Reader Response To Our Ten Question Editorial Rant Was Overwhelming... And Thought-Provoking (Question #1)

Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.

Steve Jobs

A few days ago , I noted that I was learning a lot in the process of researching the necessary issues to be pursued at the upcoming Aviation transformation Conference. I learned a lot from hundreds of conversations... both in what people said... as well as in what they questioned.

This inspired the Ten Questions Editorial that I published a few days ago...and ANN readers responded in great numbers and even greater detail. So much detail, in fact, that I think it behooves us to whittle down some representative selections from the flock of responders and allow each question to be answered via the many thoughts, comments and even more questions raised by those who took SO MUCH time to respond with extensive replies.

Herewith, are some of the responses to Question #1...
What happened to the Ultralight industry and the availability of very simple, basic, affordable flying machines? One would think that such things would be more popular now than ever before.

ANNRep--ANN Reader Responses

ANN Reader Skip L: Ultralight producers (kit & fly away) couldn't make it due to costs (materials, shipping, LAWYERS, lawsuits), especially in this economic climate. And, the FAA eliminated UL flight training by removal of two place trainers. The FAA recognized that the flight training syllabus initiated by AOPA/USUA was a realistic, inexpensive and safe training program.

With over 1200 hours in TEAM planes, and over 1000 hours in a 447 (2 tops, 1 IRAN), I am involved with not only an Ultralight club (Middle Tennessee Ultralight Group, MTUG) but with many individuals who are VERY interested in quality (USUA) flight training and purchasing a modestly priced real 103 Ultralight. Used planes sell well, but training is absolutely needed.

And the solution is simple, well, except that the FAA is involved. Allowing the 2-place trainers to be built as ELSA for use by USUA UL BFI's and AFI's would open up the entire UL market. Many single and 2-place UL's became ELSA, and many 2-place planes are in use for ad hoc training of UL pilots, so that part works, although below the FAA radar. So, if the FAA can bring into being a whole new industry, LSA, they can certainly do this. No, I'm not holding my breath.

ANN Reader Hobart T: The Ultralight market is driven by existing pilots who do not want to (or cannot) maintain their medicals. They want performance, bells & whistles ~ otherwise they would by a $30K Champ or Luscombe.

ANN Reader Steve M: Don't know and don't really care. Most of the folks I have ever met that flew ultralights were a bit off (their) rocker.
 
ANN Reader Hunter H: Ultralights are only marginally "airplanes," seen by many pilots and most non-pilots as unsafe and impractical. There are few UL flying sites, many UL flyers appear not to be pilots, and cowboy behavior w/ ULs is not uncommon. Publicity about UL crashes has had a very negative effect on perceptions. The difference between an UL Kolb, let's say, and a Piper J-3 or a Champ is enormous, in terms of safety and utility, so the licensed Private or Sport Pilots are little motivated to try an UL.

ANN Reader Richard E: A theme you will see/hear in many of my responses. The Ultralight industry was usurped by FAA over-regulation. In its quest to make sure "the general public" is safe, the FAA implemented rules, regulations, and oversight that virtually decimated the ability of small companies to test, experiment, and develop cost-effective product.

ANN Reader Patrick M: The Government screwed this one up by changing the regulations.

ANN Reader Daniel H: I know nothing of ultralights so I won't comment with any confidence. Have LSAs cannibalized ultralights? To me neither is worth considering: I view aviation as a practical joy to be shared with others. I'm not looking for a toy: I want something that I can take my wife, kid and a couple suitcases somewhere.

ANN Reader Ben E: I wish I knew. I want an Ultralight, but there is no active community for me to even learn more about them. It would be fun to have just to putter around. I am now thinking a gyrocopter is the way to go, and ANN has highlighted some neat ones to consider. I think this sector will bounce back, but it will not look like it did back in its hay day.

ANN Reader Tom B: Probably a couple things, really. Today there is more competition for free time. Think back to the 70's when ultralights were growing, they were new and unknown. People heard about them. Today, no one hears about them, there are flight simulators on computers and other games and such attracting peoples time and money, fulfilling their adventuresome spirit.

ANN Reader Ralph R: Simple, in today's litigious society, where everything has to be somebody's fault, one cannot build performance without cost - lots of cost. Performance is not provided = no sales. Though I don't look cool, I guess my 98 mph Luscombe rag wing will just have to suffice.

ANN Reader Scott K: Ultralights cover a broad array of recreational aircraft. Young people's interest tends towards video games and affordable motorcycles. Ultralights are reasonable in bucolic rural settings and not many people live there anymore. There is almost no practical use for many of the devices in the Ultralight category and the availability of fast-build aircraft kits has certainly eaten into that market. Water skis, ATVs, etc. all take away from the Ultralight area and such diversions give instant reward at a lower cost.

ANN Reader Robert C: First of all, a little background. I am 63 years old, formerly flew GA aircraft with a Commercial pilot certificate - ASEL, Glider, and Instrument Airplane ratings, with additional training in aerobatics and mountain flying. For 10 years I have flown ultralights almost exclusively and was an active USUA BFI (basic flight instructor) for several years. The major
reason for switching from airplanes to ultralights was affordability.

The Ultralight industry is pretty much dead, as you noted. Simply put, it was killed by Sport Pilot. When the FAA and the sport pilot rule eliminated the two-seat Ultralight training exemption and USUA, EAA, and ASC registered basic and advanced Ultralight flight instructors, the Ultralight industry was doomed. The FAA claimed that the sport pilot rule would provide an opportunity for prospective Ultralight pilots to receive better instruction in safer trainers. This has not come to fruition. Sport pilot instructors have proven to be better instructors - for sport planes. Ultralights have unique flying characteristics that cannot be learned in most light sport aircraft. The cost of learning to fly an Ultralight was about $1000. The cost of learning to fly a light sport aircraft is over $2000, at the conclusion of which you are not prepared to fly an Ultralight (with the exception of the very few former Ultralight trainers that have been converted to light sport aircraft for training purposes). In my case, the cost of transitioning myself and my two-seat Ultralight trainer was more than I wanted to spend in order to instruct part-time. There is now no practical way for a prospective Ultralight pilot to learn how to fly an Ultralight in most parts of the country.

If the FAA had kept the Ultralight training exemption in place, I believe the Ultralight industry would have survived. Even if the Ultralight training exemption was in place only for transitioning from airplanes to ultralights, the Ultralight industry would have survived. We would have better trained pilots that are prepared to fly ultralights with their unique flying characteristics. As it is right now, anyone jump in Ultralight and try to fly it. We're right back to where we were in the 1970s, when people were killing themselves (literally) to fly ultralights, before the Ultralight training exemption resulted in a safe option to learn how to fly them. I think people are now generally aware that flying without training is unsafe, and with no way to learn how to fly an Ultralight, they won't buy one.

ANN Reader Kirk V: Why would I pay $25K for an "Ultralight" and take my chances that I would get a huckster selling me crap? I can get a T-Craft and fly it as a sport pilot for about the same money, don't have to build it, every AP knows how to work on it, is more substantial and the resale value is better.

ANN Reader Jeff M: I have been a private pilot since 1966 but lost my medical 10 years ago because of cancer. Well I am still alive and well but the thought of going through all the hoops to get my medical back is enough to make me stop flying altogether. I hate bureaucrats.

FMI: ANN Readers Respond To Our 'Ten Questions' Editorial (Ultralights)