Ultralight Instructor Rating - is it worth it?

[flyalmaguin]

Hello everyone.....

I'm pondering my options.

I'm a private pilot with approximately 185 hours total time in the log book. My reality is that I have a hard earned, well paid for full private pilots licence burning a hole in my pocket where my student loan money used to be. A piece of paper that is essentially useless as they are few if any aircraft available to rent and fly locally. Even those that are around cost more per hour than I can afford, other than go up and do circuits endlessly to stay current.

I'm already convinced that ultralight flying is both more economical and realistic for any of the type of flying I plan on doing. It offers everything I want including float and ski flying.

In order to truly enjoy flying, I find the ability to take someone with me (be it my wife, either of my daughters or friends) to be a top priority.

Basic ultralights that fall within my budget are available, but BULAs don't allow taking a passenger unless I obtain an instructor rating (I already know the rules and limitations of this route and I am aware of insurance, business costs etc).

I don't know if I want to go "all-in" and start a flight training unit as my bill paying job probably wouldn't allow me the time to commit to that. Having the instructor rating however could lead to subsidizing some of the costs for my personal flying as well.

So my question is this: Is getting an instructor rating worth the effort as a path to getting in the air cheaper? How many get the instructor rating for the sole purpose of carrying passengers for "instruction"?

[Big Pistons Forever]

One opinion and worth every thing you paid for it.

My personal experience with the ultra light crowd has been unremittingly bad, rife with unsafe attitudes, poor flying skills, unreliable aircraft (every ultra light owner that I personally know has had at least one forced landing due to engine failure) and sketchy business practices.

Now I am sure there are reputable and safe operators out there but I have yet to meet one. There is an ultra light instructor, not too far away from where I live that I have never met, but who has a good reputation from people I trust. However he charges almost the same rates for his aircraft as the local FTU charges for a C 150 and his instructor rate is considerably higher than the FTU. His students also take considerably longer than the TC mins to get there license because he demands competence in the people he trains. The bottom line is I do not believe a properly done ultra light pilot license is going to be significantly less expensive than a RPP.

So the bottom line is I see a significant cost to you to transfer over to the ultralight world and develop the skills to get an instructor rating for what to me is not an a particularly attractive qualification.

[B52]

BPF gave you some good advice.


One opinion and worth every thing you paid for it.

While there are some good Ultra Light instructors, most are of limited experience and ability.
If they are regular flight instructors and also do Ultra Lights then they are probably fussy about what aircraft they will get into.

From a practical point, the only students are those who buy their own and get someone to teach them, when
they are not teaching themselves which happens a lot.

The only decent operations are MORE expensive than flying a Cessna and it's next to impossible to "rent" and only possible to
buy your own etc...

Yes, buy your own Ultra light, fly it and fly cheap, but forget Ultra Light Instructing as there are NO jobs advertized for UL instructors
and while the UL world has its own economy, it does have a wealth of opportunity, if you have a UL Sales company and will teach them
at the same time If they buy.

I once purchased 80 acres with a strip on it and had Lights use it. I got to fly some of them
but I was generally the only person to be so invited. I got to test fly a few and some were very nice and very well built
in particular the Murphy Rebel on Floats and Wheels, very nice aircraft that makes a C150 appear like a truck in handling.

Hours: Most flight schools normal or UL, take excessively long hours because of the nature of their location,
the low experience and quality of instructors.

Some Flight Schools really shine when it comes to ideal training environments,
Take a look at Smith Falls and even Rockcliff Ontario.

New Brunswick has some incredible UL fields with a very high standard of UL's flying around.

The present UL Regs in theory and practice are creating a load of accidents going to happen
as TC have taken a "hands off" approach, and don't appear to want to have anything to do
with it.

I've watched a large number of UL's and some are very obviously accidents waiting to happen.

While there are a large number of very well built aircraft and many good pilots, its
a tragic area of accidents going to happen because they are treated
more as if flying radio controlled aircraft where accidents don't really.

Spend $20 - $40 grand on your own ultra light and low hourly rates
or just rent a 150 occasionally,

[Shiny Side Up]

My personal experience with the ultra light crowd has been unremittingly bad, rife with unsafe attitudes, poor flying skills, unreliable aircraft (every ultra light owner that I personally know has had at least one forced landing due to engine failure) and sketchy business practices.

+1. Add to that, I know more people who've been injured or killed in ultralights, than any other type of flying. Depressingly, this seems cool with the ultralight crowd. If you want to be a part of that crowd, well then I have no sympathy for what befalls you. Also, if you really must cut the costs of your flying to such a degree, please don't involve your wife, or any other haplesss people in it. Accept that your goal at the very least is to cut your costs to such a point where you're obviously - you're considering instructing in the infernal things - where your personal safety is a far secondary concern.

[PilotDAR]

I entirely support the point of view of the preceding three posters.

[flyalmaguin]

So let me see if I understand each of you correctly....

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you believe that ALL ultralights are death-traps just waiting to kill the unsuspecting pilot and his passenger. Hmmm..... that seems pretty narrow minded when you consider that many aircraft, both kit/home built (think Zenair products) AND manufactured (yes, a Cessna 120/140 or Champ) can meet the regulatory definition of ultralight and are registered as such.

In fact, I would hazard a guess that a lot owner maintained ultralights are better cared for (read maintenance practices) than some flight club/school machines or weekend warrior certified rides. Are they all better? Absolutely not and anyone who claims they are is fooling themselves, and the argument is a two way street.

But, like anything in life, there are risks and compromises to be made. It's up to everyone to decide for themselves what is safe or not safe. Darwin wrote about it best.

Spend $20 - $40 grand on your own ultra light and low hourly rates
or just rent a 150 occasionally,

As I stated in my original post, there isn't any affordable rental aircraft in my local area. Last time I checked a Cessna 150 was $150/hr with a 30 day recurrency policy. So other than circuits, what's the point?

If you want to be a part of that crowd, well then I have no sympathy for what befalls you. Also, if you really must cut the costs of your flying to such a degree, please don't involve your wife, or any other haplesss people in it. Accept that your goal at the very least is to cut your costs to such a point where you're obviously - you're considering instructing in the infernal things - where your personal safety is a far secondary concern.

I'm sorry to hear that your experience has been so lopsided to the bad half of the equation. I think it's unfair however to insinuate that my desire to cut costs automatically equates to intentionally putting myself or others in mortal jeopardy. You have no idea who I am, what my experience and skill level is or for that matter what my plans for an aircraft purchase and maintenance is.

It's a shame that good aviation people such as yourselves have become so jaded that they've lost touch with the beauty of grassroots flying. Thankfully I'm already starting to hear the other side from those that enjoy it, both safely and economically.

But then again, as you so eloquently said:

One opinion and worth every thing you paid for it.

Thanks for your opinion. Anyone else?

[Shiny Side Up]

I'm sorry to hear that your experience has been so lopsided to the bad half of the equation.

Its not lopsided, that's just how it is. You must consider that if you get into the instructing side of that business, that you are - like it or not - going to end up dealing with that half of the crowd. There's nothing grass roosts about it. The prime reason most pople I know are into flying ultralights is to cut costs, the second would be to avoid the regulatory issues with normal airplanes, which go hand in hand.

If you want to go fly an ultralight, you should go do it, buyer beware, just like buying any other airplane. But if you want to get into training ultralight guys, that's a different matter. Keep in mind its the people in the equation who cause the hazards, how the people treat the machines is a side effect that causes more of a hazard.

Here's a second thing to consider if you want to augment your flight needs by training. The local ultralight instructor has - in the time I've been aware of his activities - at least a dozen of his students killed, many more injured. I'm not sure how he sleeps at night, as an instructor, I'd have a pretty hard time with that, but that seems just normal with this particular crowd.

edit: I guess on the half of it, I'm not sure why you're bothering asking. You've already made up your mind. Maybe come back to this thread in a couple of years and tell us how it turns out.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Its not lopsided, that's just how it is. You must consider that if you get into the instructing side of that business, that you are - like it or not - going to end up dealing with that half of the crowd. There's nothing grass roosts about it. The prime reason most people I know are into flying ultralights is to cut costs, the second would be to avoid the regulatory issues with normal airplanes, which go hand in hand.
.

I second what Shiny has written. You seem to have made up your mind so good luck on the ultra light instruction, you are going to need it.........

[B52]

You may not like the information you are reading
and no, we don't know who you are but your own post
tells us a story of a 189 hour PPL who might have most of those
hours in a high performance tail wheel aircraft and you might be able
to outfly 99% of PPL's around, and you just might be gods gift to aviation
which rightly or wrongly includes a large number of instructors.

In the western world, you can find some very professional high standard
ultra light schools but the cost is often MORE than regular Flight Schools.

You are "already convinced" of the economics, and it falls within your budget.

I'll tell you about a budget UL that I once flew.
First it's fuselage was a bit of Aluminum pipe,
its sole pilot's seat was plastic and appeared to come from a kids toy car.

The engine was taken from a chain saw, and the fabric only covered the upper surface
of the wing, not the lower.

You sat with nothing underneath you but air, and a flimsy seat belt kept you fastened in.

But, this mechanical butterfly, was well built, and flew very well be it at around 40 MPH
and kind of stayed airborne with the pollen floating in the air, and very susceptible to
turbulence.a

You could pick one of these up for less than $2,000 and it runs literally on the smell of an oily rag.

But what the hell can you do with it?

This is a suicide machine, as the average UL pilot would NOT have the skills to know what weather
it could be flown in and if flown in the wrong weather, could be easily uncontrollable.

It was fun to fly for the experience of it, it took more care and concentration than a turbo prop,
it was pure flying but so far on the "Light" side of Ultra Light flying as to border on the ridiculous.


Then there are the host of Challengers, two seats, fly nicely in the right hands and
LOTS of those owner pilots are very competent and safe.

You can FORGET instructing in such machines due to the Liability Insurance requirement
and, at the end of the day, you cannot "RENT" one, the only way is to be an owner.

Yes, an UL Tbird or Challenger can be flown on $20 an hour but, only if you buy it first
and then of course, you can always give yourself a job, Instructing yourself
how to fly an Ultra-Light.

UL's have frequent accidents and many of them are NOT reported and don't make the news.

The wreckage is put on the back of a pick up and taken back, repaired, or to be sold off as another
fix-er up-er or parts etc.

Is that cheaper?

Of course it is. So is home distilled vodka.

[Shiny Side Up]

I hate to say it BPF, but he's already fallen for some of the ultralight crowd myths.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you believe that ALL ultralights are death-traps just waiting to kill the unsuspecting pilot and his passenger. Hmmm..... that seems pretty narrow minded when you consider that many aircraft, both kit/home built (think Zenair products) AND manufactured (yes, a Cessna 120/140 or Champ) can meet the regulatory definition of ultralight and are registered as such.

In fact, I would hazard a guess that a lot owner maintained ultralights are better cared for (read maintenance practices) than some flight club/school machines or weekend warrior certified rides. Are they all better? Absolutely not and anyone who claims they are is fooling themselves, and the argument is a two way street.

No, its not. There might be some crooked schools out there and that's a separate matter, but on the whole the certified airplane world and the ultralight world can't even be compared. Unfortunately since most UL accidents aren't reported or recorded, its tough to put hard numbers on it. But even if one takes a look at the UL deaths, you'll find way more of these due to mechanical failure than the Certified airplane world.

The UL crowd will often point to all sorts of "innovations" which they believe enhance "safety". In my experience there's a reason a lot of that equipment didn't make it into the certified world. Also, the certified airplane that's been registered as an ultralight is a rarity in the field, not the norm, and the Zenair - IMHO is something that for the most part should be grounded, and I can say that having the misjudgement of flying a few of them, though its easy to see how the uninitiated might mistakenly assume that its "just as good as certified". No, its not.

Thankfully I'm already starting to hear the other side from those that enjoy it, both safely and economically.

Safety costs money, or time, which is equivelent to money. One must accept that if one wants to spend less, you cut corners somewhere. For example, most guys I know who fly ultralights, do so without a radio. More cost after all. Not sure how that can be considered safer. False equivilency.

[flyalmaguin]

I hate to say it BPF, but he's already fallen for some of the ultralight crowd myths.

Really? Now it's become "us" vs "he" or "them"? Get down from that pedestal before you fall and break something your highness.

I'll tell you about a budget UL that I once flew.
First it's fuselage was a bit of Aluminum pipe,
its sole pilot's seat was plastic and appeared to come from a kids toy car.

The engine was taken from a chain saw, and the fabric only covered the upper surface
of the wing, not the lower.

You sat with nothing underneath you but air, and a flimsy seat belt kept you fastened in.

But, this mechanical butterfly, was well built, and flew very well be it at around 40 MPH
and kind of stayed airborne with the pollen floating in the air, and very susceptible to
turbulence.a

You could pick one of these up for less than $2,000 and it runs literally on the smell of an oily rag.

But what the hell can you do with it?

Again, you are making assumptions that by "budget" I plan on strapping a chainsaw motor to a lawnchair and bracing the wings with duct-tape. You don't know what my plans are (despite my attempts to tell you). Everything I've been told is that the 1st rule of buying an aircraft is determining the mission then finding the best aircraft to meet that need. Will it be absolutely perfect and capable of everything without compromise? Not necessarily, but it can be very close. As I stated, I want to take others with me, perhaps on floats in the summer and skis in the winter. Lots of good, economical and SAFE options for that.

I guess on the half of it, I'm not sure why you're bothering asking. You've already made up your mind. Maybe come back to this thread in a couple of years and tell us how it turns out.

I ask because that is the way to seek answers (and opinions). I haven't made my mind up, that's why my original post said I'm exploring my options. What I didn't expect was the vehement anti-ultralight stance and even less so the outright dismissal. I'm glad you feel so good about yourselves and position that you feel it necessary to share your hatred.

Thanks for your opinions gentlemen, I did ask and I will take your advice under advisement.

Moving along, does anyone else have "wisdom" they wish to share?

[Shiny Side Up]

What I didn't expect was the vehement anti-ultralight stance and even less so the outright dismissal.

I swear, its like you missed my thread a few things down. Surely you knew this might be the case here. Either way, its not an anti-ultralight stance, its my personal anti-people-hurting-themselves-and-others stance. And it is Us and Them, since you've clearly identified yourself with "them".

But I'm sure my opinion is uneducated. I've only actually instructed people in ultralights before. I'm sure I've only unreasonably come to the conclusions that I've drawn.

But if you won't heed myself or the others here, just try to remember Hedley's first rule of aviation.

[PilotDAR]

Flyal,


I offer my time here simply out of a spirit of mentoring, and "pay it back"/"pay it forward". Otherwise not much in it for me, been there, done that.

My ultralight experience is very modest. I have about 30 hours total in three different ultralights (or nearly so): I did test flying in the very first Zenith 601, and 701, After which I was so put off, I was certain to to buy either. I also flew a "Pelican" (older, single place one) quite a lot. Again, after flying it, it was not the least suitable for "general" flying.

I bought a C 150 27 years ago, and have flown it more than half it's total time of about 6000 hours. I defy anyone to show me any ultralight aircraft with anywhere near that time on the airframe, which is still airworthy, much less one which is 39 years old. I observe that old ultralights sit and rot behind hangars. I don't know what ultralights cost, but I suspect that dollar spent to buy vs hours flown is a poor return compared to a certified plane.

ANY certified plane is just that - it is certified - to a uniform and very predicable and well understood standard. Flyal, you learned in certified planes, now you would like to go and fly aircraft which have not demonstrated compliance with all those characteristics you know and trust? An ultralight can be a very difficult thing to fly, particularly in those unexpected corners of the envelope. I have 7000 hours in more than 200 aircraft of 75 types, (including the three aforementioned) and I have zero interest in ever flying one again.

For the slight novelty, or "light" performance I might experience, I would have to surrender a whole lot of confidence in how it flies otherwise, how it lasts, and how it could be maintained well. I remember the guy with the Rotax (I don't know the model) powered Avid Flier at my old field 25 years ago. He expressed pride that he had had only 4 engine failure forced approaches in 400 hours of flying!!! He thought this was good! What?!? I've had that many in 7000 hours of flying, and two were ice in fuel! None was damaged, and indeed all were safely flown out when the prolem was resolved.

I have spoken with UL pilots - I NEVER left the conversation feeling more confident about flying them. I have watched them be crashed in front of my eyes, during entirely normal conditions, (for a certified plane) to have the pilot try to explain away that conditions must have been beyond the limits. I know of an ultralight, which I believe to be brand new, which has hung in the rafters of a hangar for ten years, waiting for a buyer, while about one certified airplane a month comes and goes being sold under it all those years. No one wants it. If it were down. I might take it for a circuit, if I were asked to test it, but not 'cause I wanted to - I would be bored or afraid after the second circuit.

Flyal, you asked a question, you got answers from several very experienced pilot/owners. Not to my surprise, those answers were uniform. Those who answered did so with a mentoring spirit - they [we] gain nothing from your decision, other than (for me) I would rather answer your question with the information which will make your flying most safe, and long term viable. These answers are worth a lot more than you are paying for them.

Do what you would like to do, but don't say that you did not get fair answers - you did. 189 hours is to be proud - be so, but there is still a whole lot to learn about flying. By the time you have thousands, as the rest of us have, you'll say to yourself: "Ah... now I get it...." "It" is what you have been reading as answers to your question.

When the UL pilot/owners come on, and provide you lots of experience in longevity, maintainability, and safety, compare their "normal" to the certified aircraft "normal", and consider the differences. The foul taste of injury, damage, high maintenance cost, and short life, lasts much longer than the sweet taste of a deal!

[photofly]

How many get the instructor rating for the sole purpose of carrying passengers for "instruction"?

I'm sorry, I don't know anything about ultralights, but getting a rating that's issued for teaching and misusing it as an excuse to carry passengers displays a really troubling attitude towards the whole concept of licensing, as well as teaching - in fact, towards the whole idea of safety in the air.

In order to truly enjoy flying, I find the ability to take someone with me (be it my wife, either of my daughters or friends) to be a top priority.

It hurts me to say it, but I don't think your wife, daughters and friends are well served by your attitude. I think they deserve more respect.

[fish4life]

Buy a champ it is probably going to be cheaper than most UL that are in nice shape and it can be put on floats, ski's, wheels and you will be able to sell it down the line for probably what you bought it for.


Here

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/air ... 62473.html

[Gene Hasenfus]

does anyone else have "wisdom" they wish to share?

Yes. Run away as fast as you can.

share your hatred

No hatred here. They just scare the crap
out of me. If you're going to fly them, I
hope you're a lot braver than I am.

[Pop n Fresh]

Sorry I'm late. How about a Pipestrel? Who has tried them?

I think the two issues in play here are.

• It's easier to remember the bad stuff.
• For every person that is making sure their UL is safe there is a bunch of guys that are not.

"Grab those wood screws and glue. I'm going to fix the carburetor."

Check out the concept this guy wants to build. http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 94&t=96093 You fold yourself into the very front with the nose wheel under your butt crack. Doesn't that look safe and fun? ~shudder~

[rxl]

These people are honestly trying to help you.
Why turn your back on their individual wisdom and the collective wisdom gained over the last 100 hundred or so years in the development and proper certification of airplanes?

[New_PIC]

My situation is similar to the OP but with even fewer hours, so far. I've visited a couple of different home-built factory sites and taken demo flights. I've helped some local home builders on their projects. I'm reasonably mechanically capable and tackling a build would be doable. However, they're more expensive to finish than an older certified plane and building is a whole other hobby than flying. I know some local UL pilots too and have seen them flying, though I haven't been up in one. I've also heard stories of some of their forced landings and crashes.

flyalmaguin: You're welcome to my opinion, though calling it wisdom might be a stretch. I'm not 100% decided yet, but for the last year I've been shopping the certified aircraft ads. At least for my imagined mission(s), I believe certified will be the way to go for many of the reasons others have already listed above. Of course, YMMV

Edit: I've talked to a local guy who flies a powered parachute too. And I'm above the weight limit for the local glider club's craft. Still looking certified, and renting in the mean time.

[PilotDAR]

I have observed that people in aviation, like many other pursuits, can have vastly differing thresholds of risk. That in and of itself is reasonably fair, as long as the assessment of risk is informed. For a new passenger in a GA aircraft (or worse, unapproved aircraft type) that would nearly never be the case. That person has no skill to assess risk, they depend upon either the pilot (for a private flight) or an overseeing authority (for a commercial flight) to assess on their behalf.

Pardon my boldness, but a couple of hundred hour pilot themselves is poorly qualified to assess that risk, unless they otherwise come from long related aviation experience. Flying, and carrying passengers in a certified airplane, provides a huge "check and balance" toward risk mitigation, and therefore safety.

Passengers seem to rarely ask about the 3/8" high letters on the side of any non full C of A aircraft in Canada. (None have ever asked me about mine). I suppose that if they even notice, they are uneasy putting their soon to be pilot on the spot to explain the implications. As the pilot of a non full C of A aircraft, could you even explain the implications of those passages if asked?

I support Photofly's observations about the misuse of "instructor" to allow the carriage of additional persons in UL aircraft. In all fairness to those occupants, they should receive "implications" training, before they are allowed to accept a flight!

[Shiny Side Up]

Sorry I'm late. How about a Pipestrel? Who has tried them?

The Pipstrel is a very nice machine, not especially my cup of tea, but that's merely a preference thing. Machines like the Pipstrel fall way outside what the OP, and in my experience most ultralight pilots, are seeking. Pipstrels, Sportstars, Evektors, Tecnams are at the high end of the AULA category rather than the BULA category the OP seeks. They're also very steep on the buy in cost and are primarily marketed to those who want to fly but can't hold a Cat 3. As close as you get to certified esentially. Given that they're primarily marketed to the older crowd (or reasonably well to do country singers) the price point is no object, and these machines aren't usually maintained by the owners themselves.

Our OP is trying to find a way to haul passengers around in a BULA - something normally prohibited - only AULAs can haul non licensed, non student passengers if you have a RPP or higher, or have a passenger carrying rating on your UPP.

[CpnCrunch]

To the OP: buy a C150 for $15k and fill it up with mogas. It's the cheapest and safest flying you'll get. Better still, find someone at your local airport willing to rent a 150 to you.

[lownslow]

Is there anyone near you who also wants to fly on the cheap? Go splits on a Champ, Chief or Taylorcraft, they're all sweethearts to fly and cost next to nothing.

[B52]

While I agree with much of the comments regarding the risks of Ultra Lights,
I'd jump at the chance to build a Murphy Renegade.

The kit price of around $7000 is a hell of way to start building your own machine.

Here is one flying

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roO95ali1CA

While I'd prefer to be flying a Pitts, its a nice "little airplane"
that happens to be aerobatic.

AeroPrakt America A22 LS lightsport aircraft made in Ukraine
http://www.ultralightflyer.com/AeroPrak ... rcraft.htm
Very nice

Groppo Trail light sport aircraft
http://www.ultralightflyer.com/groppo-t ... rcraft.htm


Lycoming AEi0 233 light sport aerobatic aircraft engine.
FK Aerobatic BiPlane ! a fully aerobatic Engine that gives 124 HP.. +6 -3G engine...
with a 9G airframe cable of lengthy inverted flight....


Then there is the Turbine Powered 701
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yle0bNfmf0E


3/4 Scale P51 with a 100hp Rotax aircraft 200 mph vne...and 3000 hours to build...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtJaG7ru_eo

This is a classic story of how the first flight nearly killed him due to being out of balance.

Of course you can just convert a glider with a jet engine on top.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsENCX6HKPI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p49KHX4ksKw


Now for Ultra Light Crashes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Jz0bJ3xWs4

Crash on First Solo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjrxfrr7oE8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdg_UwBy7A0

Trike Crash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO4byKx76Aw

Buy it on Ebay.... up down , flying around...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUvZeWmFyHU

Lets go fly a kite !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUvZeWmFyHU

[Shiny Side Up]

While I agree with much of the comments regarding the risks of Ultra Lights,
I'd jump at the chance to build a Murphy Renegade.

The kit price of around $7000 is a hell of way to start building your own machine.

Here is one flying

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roO95ali1CA

While I'd prefer to be flying a Pitts, its a nice "little airplane"
that happens to be aerobatic.

I hate to say it, but your post demonstrates one of the problems when it comes to ultralights, and that is there's a lot of confusion. There's differences between what is considered an ultralight, home-built and what can be done with what.


For example, if you have an UPP you can't be flying around a Murphy Renegade that's registered as an aeroplane as opposed to one registered as an AULA, much less should you be doing acro in it, since with a UPP you don't have the ability to fly anything that's certified to do any acro.

If the idea of someone with a whopping 7 hours of flying and merely a letter of competency to get his permit doing acro doesn't scare you enough.

To add to the confusion is the whole Light Sport thing which only applies in the US. Aircraft that are Light sport may be registered as AULAs here, some may qualify for either/or (aircraft like the Tecnam P-92 series and the like). If I recall, the Skycatcher, while possible as a Light Sport stateside, only qualifies in the Certified airplane category up here. I can only imagine that Cessna put the kybosh on having their name on an ultralight (not wanting that kind of liability) in any way, shape, or form.

The real problem I feel in this end of the aviation world is you get a lot of UPP holders that really don't give a damn - they have the illusion that since they feel ultralight aircraft are the pinnacle of flying, and that there is lots of aircraft that can be on both sides of the line, then they are on both sides of that line. It also makes many of them very cavalier about how they represent the risks of what they do to the unsuspecting non-flying public.