I have always been attracted to flying. My first flight in a general aviation plane was with a pilot in West Virginia, named Lee Massey. (WV01) Mr. Massey owned a truck stop on US Route 60 and took me and my father for a ride over Charleston. I was 11 years old. It must have made quite an impression, as I remember the flight now 57 years later! As a young man, I had ambitions to become a Naval Aviator. But, back in those days, pilots were required to have perfect eyesight and in my freshman year of college, I developed a degree of myopia and required glasses. So, my goal to be a fighter pilot was thwarted, but my interest in flying continued. As a business executive in Youngstown, Ohio, I chartered a plane with pilot to fly to a factory site in West Virginia. (Ravens Trailer in Parkersburg) My first flight and only general aviation flight under IFR conditions.
I flew in a glider near my parent's farm in Waynesville, OH. It was great. As soon as I had sufficient income, I started taking flying lessons. My first solo flight as a Student Pilot was at Camarillo Airport in Southern California. I flew a Cessna C152. I moved to Dallas, Texas and completed my training at Denton Airport, earning my Private Pilot license in 1980. I purchased (50% interest) a new Piper Turbo Arrow III (like the one in the left picture) and leased it to the flight school at Denton. I flew that plane and other Piper Cherokee types models all over North Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. My "flying world" was within a 800 x 300 mile rectangle.
Most of my flying was during a time when I was employed as a corporate executive. (VP Fleet Management for Trailways Inc.). I quit there and started my long entrepreneurial "career". Anyone that has been an entrepreneur knows that money is tight during the start-up phase--a private plane was just not in the cards. So we sold the plane and stopped flying in 1982. Happy to say the entrepreneurial activities (related to auto repair, auto parts and vehicle leasing) were quite successful. (I have been very blessed.) But, instead of going back to flying, I engaged in my other expensive motorsports passion--racing. Sports Cars, Formula Cars, and even NASCAR Winston Cup. Along the way, after several entrepreneurial ventures, and a very serious racing accident in 1988, I quit racing and went back to school to earn an MBA from the Wharton School. Then a career in Investment Management. And in 2011, a return to racing. When I no longer felt comfortable competing on the track as a "hobby" in "real" life (the young "turks" were just too aggressive) I continued racing in the "virtual" world of Sim Racing. I was good enough at it that I coached others--especially "over 60" drivers. (I also became a Christian Chaplain with Racers For Christ serving as the Regional Chaplain for the SCCA Mid-Atlantic Region for a season and IRacing. I served for a season with Road Racing Ministries as a Chaplain for SCCA Pro Trans Am Series.) Below is a video I made for training/coaching drivers for the famous Nurburgring Circuit driving a Ferrari.
Still, my thoughts were often on flying. (Simulation is fun, but not the same as real life--in race cars or planes.) I developed colon cancer in 2016 with a good recovery and prognosis after surgery (I have been very blessed.) but the experience (along with the passing of some of my friends and clients) reinforced the need to make decisions regarding my "late in life" activities. Approaching professional "retirement" I decided that I would get back into flying. Not in a high performance plane, but rather a "fly for fun" plane. And, to me, there is no better one for that than the Cubcrafters Sport Cub. A Light Sport (860 pound) plane, with a 110 HP engine that cruises at around 85-90 mph and lands at less than 50 mph in less than 800 feet. All about the Sport Cub Well, 34 years, to some is a long time. But, I still have many vivid memories of that flying in Texas and Louisiana. It really does not seem that long ago. Funny thing about becoming an old man---time seems to move faster as you get older. But, to most, I would be called a "Rusty Pilot" so getting "current" and "re-qualified" will be the first part of the adventure. Many will recall the great Hemingway story, "The Old Man and the Sea". Well, at age 67, I am the Old Man, and my story is the Old Man and His Plane. For awhile, my new "flying world" is the NE-MidAtlantic--avoiding the Class B airspace. About the same number of square miles (800 x 500 with irregular shape) as I flew in Texas and Louisiana.
Note: I adjust dates so blog can be read in "book" format in normal chronological order, rather than "blog" format. So to continue reading--Click the "Older Posts"
These articles are intended to inform and entertain. My goal is to share my experience and hopefully help, encourage and maybe warn other older "rusty" pilots. It is always a bit useful to know a little about the author's background. To know "where he is coming from" so to speak. First, I am a Mechanical Engineer who loves machines and is fascinated by the study and mastery of them. I am a "tinkerer" by nature and "dive deep" to figure out how and why things work. This led to me creating a few inventions that were awarded US Patents. My Father was a gifted mechanic (airplane- Navy Chief Mechanic on B24, auto, bus and truck) and he taught me what he knew. I became a Certified Master Auto Technician. My long career included being responsible for large fleets of thousands of buses and supervising hundreds of mechanics. Later in life, I studied economics and finance, making a living managing investments--"diving deep" to figure out the intrinsic value of investments and the best way to build investment portfolios. I am an accomplished race car driver and a Private (Single Engine Land) Pilot. Much of my career involved dealing with compliance to Federal and State Regulations. In transportation (especially school buses) that involved safety regulations for operation and maintenance. In my manufacturing management career, that involved regulations regarding the recovery and recycling of ozone layer depleting refrigerants for auto and HVAC service industries. And, finally in the investment management business, as my firm's Chief Compliance Officer, a deep understanding of regulations regarding financial services. All of this prepared me to be comfortable with the study and compliance with regulations regarding flight and aircraft.
Most importantly, I am a Christian--a Believer and Follower of Jesus Christ. There is a broad continuum of beliefs in the world---for the sake of discussion, let me oversimplify and define six different groups: Unbelievers; Skeptics; Religious Non-Christians; Casual Christians; Self Righteous Christians; and Born Again Evangelicals. These articles are meant to be valuable to all of these groups, however, since am clearly in the Born Again Evangelical group, the reader will sense that I have a personal relationship with a Triune God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and that I communicate with all three "persons" of this being. To the Unbeliever, this may seem to be some odd relationship with "an imaginary friend". To me, it is a perfectly natural relationship with a real supernatural being with whom I communicate with thru prayer, reading and study of the Holy Bible, and thru diligent and hypersensitivity to circumstances. And, I am sure that God is active in my life, helping and protecting me. (Even with God's help and protection---in this life, bad things can happen to good people---it is important that we always keep in mind that our abilities come from God and we are expected to use them. Life on earth is not the reward--life in Heaven is.) As a scientist-engineer, I believe that God is the creator of all things, and our study and understanding of science is a form of God revealing his extraordinary handiwork to us. So I am OK with the science "discovering" that the earth is millions of years old, and OK with modern evolution being declared a quite foolish theory--at least the idea than mankind evolved from apes. I believe the Bible is a true revelation from God--only man's interpretation of it can be in error. I believe that God delights in our application of this scientific knowledge and in the mastery of our creations--such creations often being machines. So, the motivation for my "learning" and acquiring of skills is very much part of my Christian life. It is also important to know that I do not think this belief makes me "better" than anyone else. I am not "self-righteous" and my "preaching of the Gospel" is most often simply by the example of how I live my life. And "preaching the Gospel" is simply the declaration that God loves ALL men/women and in the person of Jesus Christ, died to pay the price for mankind's rebellion, and he rose from the dead to make a place for his Believers/Followers to dwell forever with Him in a perfect place called Heaven. The Good News is that nothing else is required, other than Belief, Trust, Love and a good faith attempt to be like Him (Jesus) while here on Earth. And, mankind was created to exist only with a relationship with God, and a love of God---without that relationship, mankind is incomplete, unhappy and lost. As a Christian Chaplain I attempt to share this message whenever and wherever appropriate. People often tell me that they are "not very religious" but admire many "Christian Morals". They are often surprised to learn that I too am not a big fan of "organized religion" that seems to dwell more on man made rules, secular business-money oriented activities and prideful self-righteousness than on the simple Gospel and a loving relationship with God.
Almost exactly two years after I sold my Cubcrafters Sport Cub, began to seriously consider flying again--but this time in an Ultralight under Part 103 Regulations.
I tried operating a 38 ft Trawler Yacht. Then driving around with a Travel Trailer. And then, operating a 310cc motorbike. Did not care much for the boating--too slow. Really did not enjoy the Travel Trailer experience. I love the BMW G-310R and ride it regularly.
But, I really missed the flying. We live right under the intersection of Victor Route V408 and T-Route T291. Lots of low flying planes on V408 and I am constantly hearing them. Almost always, I found myself looking up to see the plane.
I did not miss the the complications of flying through controlled airspace and keeping "current" with pilot licensing and plane inspection regulations. I missed the simple act of piloting a plane.
I looked seriously at ultralight trikes, but was not comfortable with the lack of cross wind landing controls. I completed a diligent review of the Part 103 rules, and studied various planes in current production. In essence, a Part 103 ultralight must: Weigh less than 254 lbs (278 lbs equipped with parachute); Carry maximum of 5 gallons fuel; Fly slow--63 mph maximum with a stall speed less than 28 mph; and Fly only in Class E and G uncontrolled airspace. No pilot license required.
I liked the Kolb Firefly with it's folding wings, but the factory did not return phone calls-appeared to be a casualty to COVID. I really did not want a "kit" that I had to build. I wanted an "almost ready to fly" plane-NEW. (One disadvantage of Part 103 "vehicles"--the FAA does not consider them to be "aircraft"-- is maintenance and condition is often "fuzzy" without logbooks, maintenance regulations, and annual condition inspections.)
One important note: An ultralight pilot documented his long development with a Kolb. The information is voluminous---VERY valuable and useful. I found the website while researching information regarding Tillotson carburetors.
My final candidates were the Quicksilver Sprint and the Aerolite 103. Both were available with Hirth F23 engines. The Quicksilver has external cable supports--a very simple but also very high drag design. If a Cessna 172 has a glide ratio of 9:1; the Quicksilver is probably in the 4:1 range. Power out in a Quicksilver and pretty much it is "Full stick forward" a steep decent angle. The Aerolite 103 is a bit more aerodynamically "clean" with an estimated glide ratio of 7:1. (Despite a claimed 450fpm sink rate which would be 7.8:1 glide ratio.) The Aerolite 103 is available with the MZ201 engine with gear reduction and a centrifugal clutch, slightly lighter than the Hirth F23 and a belt drive. The Aerolite 103 has a flex "suspension".
While it could be argued that the Aerolite 103 is more "plane like", both ultralights are high drag, designs with dacron sail covered wings and a high mounted pusher engine.
Both planes are supported by a good "factory" operation with good parts support. While Air-Tech is technically not the manufacturer of the plane--they bought all the parts and tooling from Quicksilver some time ago.
I did lots of research by reviewing reports regarding accidents and flight characteristics of both planes. As with most non-commercially operated aircraft accidents---loss of an engine or loss of control (mostly a stall) or both are the biggest factors in fatalities. Two stroke engines are generally more subject to lack of lubrication and failure. High drag, low speed ultralights will go from cruise to stall is a very short period of time--in the 2-4 second range. (Become distracted while flying low to the ground and an unrecoverable stall can happen very quickly.) Hence, attention to air speed is critical. And, a higher glide ratio is advantageous as it gives more time to emergency landing.
I became convinced that the Aerolite 103 came out ahead because: 1) The gear box and clutch, in my humble opinion provides for better engine life; and 2) It has a much better glide ratio.
This conclusion may be challenged by some as the safety record of the Aerolite 103 does not appear to be significantly better. An analysis of John Walton's crash in his CGS Hawk (similar to the Aerolite in design) and a recent Aerolite crash in Jacksonville, FL on its maiden flight makes me suspicious that one factor is the Aerolite with less drag may actually pick up nose down speed in a stall and impact at a higher speed than the high drag Quicksilver. Neither plane appears to have bad manners in a power off stall, but constant and diligent attention to airspeed is very important to avoid stalls. And, diligence regarding rudder position is also critical while approaching stall condition.
The final decision factor for me was the Aerolite 103 wing has actually been load tested to exceed 6/2G by the factory in order to meet European standards.
I concluded that while all flight is arguably not without risk, ultralight flight by a proficient and careful pilot in a well maintained Aerolite 103, with diligent attention to air speed and the avoidance of stalls was not much, if any, higher risk than riding a motorcycle. (Actual stats are 0.14% fatality risk per year--about the same risk as a 70+ year old man dying from cancer. And the actual stats for ultralight flying include fatalities due to poor ability and poor judgment--very few are due to equipment failure. In the early days, many ultralight pilots were not trained or maintained properly--today most ultralight pilots are licensed pilots and relatively well qualified to perform maintenance. They simply want to fly ultralights with the freedom they provide and lack of bureaucratic hassle present with general aviation--the accident rate for ultralights in now the same or lower than for general aviation--mostly because they are only flown in good weather and without the pressure of having to arrive at a destination on a schedule.)
Another factor was that the Xplane 11 Sim has a very good Aerolite 103. I spend considerable time using Xplane and Prepar3D in my home simulator rig (300+ hours) with Oculus Rift Virtual Reality and Redbird rudders. This does not perfectly simulate real flight, but does assist greatly in building proficiency and familiarity. I found it very useful at building proficiency for my flying of the Cub. It has also been useful in becoming familiar with the Aerolite 103's characteristics.
I conducted a rigorous review of substantial written material on the internet and other sources (covering 20+ years) and determined that the current Aerolite 103 with the MZ201 was "legal" and would weight less than 254 pounds. (Another post on weight and weight and balance.)
So, I ordered a new Aerolite 103 with an MZ201 engine from Aerolite 103 LLC in Deland, FL. It is scheduled for delivery (partially disassembled for truck transport) in August 2022 to my rented hangar space at Shoestring Aviation Airfield (0P2) in Stewartstown, PA--six miles (10-12 minutes) from my residence. Her name will be BlueandGreenUniformLima=Blue and Green Ultra Light.
Actual plane at Sun/Fun and Oshkosh 2022
Shoestring is home to about 20 ultralight aircraft. It has two perpendicular 1000 foot, well maintained turf runways, mostly surrounded by agricultural fields or low density rural residential land. Lots of Class E and G Airspace flight area.
Note that an ultralight can become a certificated aircraft. If is was a kit where the builder provided 51% of the effort for his/her education and recreation, the craft can be certified as an Experimental Amateur Built and flown with a Sport Pilot license. If the plane was certified as S-LSA, it could be certified as an E-LSA. If it is sold as a almost ready to fly 103 kit, most likely the only certification allowed would be a seriously restricted (Depending on FSDO Limitations on the Certificate when/if issued) Experimental for Exhibition certificate.
Hypothetically, since no pilot license is required, one could teach oneself how to fly and ultralight. It has been done--successfully by a few but ending in tragedy for others.
A three axis controlled ultralight (fixed wing with tail mounted elevator and rudder) flies much like a "typical" plane with a few important exceptions. Learning to fly a three axis controlled airplane does require a pilot's license and at least 20 hours of actual instruction from a Certified Flight Instructor is necessary. In addition, another 15 hours of solo flight and a flight test is required. In order to fly an "taildragger" aircraft, additional training is required.
Personally, I think anyone that would consider flying an ultralight without first earning a Private Pilot License is foolish. I think earning the tailwheel endorsement is also very important as well as some experience flying a glider. Flying an ultralight requires physical skills, but avoiding flight in controlled airspace requires navigation and chart reading skills.
Controlling yaw and avoiding stalls is critical for all aircraft. Landing safely is the hardest part of flying but not the most dangerous. Controlling yaw, stall avoidance, and landing is significantly more difficult in an ultralight. An fully loaded ultralight weighs less than 500 pounds. Even a light weight Cub weighs twice that. A Cessna 152 weighs three times that. So an ultralight is highly affected by wind gusts. Rudder and elevator control require more immediate and careful control. (Taildragger training helps.) Ultralights have significantly more drag than modern airplanes. They fly slower and they therefore decelerate from cruise speed to stall much faster. Most ultralights have "pusher" engines mounted high and behind the pilot which causes change in power to move the nose up and down. Finally, the pilot is seated much closer to the ground and the "sight picture" is very different; both can make the pilot more "ground shy" for more difficulty in landings.
In other words, before flying an ultralight, a pilot should have already developed a high level of speed, pitch and yaw control proficiency in windy conditions---especially during flight below 1000 feet AGL and in landings. And, the pilot should be highly trained in upset recovery and stall avoidance. (Upset and Stall recovery is no longer required for a Private Pilot, but Upset and Stall Recovery training in a Super Decathlon with metal wings is highly recommended.)
The standard "industry" advice from Certified Flight Instructors is for a Private Pilot to receive "transition training" by flying in a "two seat, high drag, pusher aircraft" so as to become familiar with the flight characteristics unique to such craft.
Quicksilver MX2
Challenger II
M Squared Breese II
The problem with this advice, is that these two place Light Sport Aircraft really differ quite significantly from an ultralight.
The Quicksilver MX2 weighs over 700 pounds, fully loaded or 40% more than an ultralight. And to be legal for a 220 pound pilot, the you would need a pretty light 140 pound CFI.
The Challenger can carry 800 pounds, fully loaded, so a normal weight CFI can fly with a 220 pound pilot, but is 50% heavier than an ultralight.
The M Squared Breese II weighs in at over 1035 pounds with a 220 pound pilot and a 200 pound CFI. More than twice the weight of an ultralight. Actually close to the weight of a Sport Cub. Wing loading is more than 7 pounds per square foot, compared to 4 pounds per square foot for an Aerolite 103.
I am not convinced that dual instruction in any of these planes would always adequately prepare every pilot for safe flight in an Aerolite 103. Probably would not hurt, other than building a false sense of confidence. In fact, there has been a fatality in an Aerolite 103 soon after the Private Pilot was "trained" or at least "familiarized" by a highly skilled CFI. In another instance, the spouse of a highly experienced Light Sport CFI died while flying her ultralight, obviously after being trained. Here is a video showing "typical" transition training. Notice the one "mistake" the "student" makes is the typical overcontrol with the elevator near the ground. Overcontrolling is a very common problem when flying an unfamiliar aircraft —it can be dangerous, particularly when it results in a stall.
I will say that the training received in this Dragonfly ultralight was excellent and the Dragonfly is close to the performance of the Aerolite other than being heavier.
My first solo flight was in a Cessna 150 in Camarillo, CA. I received dual instruction in the 150 and later in Denton, TX, a Piper Warrior as well as my high performance Piper Turbo Arrow III that I owned in 1978. (I had four CFI's during my prep for my Pilot's license. And back then, stall recovery training, not just stall avoidance was required.) I also flew with two CFI's in gliders. Later I sought my tailwheel endorsement and a serious upgrade in my training. I first flew a Cessna 172 with one CFI, then a Piper J3 Cub with another. I trained with a CFI in a Cubcrafters Sport Cub in Florida. Serious training with a CFI in a Super Decathlon and in the Cubcrafters Sport Cub I owned. Additional Upset and Spin Recovery Training with a highly qualified CFI in Tennessee. I also traveled to NJ to be trained landing on grass and pavement short fields landing over water and tall trees by one of the most respected tailwheel CFI’s in the US-famous for teaching Hollywood stars like Harrison Ford. Finally, I hired a CFI to verify my training by making a cross country trip with me. That is 12 different CFI's in 10 different planes.
In addition, I built a simulator using Lockheed Martin's Prepar3D software and XPlane software. The rig used an advanced high quality rudder system by Redbird with realistic stick, yoke and throttle controls.
Every plane has unique flight characteristics. The J3 Cub had significantly different characteristics than my Sport Cub. Flying a Super Decathlon with no flaps was nothing like flying my Sport Cub. Even my training in a Sport Cub without using flaps was very different from flying my Sport Cub with flaps. And, flying my Sport Cub solo was significantly different from flying with the CFI in the back seat! Proficiency in the Sport Cub was achieved more from the practice in the Sim and CAREFUL solo practice than from my flight with CFI's. (I really did not learn how to ride a bike until my Dad took the training wheels off after telling me to keep up my speed!)
Here is a very good "Transition Training" video from Canada
Flying a single seat ultralight is significantly different from flying with a CFI in a two seat Light Sport. It will handle similarly in many ways but will be effected by gusty winds to a higher degree. The sight picture will be different and the lighter single seater will require a more gradual and lighter touch to avoid over control. And, you may or may not have been trained sufficiently on the following: 1) You must be aware of the fact that the ultralight will slow considerably and the nose will lift with reduction in power-a stall is likely to be imminent with an abrupt reduction in power--stick forward without delay---this can be more or less pronounced with you flying solo than in the heavier Light Sport with both you and the CFI. Do not waste runway--fly at best rate of climb to reach safe altitude asap; 2) The nose will be pushed down with abrupt application of power--be careful near the ground; 3) You must be aware that the ultralight will slow and stall sooner in turns--maintain a margin of safety--fly at 1.4x stall speed=DMMS; 4) You must be careful to descend gradually during the stable final approach phase of landings and bleed off speed close to the ground to avoid bouncing; 5) You must maintain sufficient altitude during final to insure you can reach the field with power off. You must constantly be aware of your low glide ratio and maintain sufficient altitude at all times to be able to land safely with a sudden and unexpected engine out. i.e. Expect an engine out at any time and set speed at best glide immediately after engine out until you have picked your landing spot. 6) Finally build your proficiency gradually, becoming familiar with all flight characteristics through practice using an abundance of caution and care. Fly with a large margin of safety--understand DMMS; 7) Also remember that two stroke engines are lubricated by the fuel and oil entering thru the carburetor--avoid prolonged full load high rpm and idle--high load increases heat and wear; low idle starves the engine of lubrication.
Video shows intentional engine out glide at 25 mph.
An overconfident pilot is a dangerous pilot. Transition training is important--but such training does not necessarily have to be via dual training in a two seat Light Sport airplane. Learning to fly and understanding the principles of flight with all the potential unexpected hazards is more important. Getting a a tailwheel endorsement along with upset and stall recovery from a CFI IS important. Transition training in a two seater does not diminish the importance of the care and diligence while flying solo as outlined in the paragraph above. Knowing what to expect and an abundance of caution is very important.
The best "transition training" that I received was from a seasoned CFI that had actually flown an Aerolite 103. He pointed out the importance of speed management and stall avoidance, warning that angle of attack or nose up/down attitude during climb and descent was more important than just watching the air speed. Not too much nose up when climbing and a bit of nose down when descending. And, if a wing drops because of a stall or gust, use top rudder rather than aileron to stop any spin inception or arrest any spin. The Aerolite does give an indication of impending stall, but will probably not be noticed by an unfamiliar pilot new to the Aerolite--the normal "buffeting" a pilot experiences with most GA planes will not be experienced with the Aerolite so angle of attack awareness is very important. (The Aerolite 103 does not have wing warp or “washout” so it will stall at the wing tip at the same time as the root and hence may drop a wing when stalling. A small amount of flap during rigging can help.)
Practice in a sim. Watch YouTube videos. Seek the council of other more experienced ultralight pilots. Read as much about flying ultralights as you can find written. And, if possible, have a discussion with a CFI who has actually flown an Aerolite 103. One valuable resource, even if just for review by Private Pilot holders is the Ultralight Pilot's Flight Training Manual published by the US Ultralight Association.
Keep in mind that ultralights and "ultralight like" trainers are not built to the same standards as traditional aircraft like a Cessna 152. They are much more fragile and require more maintenance. I am not comfortable taking training in a plane that was not designed for lots of landings by "student" pilots who may land hard. The Quicksilver is robust as compared to most ultralights---click on the link and see all the issues of more heavily used Quicksilvers.
Excerpt:
"The airframe on the MX was made up of aircraft grade anodized aluminums tubing and in most cases AN nuts and bolts. This made for a good reliable low maintenance, combination.
That is it made a good combination if the pilot made perfect landings and take offs, directly into the wind from a smooth runway, which unfortunately was not always the case, in a training environment."
I was even a bit uncomfortable taking my private pilot training in "rented" certificated aircraft. In my humble opinion, the planes were "legal" but did show signs of some deferred maintenance that I would not allow on my personal plane. The Cessna 150's and 152's had thousands of hours of use in most cases. Sometimes the brakes and tires were marginal. Engines were sometimes very hard to start. One plane had a sticking throttle-I was afraid it might break and cause a complete loss of power. In one case, I flew in a high hour Decathlon with wooden wings, subjected it to high g’s in unusual attitudes, with most people recommending that those wooden wings should be upgraded to metal because of fatalities from wooden wing fractures. I regretted that decision.
A bit of background. AC 103-7 was published in 1984. Powered ultralights evolved from hang gliders in the 1970's. Popularity grew in the 1980's and the FAA granted a "training" exemption to allow two place ultralight like crafts to be flown for the purpose of training ultralight pilots:
"Exemption 4274 is the exemption granted to the United States Ultralight Association (USUA). Current USUA instructors are also given permission to operate under this exemption. The privileges of this exemption are extended to USUA instructors only by written authorization of the USUA. Each USUA instructor has a personal copy of the exemption, with a letter from the USUA granting this authorization. New students should insist on seeing this document from their prospective instructors, to verify that their instructor is indeed operating legally. USUA instructors are proud of their accomplishments as instructors, and are happy to show you these documents. In 2004, this training exemption was extended again, with a termination date of January 31, 2008. This new termination date marks the end of ultralight organization's training exemptions. After this date, all instruction will be performed by Sport Pilot instructors."
The popularity of ultralights was not only because they cost less to buy, but also that you did not need to invest in the expense and time to earn a pilot's license. The FAA experimented with the training exemption, but came to the same conclusion that I have drawn---flying an ultralight requires the same level of training as that required for at least a Sport Pilot License. And training for a pilot's license requires aircraft that are significantly more robust than most two seat "ultralight like" trainers. So, the FAA decided to allow complete freedom for ultralights (with operating limitations) but withdrew from any form of approved "less intense and rigorous" training just for ultralight pilots. Their minimum "pilot" training was for the Sport Pilot License with training in a Light Sport or Certificated aircraft.
Interest in ultralights fell significantly after 2004. Today, most ultralight buyers are licensed Private Pilots "downsizing" to less expensive and simpler flying. Additional training specific to the specific ultralight is recommended, although this may or may not require additional "dual" training in a two seater depending on the pilot's previous training, experience and proficiency. Dual instruction and Solo flying a tailwheel LSA with full flaps deployed in a significant crosswind should provide sufficient experience, especially once "trained" to be extra diligent regarding speed management, stall avoidance, and being prepared for an engine out while flying an ultralight.
One example:
Scott Henry, a 14 year old flew his Aerolite 103 from Virginia to Oshkosh. His only training was from his CFI father mostly in a Cessna 152, with transition training using the crow hopping familiarization technique.
Update: I did not obtain any “dual” transition training in a two place “high drag pusher” aircraft. I completed my first two flights in my new Aerolite 103. I was diligent to keep angle of attack, air speed, and yaw “top of mind” and had “trained” for more than 20 hours in my simulator. (Biggest benefit from this was eliminating the temptation to over control the elevator while near to the ground.) I experienced the expected deceleration with a decrease in power caused by drag; the “leaf” like motion from even minor wind gusts aloft; the need to push the nose down during descent to avoid too rapid speed loss; and substantial adverse yaw requiring good rudder skill. It was very much like flying a Sport Cub with full flaps and using a wheel landing technique.
My conclusion is that if your flight experience has been limited in time and in the number of different planes, and if you have not earned a tailwheel endorsement, dual instruction in a light sport plane, preferably a tail dragger to learn rudder skills, would be absolutely essential. If you learn by one on one instruction rather than by reading and viewing instructional videos, then dual instruction would be essential. On the other hand, if you have over 200 hours of flight experience in several different types of planes, have been trained by several CFI’s, diligently read and view as much instructional material you can find, and practice on a simulator; then you will probably be capable of flying an Aerolite 103. Just remember that you should approach every plane you have not flown before with a “test pilot flying an experimental airplane” mindset and attitude.
If you do seek dual instruction from a CFI, be aware that each CFI is a unique person and will train differently. Do not assume that you are “qualified” simply because you took a few “lessons” and landed safely a few times. There is much more to flying than landing and a thorough understanding of stalls, spins, coordinated flight and all potential unexpected hazards is very important.
Having a "reserve" parachute is generally mandatory for sky diving. It is also recommended for paragliding and paramotoring.
Emergency parachutes for airplanes are becoming more popular. There is an interesting history. First, you must learn about a man named Jim Hanbury, a skydiver, hang glider, base jumper, and stunt man who became interested in parachutes for ultralights. In 1977, Jim Hanbury took a Quicksilver Sprint ultralight up and cut the wires supporting one wing, placing the ultralight into a a spinning free fall. He actually had the event filmed with a video produced. Once in free fall, he cast a reserve parachute in the same manner as used for skydiving (except it was mounted to the ultralight and not to the pilot) and the plane crash landed, without injury to the pilot. He later tested a similar concept, except he used a rocket to ballistically launch the parachute with a rocket. (Hanbury later died testing a ballistic parachute for a Cessna 150--the lines became entangled with the plane's tail.) Throwing the parachute resulted in slower deployment, where the ballistic deployment was fast enough function when deployed with less than 100 foot of altitude. Others developed the concept further.
Here is a video showing a two seat Quicksilver E-LSA Trainer with footage showing Hanbury's testing.
Today, ballistic parachutes are available from BRS and Stratos (Magnum). Stratos began in 1990 in the Czech Republic. BRS began in 1980 in Minnesota, as a result of a hang glider accident suffered by the founder Boris Popov. BRS was actually granted a US Patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4607814 A US Patent for an airplane parachute was granted in 1919--so emergency parachutes have been contemplated for a long time. Popov and Hanbury no doubt knew of each other.
With the advent of UAV drones, there are many examples of saving the UAV using reserve parachutes--the leader being Fruity Chutes with remote ballistic launchers from SkyCat and Harrier.
There is no doubt that these devices do save lives. Success is recorded in video footage for Cirrus and some aerobatic planes. Deploying the device with a front mounted "tractor" propeller seems to work well. Deployment from an ultralight with a high mounted pusher is a bit more problematic as there is risk of entanglement in the prop. To deal with this, most installations shoot the rocket out the side (Aerolite horizontally, Quicksilver out and upward with the bridle routed around the rear bracing and up the wing toward the center anchorage. Hopefully, the prop has stopped, and the ultralight has slowed sufficiently that the bridle avoids getting entangled in the tail or the prop . (Success on the Quicksilver with floats is shown in the above video.)
These devices seem valuable, but one must carefully weigh risk vs reward. Unexpected deployment in flight is a remote possibility. Pulling the chute eliminates pilot control and avoidance of dangerous obstacles, like power lines, during the drifting descent. They probably are effective at 200 foot altitude, but only if the pilot reacts fast enough. (The 2018 Quicksilver crash in Maryland was equipped with a chute but it was not pulled.) My search has not produced any video evidence of successful deployment in an Aerolite 103 with a soft pack and a horizontally sideways launched rocket. However, at least two reports exists of successful deployment in an Aerolite. The horizontal launch is recommended by Stratos (in their manual) on the side where "the propellers blades move in the
upward direction" a to use the effect of prop wash to move the chute upward away from the rudder and elevator and, if the bridle did impact the prop, the drop would tend to drive it upward. (Steel or Kevlar is recommended for the bridle for any length that might impact the prop.) Reasoning is that a vertical launch may allow the momentum of the plane to fly below and in front of the chute, causing the plane to fly up considerably and introduce a significant swinging oscillation. Actually, the manual recommends from zero to 45 degrees up angle---the way the system is recommended for the Quicksilver with a cannister.
The “factory” install on the Aerolite shoots the rocket out the side horizontally with the bridle nylon zip tied to the rear of the wing. The zip ties hopefully break during deployment or at least after the rocket has fully extended the chute lines and the chute begins to fill (rocket thrust is around 70 pounds and most zip ties break at 50 pounds) with the bridle traveling around outside of rear strut to the center anchoring point on top of the wing in front of the engine. Hopefully the bridle stays in front of prop and avoids a prop strike, but if on the upward side of prop rotation, the bridle would likely be deflected upward.
I did find one first hand "testimony" of a crash a Dragonfly ultralight with a "pusher" engine. Note that the BRS is mounted in front of the wing with the rocket pointed upward. It deployed and did not entangle with the prop even though the pilot failed to kill the engine.
The green Aerolite crash into trees in Maine was with a parachute. The yellow Aerolite crash into a pool enclosure in Florida was without a parachute although it was equipped with one. Often you see or hear of planes equipped with chutes but pilots did not engage them. Both planes heavily damaged—both pilots walked away!
The “ideal" reaction to an engine out is to land safely without a parachute. Parachutes should only be used if the pilot has lost control of the plane and control cannot be immediately re-established for stable flight. Invariably, the plane will be dropping like a projectile. (Broken wings, locked/jammed elevator, rudder or aileron. Fortunately, these types of failures, while notorious, are not as common as many fear and risk can be minimized with good maintenance, and sound flying judgment.) With a chute, the airframe will be heavily damaged--maybe beyond repair. And very good possibility of a prop strike, putting a ? on the engine's condition. A successful emergency landing in a field will likely only require minor repairs. Fly always with a healthy anticipation of the need to land safely without warning. The story of the red Kolb shown below in a cornfield:
"The 590th landing, I bent a landing gear leg. I took off from I22 and climbed to about 750 feet agl when the engine dropped to an idle. A split connector for the throttle cable had come unscrewed. I was too low to return to the airport so I elected for a crosswind landing in a cornfield that was close to a house and a main road.
I landed with the cornrows. It did not seem like I hit that hard but the up wind landing gear (right) leg was bent back and up about 4 to 6 inches. There was no damage to the tail feathers."
Hay, wheat and even soybean fields are the most desirable for emergency landings--corn fields can be less forgiving, but always better than trees, overhead wires or fences. Be prepared to compensate the farmer for crop damage. Be careful in pastures as livestock don't stand still. Roads are a possibility, but traffic and overhead wires often become a hazard. Practice landings with engine at idle and a steep descent so as to learn the best configuration to land over obstacles with a very short field. Properly flown, the Aerolite can land, over a 50 ft obstacle in only 300 feet (100 yards).
The most compelling justification for a chute is a structural failure or damaged control system. In other words when the plane is no longer flyable. Aerobatic pilots wear chutes and “bail” when the plane’s structure fails or they lose control with no hope of regaining control. Usually they have 1000’ AGL for the chute to open. The whole plane ballistic chutes may work when deployed as low as 200’ AGL.
There are three types of containers used for ballistic parachute--cannister (see Dragonfly above and Zigolo below)---vertical launch (See Dragonfly below) and soft-pack. See Aerolite 103 below. The soft pack is considerably lighter than the 24 pounds allowed by the FAA in Part 103.
Choice of parachute location may be affected by CG weight and balance.
Another Option
Aerobatic and glider pilots have been wearing emergency parachutes for years. In fact, aerobatic pilots and passengers are required to wear them when performing aerobatic maneuvers. They "bail out" if/when the plane is no longer flyable. Wings coming off, unrecoverable spins, loss of elevator or rudder control are reasons to use the chute. If the plane is unable to fly, whether it be a ballistic parachute or a emergency parachute for the pilot, it is time to use the parachute.
I believe that there are advantages for the ballistic for the plane as it probably deploys faster and there is less loss of altitude during deployment. With an emergency parachute, the pilot must first exit and get clear of the plane. This can be a major issue at low altitude. Unhooking set belts, and moving your body to a safe exit could easily take 2-3 seconds versus pulling a handle---the difference is a loss of 200-300 feet or more.
What is often underestimated is the descent rate with the parachute deployed. In a perfect scenario, the plane will descend in a stable horizontal attitude and land on it's wheels, impacting at about 10-15 mph. If it is swinging, the impact could be much harder. In many instances, such as a wing failure, the plane would not land in a stable horizontal attitude. In any case, the impact will probably result in total destruction of the airframe and it is possible that parts of the airframe may strike and injure the pilot. And, the pilot will be subjected to high compression forces in the spinal column and neck. If the plane descends nose first, leg/foot injuries are highly possible. Finally, the pilot is still strapped in at impact, with the possibility of a fire from the fuel stored and fuel lines directly behind the pilot.
There are risks associated with ballistic systems. Inadvertent/accidental activation being one.
Bailing out has another set of risks. As mentioned, more altitude is required. The biggest advantage is the pilot is clear of the plane--no risk of fire or being struck by airplane parts. The pilot is likely to impact the ground at the same 10-15 mph. But, proper body positioning and use of leg muscles will likely result in less injury to the spine and neck. Even so, for an older pilot, a parachute "landing" is likely to sustain some form of back injury unless he is in extraordinary physical condition--about the same as jumping off an 8 foot step ladder. Another advantage is the risk of inadvertent "launch" of the rocket and parachute is nil.
Normally, an emergency pilot parachute would only be effective if bailing out about 500'AGL. (Ballistic chutes maybe above 300') But, here is the testimony of a Christen Eagle aerobatic pilot: "My partner told me later he figures I got out at about 100 feet. I thought he was wrong, due to his maybe being excited, and hanging from his own chute, and being far away, and since I wasn't dead. When I brought my chute to a guy who has a great reputation as a rigger, he figured it was somewhere between 100-200 feet." This pilot did not get the full benefit of the chute--and probably impacted the ground at >20mph=30ft/sec but he did survive and walked away.
It should also be remembered that the "original" parachute use by an ultralight pilot (Handbury) was a "hand thrown" reserve parachute---the kind now used by paramotor "ultralights". Tandem versions are available rated for 210kg=462lbs or about the same for an ultralight plane with a 208 lb pilot.
US Patent 4445654-Inventor Handbury, 1982
"An ultralight aircraft and/or pilot recovery system includes a parachute having a canopy connected by means of a plurality of shroud lines to a first elongated cable having a length to position the parachute clear of the aircraft engine and propeller with a second cable for connecting the parachute to the frame of the aircraft and including a harness worn by the pilot which includes a pouch for containing the canopy folded within an inner pouch to permit the pilot to grasp and toss the chute clear of the aircraft for deployment for recovery of the aircraft. An alternate embodiment provides for connecting the parachute to the harness worn by the pilot and securing the harness to the aircraft to thereby give the pilot the option to recover the aircraft or cut loose from the aircraft for pilot recovery only."
As a footnote...Handbury died in 1986 while testing a parachute for a Cessna 150. The parachute became entangled in the plane's tail and control was lost at an altitude of 3000 feet. Handbury, wearing an emergency parachute bailed out at about 400 ft above the ground, but there was insufficient time for the chute to open.
