to operate in relation to certified aircraft," he said.
The advanced ultralights must be inspected by a manufacturer's representative after they're constructed, but don't require a federal Transportation Department inspection.
Annual inspections are left to the owner while certified aircraft must go through an inspection from a federally approved mechanic.
Figures from Transport Canada confirm a steady increase in the light aircraft over the past five years. There were 942 of the aircraft registered this year compared to 654 of the category in 2002.
Meanwhile, small certified aircraft have increased at a much slower pace with 13,292 registered this year, compared to 12,934 five years ago.
Mike Cunningham, a manager at the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, also noted that the ultralights are growing in popularity.
"They (ultralights) have taken domination over what you'd consider conventional production line aircraft, and that's because of the cost," he explained.
He added it remains uncertain whether the Transportation Safety Board will produce a formal report into the accident near Rhodes Corner, N.S.
"It's all about the travelling public and it's all about using the resources we have in a wise fashion," he said. "Really, when it comes right down to it, there's not a lot of safety payoff in looking at ultralight accidents, especially when there's so few."
However, statistics remain unclear on whether the advanced ultralights have a similar, worse or better safety record than certified, private aircraft.
The Transportation Safety Board of Canada says there have been 15 ultralight accidents since January of this year, but it doesn't stipulate how many of those involved advanced ultralights.
Ultralights crashing due to fewer rules: expert
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Ultralights crashing due to fewer rules: expert
Nowhere in the article you quoted does it say that ultralights are crashing due to fewer rules. Is that your spin or the journalist's?
While we don't know the accident rate for ultralights, we do know that the fatality rate is the same as for certified GA aircraft.
Forced landings in ultralights are much safer than GA aircraft due to the lower stall speed (although you might be more likely to have a forced landing, depending on what engine your ultralight has and how it is maintained).
Let's stick to the facts and stop this scaremongering about ultralights being death-traps.
While we don't know the accident rate for ultralights, we do know that the fatality rate is the same as for certified GA aircraft.
Forced landings in ultralights are much safer than GA aircraft due to the lower stall speed (although you might be more likely to have a forced landing, depending on what engine your ultralight has and how it is maintained).
Let's stick to the facts and stop this scaremongering about ultralights being death-traps.
For aircraft that are flown only on nice days compared to aircraft that are flown at night and in clouds to draw the conclusion that the Death rate is the same is a distortion of the statistics .Usually only made by those involved in promoting the ultralights .
When ultralights start flying at night and in IMC then you could start honestly comparing stats .
I know a guy who had 11 engine failures in 75 hours while trying to instruct at an Ultra-light school ."I would not risk flying an ultralight beyond glide distance of a suitable landing area" .The first lesson my friend gave was usually an engine failure often a real one .Now he flys pratt and whitney products for a living.
When ultralights start flying at night and in IMC then you could start honestly comparing stats .
I know a guy who had 11 engine failures in 75 hours while trying to instruct at an Ultra-light school ."I would not risk flying an ultralight beyond glide distance of a suitable landing area" .The first lesson my friend gave was usually an engine failure often a real one .Now he flys pratt and whitney products for a living.
-
fatdumbandlazy
- Rank 2
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:02 am
The main problem I've noticed with Ultralights and where some of the problems lie is the fact that they are so light. There is no mass to store speed as momentum should the engine fail. Drag is pretty high so when the thrust stops speed drops rapidly. A combination of all these factors results in a very short reaction time needed to get the airplane into a glide as opposed to a plummet. In a C172 for example you have some momentum behind you to which lets you wake up and get things under control. Otherwise I think that ultralights wouldn't have lasted as long as they have if they were all truely death traps.
