tynor@gitpyr.UUCP (Steve Tynor) (06/25/85)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm getting interested in flying ultralights. I do not have a
private pilot license, nor do I intnd on getting one in the near future.
I've read a few articles here and there, but am looking for more
detailed info. Can someone direct me to a good reference, or better
yet an Atlanta area Ultralight club where I could get lessons?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Eschew Obfuscation.
Steve Tynor
Georgia Instutute of Technology
...{akgua, allegra, amd, harpo, hplabs,
ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp, rlgvax, sb1,
uf-cgrl, unmvax, ut-sally} !gatech!gitpyr!tynor
--
Steve Tynor
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!tynorned@SCIRTP.UUCP (Ned Robie) (06/27/85)
> I'm getting interested in flying ultralights. I do not have a > private pilot license, nor do I intnd on getting one in the near future. > > I've read a few articles here and there, but am looking for more > detailed info. Can someone direct me to a good reference, or better > yet an Atlanta area Ultralight club where I could get lessons? > > Steve Tynor > Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 > ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!tynor I don't know much about ultralights except what I saw in a news program about 2 years ago (60 minutes?). It reported distressing fatality statistics (even for "expert" pilots) and went on and on about how incredibly unsafe they are. Then they capped the program off with a TV newsreel in which one of the TV reporters got in an ultralight (with little if any training), taxied around for a while to get the "feel", took off, climbed to a very deadly altitude, then stalled it. The thing just fell... you could see the pilot struggling (in vain) and then he just jumped to his death (they showed that too). I'll never forget it. Anyway, they might make much safer ultralights now, and this program may have been sensationalizing the whole thing. But I would suggest that anyone who is considering flying these things should get the latest accident statistics and check them out! Just for comparison, I have heard that unpowered hang gliders are much safer than ultralights given the proper training. The above mentioned news program claimed that ultralights are dangerous no matter how experienced a pilot you are. Hope this helps... -- Ned Robie
bob@ulose.UUCP ( Bob Bismuth ) (06/30/85)
> > There are three simple avionics instruments that would make > ultralights MUCH more safe: > I should preface this with the statement that I don't consider myself any sort of expert on the subject of ultralights. Right, now the lecture: Anyone thinking of buying one should look into a few things. Hidden costs are one particular area people seem to neglect. Specifically, wing cover life. Unlike conventional aircraft tube & fabric construction, ultralights usually only cover the top wing surface and have no aircraft dope. This would seem to imply a relatively short life for the covering since dope is used to protect from sunlight caused deterioration. Can anyone comment on a typical ultralight cover life and cost? Construction techniques should be carefully examined. I have seen cases of load bearing steel bolts put directly through aluminium airframe tubing with no reinforcement of the tubing, not even some fender washers. That sort of thing would seem to be an accident waiting to happen. Finally, either the Army, Navy or both organizations have recently suspended their testing of a particular ultralight (can't remember the name of it) due to failure to recover from a spin. While ultralights are not required to survive a spin (with respect to FARs), the reason this one didn't bears some thought and careful inspection before purchase. It seems that the designers based their control stick movements on a diamond pattern, not a square box as is usually the case. This meant that at full elevator deflection, there was no aileron movement possible and at full aileron deflection there was no elevator movement possible. Interesting situation to get caught in during a steep turn, eh? Perhaps other people on the net could expand on these points, or give some other checks which should be made before purchasing a machine. -- bob (decvax!ulose!bob) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
al@infoswx.UUCP (07/03/85)
Ultralight technology has improved so that the same risks are not present. I am not am expert, buy I hope to get my "ultralight license" this weekend, and think it is reasonably safe. 1. AOPA has a good certification program. 2. Two seat Ultralights are used for all primary training. (I would not learn at a place that did not use them) 3. You carry a parachute for emergencies (I have never seen one used) I would not let the bad press about ultralighting prevent you from checking into it! Call up AOPA in Frederick MD (301) 695-2000, and ask for the Ultralight Division. They can get you a list of all Certified Ultralight Flight Instructors. Al Gettier Teknekron Infoswitch ihnp4!infoswx!al
al@infoswx.UUCP (07/04/85)
Argh..... Ultralights should not be required to have the avionics requirements of other aircraft. For example, the atitude indicator is not needed at all. When you are sitting on the seat with nothing but two pedals in between you and everything else, you know your attitude! Being a Private Pilot (SEL), and an Ultralight pilot, I can see a large difference between the required avionics of an Ultralight and a Cherokee 180. When the wind is whistling through your helmet, you can determine accurately the attitude of your aircraft! Al Gettier Teknekron Infoswitch
peterb@pbear.UUCP (07/05/85)
There are three simple avionics instruments that would make
ultralights MUCH more safe:
1) airspeed indicator
This would inform the pilot when V(never exceed) is exceeded
or when V(stall speed) is close to becoming a fatal reality.
2) Altitude indicator
Would inform when pilot is exceeding TCA requirements (if
near one) or when entering a pattern too low/high.
3) Rate of Climb indicator
Would inform the pilot when trying to climb too fast and
when used in combination with the airspeed indicator, can
be used to set up proper approaches and climbouts. Also
useful for determining updrafts/downdrafts that would
adversly affect such a light craft.
Only the Airspeed indicator would require a pitot tube, the others only
require a static air vent. I think ultralights would be far safer if a
regulation existed requiring the instalation of a simple panel consisting of
the above mentioned instruments.... It would prevent some of the better
"Never Again" incidents.
Peter Barada
{ihnp4!inmet|{harvard|cca}!ima}!pbear!peterbwombat@ccvaxa.UUCP (07/06/85)
sigh, read the original again. It was 'Altitude indicator,' not 'Attitude indicator.' "When you are about to die, a wombat is better than no company at all." Roger Zelazny, *Doorways in the Sand* Wombat ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!wombat
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (07/08/85)
> 1. AOPA has a good certification program. > > ... Call up AOPA in Frederick MD (301) 695-2000, > and ask for the Ultralight Division. AOPA has shut down its Ultralight Division -- well, more accurately, I think they partially shut it down and then sold/gave away what was left. The reasons given by AOPA for getting out of the Ultralight biz were 1) impending new regulations which would probably require licensing; and 2) strong resentment against ultralights from the "genuine pilot" membership. -- Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{ihnp4,seismo,decvax}!noao!terak!doug ^^^^^--- soon to be CalComp
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (07/08/85)
> Ultralights should not be required to have the avionics requirements > of other aircraft. For example, the atitude indicator is not needed > at all. The attitude indicator is not required on VFR aircraft. If it is, I'm in deep dookie with the FAA 'cuz I don't even have a DG or a Rate-of- Climb in my 120 :-) -- Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{ihnp4,seismo,decvax}!noao!terak!doug ^^^^^--- soon to be CalComp
price@magic.ARPA (07/20/85)
Here are my current feelings regarding Ultralights. I am a long time hang glider pilot (8 years, Advanced and Observer ratings), and have also flown ultralights for a couple of years. Aircraft Safety ======== ====== I think there are some reputable Ultralight manufacturers in business now. I personally like the quality of Eipper equipment (although that's not what I own). I make no recommendations; suffice to say that "Buyer Beware" is no more accurate than in Ultralights. There is an inherent problem with Ultralights. In order to keep weight below 255 lbs (I think thats the limit, somewhere in there!) single points of failure may exist in several places on the craft. This is not necessarily a major problem (you have a parachute, don't you?) but is something a pilot may forget to inspect carefully, particularly after a hard landing (Did you check you tangs for cracks the last time you pranged a landing?) (Hmmm, did I check mine? :-) ). Ultralight mfgrs are not likely to point out all the single points of failure to you unless you ask after you buy. Bad advertising. Buyer Beware! Another fact is that many Ultralight manufacturers once were hang glider manufacturers. They understand hang gliding technology very well, but may not have a firm understanding of the added stresses an engine places on the airframe. Buyer Beware! The pilot should approach each flight with extreme caution, preflighting with the assumption that something definitely DID break on that last flight, and checking carefully to prove that in fact it did not. These planes ARE NOT Cessna's. You ARE a test pilot with each flight. Ultralights are typically stronger structurally than the average light plane. But if something overstresses and breaks, the results are apt to be more catastrophic. Pilot Safety ===== ====== Herein lies the real problem. Ultralights are EASY to fly. TOO easy. A student takes a week of lessons and is lulled into a feeling of great competance. Unfortunately, this leads to fence hopping, which leads to powerline hopping, which leads to edge-of-the-envelope maneuvers which leads to fatal accidents if the pilot does not excersize proper caution and judgement. In hang gliding, we call this problem the "Superman Syndrome". It is a well established and recognised fact that upon reaching a firm novice level of skill, great temptation exists to explore the limits of ability. Unfortunately, when pilots give in to this temptation, they usually find and exceed their limits, much to the chagrin of their next of kin. The United States Hang Gliding Association (USHGA) instituted a national awareness program with articles in Hang Gliding Magazine which has to a large extent minimized this problem in the sport. Unfortunately, no one appears to have done so successfully in the Ultralight movement. It's hard to convince a pilot with 1000 hours in a conventional aircraft that (s)he is a student again, and must act with appropriate caution. I am convinced that in a major portion of ultralight accidents, the pilot was the cause of the accident, not the aircraft, even if in the final analysis the aircraft broke up. (See above re single points of failure). In Summary == ======= I think Ultalights can be safe if approached with the proper respect. I'll take flying slow over flying fast any day. If I want to get somewhere I'll take an airliner! And if you want my true feelings, given a choice between hang gliders and Ultralights I'll take hang gliders hands down! See you at cloudbase! -chuck price ps: Current accident statistics show hang gliding to be equal in risk to private plane flying. Not a bad improvement considering what the state of the sport was in '72!