Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Dangerous UL Pilots???

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Dangerous UL Pilots???

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

John Hauck

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:21 pm Post subject: Dangerous UL Pilots???

Things happen... though most are preventable, they

| happen a lot more than they do to GA aircraft.

|

|                                 -Dana

Dana:



Where have you been the last 20 or so years?



You may be enlighted by reading the FAA daily accident briefs each 

morning.  I am amazed at the busted and broken airplanes, dumb stunts, 

and accidents GA aircraft and pilots are involved in each day.  Yes, 

and they kill themselves at an alarming rate.  Yesterday was an 

exception.  One accident reported and one fatality.



I'll put my ultralight pilots up to your GA pilots any day of the 

week.  For example, take Oshkosh and Lakeland, we fly thousands of 

hours each year at both places, in and out of very tight, short grass 

airstrips, with no voice communications, no control tower, or other 

type control.  Very seldom do we have someone bust their ass.  Can not 

say that for the other side of the airport at OSH or LAL.  Yes, we 

have been flying that way, very safely, more than I have been around 

ULs, and I started in 1984.



Prior to my interests in UL there were a lot of horror stories from 

folks deciding the could fly because they thought they could.  I think 

most of those days have been over for a long, long time.



UL/Lt Planes are a lot more sophisticated now than they were in the 

early days.  One exception if Kolb aircraft.  They have been built 

tough since the beginning.  That is why I chose to build and fly them.



Take care,



john h

mkIII

_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama

d-m-hague(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: Dangerous UL Pilots???

At 06:21 PM 2/13/2007, John Hauck wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

Where have you been the last 20 or so years?



You may be enlighted by reading the FAA daily accident briefs each

morning.  I am amazed at the busted and broken airplanes, dumb stunts,

and accidents GA aircraft and pilots are involved in...


	


No doubt.  My point was that when Part 103 was created, UL planes *were* 

crashing with distressing regularity, so the congested area prohibition 

made sense.  Things have gotten a LOT better since then, of course, but a 

person could still (perfectly legally) fly a dangerous UL, or fly with no 

training.



I still suspect the UL accident rate is worse than GA's, but I don't know 

by how much... and I could very well be wrong.  The problem is that there 

is no record keeping; the FAA / NTSB don't report or even investigate UL 

crashes, except to determine that it was indeed an ultralight.



                                 -Dana



--

--

Don't put it off, procrastinate today.

ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:11 pm Post subject: Dangerous UL Pilots???

Dana Hague wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 At 06:21 PM 2/13/2007, John Hauck wrote:

> 

> Where have you been the last 20 or so years?

>

> You may be enlighted by reading the FAA daily accident briefs each

> morning.  I am amazed at the busted and broken airplanes, dumb stunts,

> and accidents GA aircraft and pilots are involved in...

 No doubt.  My point was that when Part 103 was created, UL planes *were* 

 crashing with distressing regularity, so the congested area prohibition 

 made sense.  Things have gotten a LOT better since then, of course, but 

 a person could still (perfectly legally) fly a dangerous UL, or fly with 

 no training.

 I still suspect the UL accident rate is worse than GA's, but I don't 

 know by how much... and I could very well be wrong.  The problem is that 

 there is no record keeping; the FAA / NTSB don't report or even 

 investigate UL crashes, except to determine that it was indeed an 

 ultralight.

                                 -Dana

In the homebuilt experimental world, the accident rate is significantly 

higher during the test period. After that, the rate is within normal 

deviation of factory planes rate. If test period hours and corporate jet 

& other turbine flight hours were removed from the numbers, homebuilts 

would probably have a better record than other piston a/c.

Truth is, the restrictions are political in nature, intended to give the 

appearance of safety with no actual value. Kinda like when they look up 

your privates before you get on an airliner.

"Be afraid. Now trust on your government to protect you."

If you are flying a cross-country in a homebuilt & using atc when near a 

major metro area with class B airspace, It's quite likely that the 

controller will take you directly over his active runways if you are 

crossing at right angles to the runway. This path minimizes conflict 

with his 'heavy' traffic.

Bottom line: we can either accept the 'show' of safety written into this 

rule, or work to educate the 99.5% of the public who's never flown in 

*any* small plane & are deathly afraid of the unknown.

Charlie

Steven Green

Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 118

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:15 pm Post subject: Dangerous UL Pilots???

I have read FAA reports where unregistered planes such as this one were

involved in a fatal accident and no investigation was done.  There are

exceptions.  This one got a lengthy investigation.



http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 050705X00921&ntsbno=DEN05FA100&akey=1



the FAA / NTSB don't report or even investigate UL

 	  Quote: 	
		   crashes, except to determine that it was indeed an ultralight.



                                  -Dana



 --

 --

 Don't put it off, procrastinate today.

_________________
Steven Green

John Hauck

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:41 pm Post subject: Dangerous UL Pilots???

This one got a lengthy investigation.

|

| 

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 050705X00921&ntsbno=DEN05FA100&akey=1

|

Steven:



We know why this one gotten investigated.  Probably had something to 

do with being a multi-billionaire.



john h

mkIII



DO NOT ARCHIVE

_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama

d-m-hague(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: Dangerous UL Pilots???

At 08:13 PM 2/13/2007, Steven Green wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



I have read FAA reports where unregistered planes such as this one were

involved in a fatal accident and no investigation was done.  There are

exceptions.  This one got a lengthy investigation.



http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 050705X00921&ntsbno=DEN05FA100&akey=1


	




Unregistered plane, yes... but true ultralights, no (though there are 

exceptions).



                                 -Dana

--

--

Don't put it off, procrastinate today.

d-m-hague(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:19 pm Post subject: Dangerous UL Pilots???

At 08:11 PM 2/13/2007, Charlie England wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Truth is, the restrictions are political in nature, intended to give the 

appearance of safety with no actual value. Kinda like when they look up 

your privates before you get on an airliner.



"Be afraid. Now trust on your government to protect you."


	


In most cases (especially the current Transportation Security Gestapo) I'd 

agree with you, but Part 103 is a gift... they could have just said 

register all aircraft, even hang gliders, and license all pilots.  That 

they didn't would be unthinkable in today's political climate, and amazing 

even then.  Certainly there are things I'd like to change in 103 (SP/LSA 

completely missed the original target), but not at the risk of having them 

revise the whole thing.



 	  Quote: 	
		  Bottom line: we can either accept the 'show' of safety written into this 

rule, or work to educate the 99.5% of the public who's never flown in 

*any* small plane & are deathly afraid of the unknown.


	


The public doesn't *want* to be educated.  They'd rather feel safe taking 

off their shoes before boarding an airliner and evacuating buildings when 

somebody shakes his jelly donut and leaves "suspicious white powder" on his 

desk.



                                 -Dana

--

--

Don't put it off, procrastinate today.

John Hauck

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:21 pm Post subject: Dangerous UL Pilots???

| Unregistered plane, yes... but true ultralights, no (though there 

are

| exceptions).

|

|                                 -Dana

About 99.9 % of the ULs out there are really unregistered airplanes, 

by the regs.



john h

mkIII



DO NOT ARCHIVE

_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama

ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject: Dangerous UL Pilots???

Dana Hague wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 At 08:11 PM 2/13/2007, Charlie England wrote:

> 

> <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>

>

> Truth is, the restrictions are political in nature, intended to give 

> the appearance of safety with no actual value. Kinda like when they 

> look up your privates before you get on an airliner.

>

> "Be afraid. Now trust on your government to protect you."

 In most cases (especially the current Transportation Security Gestapo) 

 I'd agree with you, but Part 103 is a gift... they could have just said 

 register all aircraft, even hang gliders, and license all pilots.  That 

 they didn't would be unthinkable in today's political climate, and 

 amazing even then.  Certainly there are things I'd like to change in 103 

 (SP/LSA completely missed the original target), but not at the risk of 

 having them revise the whole thing.

> Bottom line: we can either accept the 'show' of safety written into 

> this rule, or work to educate the 99.5% of the public who's never 

> flown in *any* small plane & are deathly afraid of the unknown.

 The public doesn't *want* to be educated.  They'd rather feel safe 

 taking off their shoes before boarding an airliner and evacuating 

 buildings when somebody shakes his jelly donut and leaves "suspicious 

 white powder" on his desk.

                                 -Dana

 -- 

We are in agreement; That's the point I was (rather inadequately) trying 

to make. 

While I understand the pragmatic implications of your phrasing, I would 

disagree that it's a 'gift'. The authorities consider *anything* we do a 

'gift' from the authorities. This is a radical departure from the intent 

of those who framed the constitution. We should never miss a chance to 

tell our elected officials the we disagree.

Charlie

d-m-hague(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject: Dangerous UL Pilots???

At 09:21 PM 2/13/2007, John Hauck wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



About 99.9 % of the ULs out there are really unregistered airplanes,

by the regs.


	


True.  Some are more blatant than others, though.



                                 -Dana

--

--

Don't put it off, procrastinate today.

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum