Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
Hello aviators,
Another question regarding advanced ultralights, is building “total time” as we know you’re limited to a certain time for the PPL and CPL limited worth it? There are advanced ultralights that fly faster than a 150 with more legroom per say at much cheaper rates to build time.
Any thoughts are much appreciated and thank you
Another question regarding advanced ultralights, is building “total time” as we know you’re limited to a certain time for the PPL and CPL limited worth it? There are advanced ultralights that fly faster than a 150 with more legroom per say at much cheaper rates to build time.
Any thoughts are much appreciated and thank you
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
Building time for a PPL on a random ultralight the student doesn’t own isn’t allowed; not because it’s an ultralight but because for PPL training you are required to use an airplane owned by the student (or their family member) or operated by an FTU.
I can’t image any CPL candidates will want to invest in retraining (therefore a bunch more dual) on a new aircraft type just to build only a few slightly cheaper solo hours.
If this is your new business plan, I’m sorry not to be more enthusiastic about it, but no, I don’t think there’s any merit in it.
Time builders generally want slow and therefore cheap certified aircraft; not fast ultralights. They need time behind the controls so the airplane they’re in doesn’t need to go fast because there’s nowhere in particular they’re trying to get to.
I can’t image any CPL candidates will want to invest in retraining (therefore a bunch more dual) on a new aircraft type just to build only a few slightly cheaper solo hours.
If this is your new business plan, I’m sorry not to be more enthusiastic about it, but no, I don’t think there’s any merit in it.
Time builders generally want slow and therefore cheap certified aircraft; not fast ultralights. They need time behind the controls so the airplane they’re in doesn’t need to go fast because there’s nowhere in particular they’re trying to get to.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
- PeterParker
- Rank 3
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2020 4:40 pm
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
It is a shame that TC doesn't see Advanced Ultralights as being worth the PIC time. Some of them seem to be fairly decent airplane to build time and gain experience at a fraction of the cost. Will help bring costs down at least at the CPL time building phase.
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
As lidi notes, there are time limits for credits for PPL, CPL. ( https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-servi ... ars#421_26 )
1. PPL can credit up to 10 hours of PIC ultralight time IF you already have an ultralight pilot permit.
--To make this work, you'd essentially have to do the ultralight pilot permit training(mostly uncountable dual), then switch gears and do the PPL training, and hope that you can get both done quickly relative to the minimum 45hr required for PPL. Probably not going to happen in practice because you'll need to re-familiarize yourself with a new aircraft with sub PPL level skill. I'd only go this way if you absolutely want an ultralight pilot permit.
2. CPL can credit 25 PIC ultralight time towards the 200hr total time (but not the 100 PIC) requirement. You don't need an ultralight pilot permit. Of the 200hr total, 100 must be PIC aeroplane, so you get left with 100 for dual + credits. You have a minimum dual requirement of 17+35 = 52hours, leaving 48hr to play with.
--So it is possible for the CPL. However, you will need to follow your interests for those 48 hours...there are other possibly more productive things you could use the time for:
- Get your Instrument rating
- Get your multi engine
- Get your float rating
- Fly ultralights (up to 25hr PIC)
If you're interested in ultralights, sure - after your PPL. Other than that, follow your interests.
1. PPL can credit up to 10 hours of PIC ultralight time IF you already have an ultralight pilot permit.
--To make this work, you'd essentially have to do the ultralight pilot permit training(mostly uncountable dual), then switch gears and do the PPL training, and hope that you can get both done quickly relative to the minimum 45hr required for PPL. Probably not going to happen in practice because you'll need to re-familiarize yourself with a new aircraft with sub PPL level skill. I'd only go this way if you absolutely want an ultralight pilot permit.
2. CPL can credit 25 PIC ultralight time towards the 200hr total time (but not the 100 PIC) requirement. You don't need an ultralight pilot permit. Of the 200hr total, 100 must be PIC aeroplane, so you get left with 100 for dual + credits. You have a minimum dual requirement of 17+35 = 52hours, leaving 48hr to play with.
--So it is possible for the CPL. However, you will need to follow your interests for those 48 hours...there are other possibly more productive things you could use the time for:
- Get your Instrument rating
- Get your multi engine
- Get your float rating
- Fly ultralights (up to 25hr PIC)
If you're interested in ultralights, sure - after your PPL. Other than that, follow your interests.
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
Exactly, down in the states the same advanced ultralight aircraft is used to train commercial pilots!PeterParker wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:12 am It is a shame that TC doesn't see Advanced Ultralights as being worth the PIC time. Some of them seem to be fairly decent airplane to build time and gain experience at a fraction of the cost. Will help bring costs down at least at the CPL time building phase.
But here in Canada it doesn’t hurt to fly advanced ultralights to build “total pic time”
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
Exactly, down in the states the same advanced ultralight aircraft is used to train commercial pilots!PeterParker wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:12 am It is a shame that TC doesn't see Advanced Ultralights as being worth the PIC time. Some of them seem to be fairly decent airplane to build time and gain experience at a fraction of the cost. Will help bring costs down at least at the CPL time building phase.
But here in Canada it doesn’t hurt to fly advanced ultralights to build “total pic time”
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
You can also count 50 hours of ultralight time towards the 1500 hour requirement for an ATPL, as per CARS 421.32 (6)(b). This only applies to 3-axis control ultralights, not weight-shift, rudder-aileron linkage, etc. I think these experience credit restrictions are a bit antiquated, but come from a time when ultralights were not nearly as capable and complex as they are now. However, I do see the logic, in that the aircraft a commercial or airline transport pilot would be operating for hire are generally much higher performance and complexity. There is a bit of a disconnect from the American light sport category for sure....
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
But you can count all of your hours in a 150…
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
Exactly. The twisting people try yo go through to save a few bucks on building hours is usually pretty pointless. If an ultralight is cheaper than a 150, it’s also sufficiently less airplane for hours in it to be discounted as “experience”. If it’s more advanced than a 150, it’s more expensive to acquire to a point that it defeats the purpose of getting cheap hours.
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
The premise here is that a space-shuttle complex ultralight aircraft is available to hire for $0.15 per hour because the law states that ultralights are cheap.
I don’t think the premise is true.
On the other hand I’ve never understood the requirement for CPL hours to need complexity in the airplane; a least not in Canada. instead it needs hours of travel as a proxy for having had to make operational decisions.
I don’t think the premise is true.
On the other hand I’ve never understood the requirement for CPL hours to need complexity in the airplane; a least not in Canada. instead it needs hours of travel as a proxy for having had to make operational decisions.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
Agreed. IMO the number of XC hours for the CPL should be increased and the number of dual hours decreased. There is no substitute for PDM on long trips.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
I can understand the need for some of it. Ultralight guys, in my experience usually have large important gaps in their experience which makes them less desirable working pilots. They usually don’t know how radios work, they are terrified of ATC, and probably the worst feature, they treat the red knob like it’s a kill switch. That list is not exhaustive.
I’m also not sure that more cross country time would have the desired effect unless the regulator was enforcing requirements better. The amount of “solo” trips I see happening with and instructor on board is really damning, never mind escorted trips (that is to say an instructor giving dual is going to the same place as a “solo” student), endlessly repeated routes, and other such less work around to making students really bear the burden of being in command.
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
I agree that you should need to fly even an ultralight to "CPL" standards for the time to contribute to higher licences. Perhaps that could be achieved by inserting a "following the issue of a commercial pilot licence" in the experience requirements credit as appropriate.Squaretail wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:29 pmI can understand the need for some of it. Ultralight guys, in my experience usually have large important gaps in their experience which makes them less desirable working pilots. They usually don’t know how radios work, they are terrified of ATC, and probably the worst feature, they treat the red knob like it’s a kill switch. That list is not exhaustive.
... but I don't think rules should be structured around those people who aren't going to follow them anyway.I’m also not sure that more cross country time would have the desired effect unless the regulator was enforcing requirements better. The amount of “solo” trips I see happening with and instructor on board is really damning, never mind escorted trips (that is to say an instructor giving dual is going to the same place as a “solo” student), endlessly repeated routes, and other such less work around to making students really bear the burden of being in command.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
Hence why I said “unless the regulator enforces them”. Forget about quibbling over what may constitute reasonable CPL time building experience, the bigger problem is a lack of QC on the CPL product. Ultimately the fraction of bargain seeking hour builders is minuscule and for the most part a theoretical problem for forum debate.
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
So is “building total time “ a waste of time and money? So the only way of getting a job after the commercial licence is instructing or 703? So even buying a 150 or 172 and flying the crap out of it both vfr and ifr doing x-country trips is a waste of time and money .
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
Depends. It matters if it made you a better pilot. So whether it’s worthwhile depends on what you make of it. I had three guys who applied this year, all of whom had about 500 hours, all who bought planes to time build on. Two of them couldn’t fly worth beans, and with a few questions I deduced that these fellows “solo” time was with Dad (who was also a pilot) in the right seat. How much pilot experience do you think these guys really had? The third had bought his plane on his own and flew everywhere by himself, that is to say with no instructors, parents, or Pilot buddies riding along. He was hired. So who made their time worthwhile?
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
Wow! 500 hours hired , good stuff! What plane did he get hired to fly with you?Squaretail wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:02 pm Depends. It matters if it made you a better pilot. So whether it’s worthwhile depends on what you make of it. I had three guys who applied this year, all of whom had about 500 hours, all who bought planes to time build on. Two of them couldn’t fly worth beans, and with a few questions I deduced that these fellows “solo” time was with Dad (who was also a pilot) in the right seat. How much pilot experience do you think these guys really had? The third had bought his plane on his own and flew everywhere by himself, that is to say with no instructors, parents, or Pilot buddies riding along. He was hired. So who made their time worthwhile?
Since everyone is putting down flying advanced ultralights I’m thinking of being a partner in a plane and flying x-country time and IFR . I have about a year before I retire from my current job and trying to have a crack at maybe a 703,705 job.
I’ll try my best but like everything else nothing is guaranteed.
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
What was the problem with their flying abilities? I would have thought it would have been more decision making that would be the issue rather than the actual flying.Squaretail wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:02 pm Depends. It matters if it made you a better pilot. So whether it’s worthwhile depends on what you make of it. I had three guys who applied this year, all of whom had about 500 hours, all who bought planes to time build on. Two of them couldn’t fly worth beans, and with a few questions I deduced that these fellows “solo” time was with Dad (who was also a pilot) in the right seat. How much pilot experience do you think these guys really had? The third had bought his plane on his own and flew everywhere by himself, that is to say with no instructors, parents, or Pilot buddies riding along. He was hired. So who made their time worthwhile?
-
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4562
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
- Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
There's sort of 2 identical threads here with the same question, I was about to answer and then realised I already had, or are these two questions substantially different?...viewtopic.php?t=137097
-
- Rank 6
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm
Re: Building “total time” on advanced ultralights
Your decision making abilities don’t matter if you can barely keep the airplane flying in a straight line. I suspect a lot of Dad really doing the flying, and them just logbooking. One of them, in spite of spending three hundred or so hours in a 182, didn’t know what the manifold pressure gauge was.
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.