I hate ultralights

This forum has been developed to discuss flight instruction/University and College programs.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore

iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8132
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by iflyforpie »

AirFrame wrote: All this talk about lax maintenance and poor construction is a red herring however... I've seen pathetically maintained certified aircraft, and amateur-built showplanes. Every category has cheapskates who will cut every corner they can, rich people who will spare no expense for perfection, and a range of people in-between.
+1

Personally..... I'd rather fly in or share airspace with someone who is going above and beyond what is required in terms of maintenance and training and even aircraft type (like a brand-new AULA), than a Commercial Operator who is meeting all of the legal requirements on paper, but cutting every corner and is using a less capable aircraft than is required for the job at hand.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4011
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by CpnCrunch »

AirFrame wrote: All this talk about lax maintenance and poor construction is a red herring however... I've seen pathetically maintained certified aircraft, and amateur-built showplanes. Every category has cheapskates who will cut every corner they can, rich people who will spare no expense for perfection, and a range of people in-between.
But even a pathetically maintained certified plane generally doesn't fall out of the sky due to structural failure. At worst the engine might quit because it's being flown for the first time in a year, and the pilot lands in a field.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by Shiny Side Up »

CpnCrunch wrote:But even a pathetically maintained certified plane generally doesn't fall out of the sky due to structural failure. At worst the engine might quit because it's being flown for the first time in a year, and the pilot lands in a field.
They have fallen out of the sky for that reason, but its quite a bit more rare of an occurence. Yes, there are certified airplanes out there with poor maintenance, and cheapskates cutting corners. If anything though, I have a lot more confidence in a mistreated Cessna than a mistreated ultralight. From experience, an ultralight is way more likely to be mistreated though and still flown. Mercifully, most mistreated Cessnas are largely in an abandoned state.
iflyforpie wrote: +1

Personally..... I'd rather fly in or share airspace with someone who is going above and beyond what is required in terms of maintenance and training and even aircraft type (like a brand-new AULA), than a Commercial Operator who is meeting all of the legal requirements on paper, but cutting every corner and is using a less capable aircraft than is required for the job at hand.
I used to think that the newer types of AULAs should be fairly well kept, until I caught a guys a few times replacing parts on theirs with stuff from Canadian tire. It substantially eroded my confidence that even new out of the package AULAs would be treated well. Bizarre behavior, in one case the AULA in question was a brand new Technam, straight from the factory, cost around $110,000 with the BRS installed. I think the owner's logic was that since he spent all that money on a BRS, he didn't have to worry about maintenance as much (I should also say that he had an unhealthy fascination with pulling the chute) And to think in my more foolish youth I flew that thing...

Another (the model escapes me) revealed that, while nice and shiny on the outside, someone had buggered up the coolant resovoir and replaced it with an old hockey waterbottle. Nicely lashed down to the firewall with some chicken wire.

After all, new machines turn into beat up machines, they all once came shiny new from the factory, and sometimes you really have to wonder what happened in between.

Either way, dollars to donuts, put your average ultralight beside your average certified aircraft and 99% of the time that certified machine is going to be the machine I'd pick to fly. Home builts fill the middle ground and tend to spread across the spectrum.
airframe wrote:Every category has cheapskates who will cut every corner they can, rich people who will spare no expense for perfection, and a range of people in-between.
Oddly enough, how much money the owner has seems to be irrelevant. Some rich people want perfection, some seem content to beat the crap out of things. Some poor people feel entitled to fly and get into the air by whatever means, others are really good at caring for things since they can't replace them. With ultralight guys though, you tend to get all the wierdos, rich and poor with skewed senses of priorities. Like the one guy I knew who purchased a $3000 flying helmet, since he felt it was mandatory for his personal safety, but then flew an ultralight that was prone to catching fire and he flew around in a greasy old set of coveralls. Afraid of flipping over and hitting his head, but not about burning to death. And this is after having burned himself badly in his most recent crash at the time when the fuel tank ruptured and got on the hot engine.



Frig, I could go on forever with all the crappy stuff I see happen with this damn infernal contraption side of flying. Sometimes you'd think it was 1908 with the way some of these guys operate.

No thanks.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8132
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by iflyforpie »

Shiny Side Up wrote: I used to think that the newer types of AULAs should be fairly well kept, until I caught a guys a few times replacing parts on theirs with stuff from Canadian tire.
I used to think that AMEs and DARs working under a TC Approved AMO would not buy stuff from Canadian Tire to put in their STC for a certified turbine aircraft..... but AOG Air Support out of Kelowna did just that on their Hot Wings (or whatever it was called) Caravan..... :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by Shiny Side Up »

Not saying it won't happen IFP, just saying its way more likely to happen to an ultralight. The ultralight crowd would have one believe that they're equal with the percentage of good and bad, but that's just not so.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
WhiskeyWhiskey
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 2:38 pm

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by WhiskeyWhiskey »

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. :lol:
---------- ADS -----------
 
fish4life
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2405
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by fish4life »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Posthumane
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:16 pm

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by Posthumane »

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?
---------- ADS -----------
 
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -George Bernard Shaw
SkySailor
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by SkySailor »

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" :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by Shiny Side Up »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
SkySailor
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by SkySailor »

If you think ultralights are a problem, wait till more complex UAV's become dirt cheap and everyone is flying 'em.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Panama Jack
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3255
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:10 am
Location: Back here

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by Panama Jack »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”
-President Ronald Reagan
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by Shiny Side Up »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
B52
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:28 pm

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by B52 »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5861
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
B52
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:28 pm

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by B52 »

I agree with you. It's a sad tale.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by Shiny Side Up »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!
New_PIC
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by New_PIC »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
SkySailor
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 7:49 pm

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by SkySailor »

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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Posthumane
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:16 pm

Re: I hate ultralights

Post by Posthumane »

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?
---------- ADS -----------
 
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -George Bernard Shaw
Post Reply

Return to “Flight Training”