Was (and probably still are) about to start work toward my power license, but noticed the active ultralight group here.

Of course UL has far fewer hoop to jump through to get airborne, and owning one's own bird is way closer in reach.

So thought I'd re-explore that.

I used to fly hangliders in the mid 70's .
Have a few informal hours at controls of friends' Cessna's etc.

Does anyone know if there's anyone near Ashland or Medford OR with a legal two seater or any other way to get a little half-sane UL experience before doing what I did with the hanglider in the 70's (which was to go out and buy one, read up, watch, and then take off)?

I sort of heard that with the existance of the sport plane license the FAA had wiped out the category of two-seat ultralight. No so?

Alex

acensor wrote:I sort of heard that with the existance of the sport plane license the FAA had wiped out the category of two-seat ultralight. No so?

It's true. Part 103 allows for single-person operation of a craft with max dry weight not more than 254 lbs.

Prior to the Sport Pilot rule, 2-seat ultralights could carry passengers under an exception sanctioned by the United States Ultralight Association, who regulated the training and certification of the "Basic Flight Instructor." The only FAA exam required was Fundamentals of Instructing. All other academics were at the discretion of another BFI of AFI(advanced flight instructor.)

As BFI you could carry a passenger, but only under the premise of instruction. The idea was to discourage brave souls from building and flying without instruction, but it eventually evolved into just a way for people to take passengers up without much formal instruction.

In my opinion, it's one of the few positive things about the Sport Pilot rule, that we now have a better structure for instruction and testing of pilots of light aircraft, with an appropriate curriculum.

Try Bob Bleadon in Grants Pass. He's a CFI with a lot of Quicksilver and other true ultralight experience.

Hi, and thanks for the reply, and Bob Bleadon's name.
Hoping to find someone closer to Ashland if possible.

You wrote --
"As BFI you could carry a passenger, but only under the premise of instruction. The idea was to discourage brave souls from building and flying without instruction, but it eventually evolved into just a way for people to take passengers up without much formal instruction. "

Just as the BFI good idea had unintended consequences, the new rules may well have even more undesirable consequences:
Now (if I understand this all correctly) if someone like myself wants ultralight flight instruction they'll have to find someone who (a) owns or rents a two seater that, unlike before, now has to meet sport plane certifications (read "more expensive" and inspection standards. And the FS now has to be a certified flight instructor (which cost him or her a lot more than the BFI used to. All this means that when I look out there for someone to do some training with there will be far fewer, and they'll cost significantly more. So falling into that brave (and possibly foolish) soul catagory, the temptation for someone like myself to buy or beg a legal 103 aircraft, wait for a ideal flying day, and just take it up with at most some verbal instruction ("don't let the airspeed drop below 20 or you'll stall", etc) now becomes _more_ tempting.

But I would enjoy being told I'm wrong about the new system having made UL instruction significantly more expensive and less accessible.

On net, personally, I think killing what was a defacto sort of legal two-seat passenger ultra light was also a bad idea.

The leap in cost and barriers to flying between ultralight and sportplane (which as supposed to greatly increase accessability) is hugh.

And the advantages of sportplane certification are marginal compared to the cost and time difference of going for full certification, the restrictions significant* , and the lack of availability of economically "reachable" craft that fit the sportplane definitions are killers. I don't have the stats, but I seriously doubt that there are a significant number of people getting to fly with sportplane that couldn't before.

But I apologize for running off on a topic, and as a newbie no less, that has probably been beaten to a pulp elsewhere in these forums, and probably doesn't belong under ultralight anyway.

Regards,
Alex

* If I have it correct flying a 103 craft in some ways you are actually less restricted than a licensed sportplane pilot: If I have it right, it would not be illegal to fly a 103 craft under instrument flight conditions, or at night, or for that matter over 10,000 feet. All of which would be illegal for a sport plane pilot.
I'm not sure about this, but it's also possible that a 103 pilot could if property radio equipt could fly in an airspace requiring radio communication without additional certification, although a sport plane pilot cannot.

I guess that's one way to look at it. My opinion is that a certain amount of instruction should be required to participate in the airport environment. You're operating around aircraft that range in cost from $10,000 - $1 million, even at Ashland. I have yet to find an ultralight pilot who carries liability insurance, so I'm okay with requiring the most basic of pilot certificates to operate the lightest of aircraft. That's only taking property damage into consideration. What if you cause a midair collision because you don't understand pattern orientation or pattern entry conventions?

If someone doesn't have the minimal amount of dedication it takes to get a certificate like Sport Pilot, I guess they'll have to continue to dream from the ground. Sport Pilot may have made flying ultralight aircraft slightly more expensive, but if that's the price of keeping some untrained buffoon from colliding with you, well too bad. The mentality that ultralights should be as easy top operate and accessible as ATV's is dangerous. Piloting requires ground instruction in my opinion, period.

Part 103 operations are restricted to daytime VFR and Class E an G airspace unless prior approval is attained. See 103.11, 103.17, 103.21, and 103.23 specifically.

I suggest at least completing a Sport Pilot self-study course.

Thanks for your thoughful reply.

I certainly agree that a "certain amount of instruction" being required to fly a 103 around even lightly busy airports is a darn good idea.

And sure, I like the suggestion of at rock bottom minimum getting the books, software, study course for sport pilot -- and even flight simulator practice, before taking off in a UL, so I'd not be clueless around airports and airspace and other craft. I'm in no hurry to be part of a mid-air as even in a joust even with a 150 a 245 pound UL and its pilot are likely to come out the worst.


But, as far as I know there has not yet been a significant number of incidents, perhaps none, of a 103 doing serious injury or property damage to anyone OTHER than him or herself. Not a single case of one getting sucked into a 747 intake and bringing the whole plane down
So what seems to have been part of the original reasoning of leaving 103 pilots so unlicensed -- the idea that they're not going to be killing anyone but themselves -- seems to me after all these years to be justified still.

My impression is that most airports which a 103 flying around would be a hazard simply bar them from landing there, and many at which they are unlikely to be a hazard just don't want to be bothered with them and bar them anyway. I could be dead wrong about that.


When you say "minimal amount of dedication it takes to get a certificate like Sport Pilot" I guess you have a different idea of what constitutes "minimal" than I do. The time and study is one thing (I might agree that you _might_ call that minimal), but as far as I was able to tell getting Sport Plane certified is currently costing the few people doing it between $3500 & $4500. Just to get certified. $4500 is in some cases more than half of what it would cost to buy a decent UL outright.


Regards,
Alex

When I was in southern Calif. I used to go to Santa Paula (SZP) and eat my lunch next to the fuel pit. One day here comes a group of "nats" screaming and terminal velocity across the traffic pattern . I look up to see 8-10 UL
jocking for position on the downwind/base/final "arrival" .Two cycle motors thundering (?) into Runway obstructions right in front of me. I listened as the
"king Nat" explained to his subjects that this was a airport . "King Nat "was also the "trainer-Instructor" for the junior bird men. They spent a few min. blocking the runway with there "flying machines" -having several REAL AIRPLANES go around while "king Nat" explained something to his flock.
They suddenly cranked up the machines and took off in a semi formation clawing for altitude (Santa Paula is 200-250 MSL) at a thunderous warp speed of 35 mph. Stall speed on these things is a knot or 2 less that VNE .
If I were you I'd sell this bunch of sailcloth and tubing and invest in a cub or old Champ . If you really insist on flying the"dirt diver 101" Buy lots of insurance and name me the beneficiary- go out and hang around the Ashland airport and get 3-4 hours with a real airplane CFI -maybe just save your life.

I've been working on airports /flying for near 50 years. Bought my first airplane a Luscome 8A when I was in high school -didn't have a car just company pickup. Since that time I've owned another 28 airplanes and helicopters. This is not my first Rodeo . I flew a Ultra light for about a hour back in the mid 90-s and was way too marginal aircraft for anyone except those with a death wish. The new generation Light sport aircraft are still not good enough from me -but light years ahead of Ultra Light sail cloth and tubing.

The issue is not the airworthiness of the craft design (perhaps the maintenance is.) Many of the ultralight designs are fine machines if built and maintained well, very similar flight characteristics to a Cub or Champ. Maybe a little colder on a cold day though. The Quicksilver MX has a Vs0 of 27 mph, Vne of 75mph, and average cruise of 55mph. Criticizing them for being slow is like being criticized by a Baron pilot for flying a Cub. The craft is seldom the issue, it is the conduct of the airman.

I learned to fly in those machines, and it was a great start. No instruments, pure seat of the pants, wind in my teeth flying. I could coordinate flight by how my ears sounded from the air blowing over them. I had a bee hit me in the forehead once and it REALLY hurt.

I'm still a greenhorn in the aviation world, but years later when I got my Private and started operating in busier non-towered airport environments where it's important for everyone to be on the same page, I realized how little I had known then, and started to notice that other people from that realm exhibited a flagrant refusal to learn the general operating procedures that are shared by GA pilots. Why would a person NOT want to learn the guidelines that 90% of the traffic around them is operating by? It's like burying your head in the sand.

In my opinion, there's no excuse to go NORDO when you can have a handheld and helmet-headset for a few hundred bucks. The impression a NORDO ultralight gives the GA pilots who watch them disrespectfully stumble into the airport is not good, and you end up with guys like 182 STOL Driver whose exposure to ultralights is pretty sour. Sure, that's how it was done successfully for the majority of the century, but it cheap nowadays to communicate and learn a little from free online FAA resources, like the Aircraft Flying Handbook or the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. Those FAA publications are actually really good, and free online.

Keep looking for a Sport Pilot instructor. I think you can get a pilot certificate for much less than $4500 depending on how fast you learn, and which aircraft you train in, just because the hour requirements are so much less than the Private.

acensor wrote:........
But, as far as I know there has not yet been a significant number of incidents, perhaps none, of a 103 doing serious injury or property damage to anyone OTHER than him or herself. .........
My impression is that most airports which a 103 flying around would be a hazard simply bar them from landing there, and many at which they are unlikely to be a hazard just don't want to be bothered with them and bar them anyway...........
When you say "minimal amount of dedication it takes to get a certificate like Sport Pilot" I guess you have a different idea of what constitutes "minimal" than I do. The time and study is one thing .............

We had a mid-air at the fly-in at our local airpoprt several years ago-- an ultralight, piloted by a local ultralight "instructor", turned short final right in front of a Beech Musketeer. Oh yeah, they collided, the wing of the Beech hit the landing gear of the UL. Luckily, it was a light touch, both aircraft ended up safely on the ground & no one was hurt- other than soiled underwear. The Beech pilot was really shook up (as I would be), while the UL guy acted like it happened every day. We found out later than while maybe not every day, he'd been involved in that kind of thing several times before. While extreme, this is a good example why UL's have a bad rep among "real airplane" people.
I don't believe in banning any sort of aviation, esp at airports, unless it is proven unsafe. But after a couple incidents like this, I can see why ultralights get banned- right or wrong. The earlier post about the swarm of gnats infesting an airport is (while extreme) another good example.
Alex, I think it might be a good idea to get some flight training in a "real" airplane, maybe just a C-150. Whatever's most cost effective. Get some schooling in traffic patterns, etc. Do some ground school, maybe even take the written PP test. Take the training through solo- if your medical certificate is an issue, then solo in a Champ or something else LSA. If not available, you don't have to actually solo, as long as your CFI thinks you're ready. You should then have a petty good base on which to build your flying experiences. You might even decide that flying bigger aircraft as a licensed pilot is worth the bigger time/money investment.
Good luck, fly safe.

Eric

Just remembered another incident, just this last year. A guy came up to me in the airport cafe, he had a powered parachute which he had unfurled on the infield grass & was wondering "who's in charge?" of our non-towered airport. I explained about it being an uncontrolled field, which seemed to surprise him. I then told him that the traffic patterns were both to the south, he might want to avoid that area. "What's a traffic pattern?" was his reply. After absorbing that one, I suggested that he might be better off avoiding the airport altogether, and just find a big farm field to operate out of. Never saw him break ground that day, hope he did somewhere and also that he survived his aviation adventure.

Eric

After reading a few of these post's, the UL people should ban together and get there act together. Because the more incident's there are the better reason to give the government something else to step in and regulate.

I would like to think that the majority of UL pilots are flying by the rules and safely. There's some up here in the Boise area and I have not had any problems in the short time that I have been flying.

You get bad apples everywhere, even certificated Private or Commercial pilots operating GA aircraft. The problem with UL pilots is that it's easy to point to their lack of training as the cause, where if you have some retarded GA pilot, he's suffering from an anti-authority psychological issue.

Ignorance vs impudence. Which is worse?