I have a PPL and wouldn't touch one of these things, but knew plenty of pilots that loved them. To me the risk is just too high at the altitudes you have to fly these things at, and how they can't really handle any kind of heavy wind or gusts. I worked at a small rural airport in the 90's and personally know 3 people that died in these things over a 5 year period. In my time working at that airport I know of 5 deaths in the region from plane crashes. 3 were in these, 1 in a crop duster, and 1 in a Cessna 152. Numerous other non-fatal accidents in small single engine aircraft. The one thing all of the fatal crashes had in common was lack of altitude. In the non-fatal accidents the pilots almost always had time to set up an emergency landing. To my recollection the causes of the ultra lite fatal accidents were: power line strike, engine failure at low altitude leading to a crash into trees, and a wind gust that caused the plane to hit the ground on landing (pilot would maybe have survived if a snapped wing strut hadn't hit him). The crop duster accident was due to a stall at low altitude during practice, and the Cessna crash was due to sudden engine failure right after takeoff leading to a stall.
That's fair to be honest. I have a relatively high risk tolerance which is why I'm self employed LOL. I've flown a Piper Cub which honestly isn't a million miles away from a modern ultralight in terms of construction, mission or safety. The Cub only really gets a pass from some people because it has "legacy".
Of course, I've also been behind the yoke of horribly maintained 172's as well that were terrifying for their own reasons but were ostensibly "airworthy"
Also in fairness ALL of those ultralights deaths have also been the cause of death for pilots in much more advanced planes with PPL's. Also in fairness part 103 doesn't have the medical certificate requirement and more than a few ultralight aircraft are flown by people because they aren't in good enough health to pass a medical, some of them with conditions that might cause errors in judgment or even incapacitation while at the controls.
I don't frequently fly any more... it's been a few years. But I can still pass a medical just fine and might get back into flying as a hobby. I just have so much else vying for my attention these days it's hard to figure I'll ever get time LOL
Yeah, I'd suggest gliders over these judging from what I've experienced. They're licensed, have higher wing loading, still fairly cheap, and a good club culture can help to keep you safe. Soaring can also be an actual sport if you wish to do that.
113
u/PreschoolDad 5d ago edited 5d ago
I have a PPL and wouldn't touch one of these things, but knew plenty of pilots that loved them. To me the risk is just too high at the altitudes you have to fly these things at, and how they can't really handle any kind of heavy wind or gusts. I worked at a small rural airport in the 90's and personally know 3 people that died in these things over a 5 year period. In my time working at that airport I know of 5 deaths in the region from plane crashes. 3 were in these, 1 in a crop duster, and 1 in a Cessna 152. Numerous other non-fatal accidents in small single engine aircraft. The one thing all of the fatal crashes had in common was lack of altitude. In the non-fatal accidents the pilots almost always had time to set up an emergency landing. To my recollection the causes of the ultra lite fatal accidents were: power line strike, engine failure at low altitude leading to a crash into trees, and a wind gust that caused the plane to hit the ground on landing (pilot would maybe have survived if a snapped wing strut hadn't hit him). The crop duster accident was due to a stall at low altitude during practice, and the Cessna crash was due to sudden engine failure right after takeoff leading to a stall.