http://m.kcra.com/news/pilot-crashes-in ... index.html

Anybody have any details on this one. Of course the media was fed a line of BS. Listen to the last statement the reporter makes in the video which is 100% false. This stuff pisses me off because I can't tell you how many times the general public thought my plane was a death trap simply because of the Experimental placard on the side of it. Nope I have no training or license whatsoever folks. In fact I found this plane in a dumpster. Hop on in let's go flying!!

Actually it is only 50% false, Joey. It is correct that "Ultralights", part 103 VEHICLES, do not require training or licensing to be operated. That he associated the word "experimental" in only half true also. All ultralights can be considered "experimental" but not all "experimental" aircraft are "Ultralight vehicles".

I couldn't identify what type of plane that was, if it was a true 103 ultralight or not. The wreckage has a SkyRaider/Ridgerunner look to it that is not a 103 legal ultralight. It also had a little Challenger look, but I don't think that was it either, rudder was wrong...

It has an "E"number on the side so it was registered as an ultralight. Both SkyRaider and RidgeRunner make a legal ultralight as does Kitfox. The Challenger is a pusher and the tail is totally different. Still a lot of guys flying "fat" ultralights that don't fully meet all the Part 103 limits.
Not that I ever did such a thing.