UL runs out of gas, caught on video.

[Huggyu2]

Y'all don't know what you're missing! Most UL's are very high quality, and plenty safe. You really should try them!

 

[Horizon]

Y'all don't know what you're missing! Most UL's are very high quality, and plenty safe. You really should try them!

They sure do look like fun. Also, there are a few FARS you can do away with also. For instance, I believe you are allowed to do all your own maintenence. In fact, I don't even think you need a certificate, or even training to legally fly these things.

The downside is I believe you are limit to a 5-gallon fuel capacity, and I think you have to stay in class-G.

Anyone know what one of those trikes go for? Get you can one for say $6,000???

 

[^_^]

I knew a guy down in Florida that bought one for about 3000, but that was 20 years ago.

These guys used to fly out of grass strips, and it wonders me if they also smoked the grass from the surrounding fields. Then again, there were some talented glider pilots out there too, so maybe it's all raw talent

 

[five-alive]

I...cannot believe it

Its all over

 

[PeteCO]

Y'all don't know what you're missing! Most UL's are very high quality, and plenty safe. You really should try them!

Is there an equivalent of aso.com for them? I have thought about a 2 seat UL for whwile now (I know, not technically a UL) but information on them seems to be hard to find.

How cheap can someone get into one, where are there clubs, can any be homebuilt, etc? Any links to some good sites?

 

[avbug]

Remember, if you are ever forced down over bad terrain, your best chance of survival is to pretend there's a nice paved runway below you. Far better to stall right above the terrain than to drop or dive in at 150KTS.

Evidently you haven't made many off airport landings, forced landings, or landings in rough and hostile terrain, else you wouldn't dole out that ridiculous advice. You're probably the type who's inclined to offer that one should hold an airplane off the water as long as possible and stall it in, too. It's usually the folks with no training or experience in that area that offer such ridiculous advice, and sadly, people glob onto it, too.

Maintain minimum sink airspeed if you can't see or avoid the terrain, and maintain it until impact. Not best glide. Not stall. Not anything but minimum sink, which in most light aircraft usually approximates Vx. Whereas best glide generally approximates Vy, minimum sink is the speed to use approaching treetops, water, and rough terrain.

You can handle a lot more forward impact than you can vertical impact. You're far better landing under control than trying to stall it in. Maintain control until impact. This also has the effect of reducing impact forces to you to their minimum potential. Stalling will only result in greater forces on impact, usually vertical forces or other forces when you lose control in the stall. Especially on water, where you will not be able to judge your height.

As for the video, evidently the engine loss came as a surprise, because the throttle hand of the pilot made no movement toward idle when the power loss occured. Instead, he immediately let go of the throttle and placed his hand on a support post, as the aircraft attempted to roll left. He applies full right stick, milks it for A0A once, and then goes full aft on the stick until impact. He has the appearance of entering a stalled condition and losing roll control, and holding the stalled condition to impact.

As for diving at 150 KIAS, 55 KCAS is the top speed of these aircraft, he had very little distance to descend, and dissipated considerable energy, what little there was, in the trees as he rotated a hundred eighty degrees to impact alongside the road over which he had just flown.

A bigger concern is that the seat in most of these aircraft is also the fuel tank. Think about that.

There is no reason whatsoever or cause to speculate that the pilot ran out of fuel. He experienced power loss for undetermined reasons, but the assumption that he didn't carry adequate fuel is ameaturish and juvinile. You don't know that. Speculation is the hallmark of unprofessionalism. Aviation is not about guesswork. Don't go there.

With respect to pricing, yes, today you can pick up bargain basement ultralights that are in the price ranges suggested above. However, you do get what you pay for, and more realistic price ranges are in the fifteen to twenty five thousand dollar range. For a certificated pilot, this sounds excessive, where we may buy a Cessna 150 or a Luscombe for that price. But for the noncertificated pilot, to whom the lions share of the ultralight market belongs, the opportunity to fulfill one's dreams with the mere purchase of a sport machine in the same price range as a motorcycle or snowmobile, it does seem reasonable. A lot of people do it.

These aircraft don't climb high, which was probably most fortunate for the pilot in this video. Never climb higher than you're willing to fall, so goes the saying in ultralights and hang gliders. Never overfly something into which you're not prepared to crash...therein lies his assumed risk. Less than a minute into his flight, as he entered the downwind leg at an ultralight-typical altitude, he suffered a power loss for undetermined reasons and shortly thereafter impacted the trees beneath.

Based on casual observation of his own video, his primal reaction to avoid impact by pulling back on the stick appears to have governed his piloting of the aircraft. Had the trees not been there, chances are that the accident would have been considerably worse. He did take the precaution of wearing a full face helmet. His takeoff was smooth with no unusual movement of the stick or maneuvering of the aircraft. His takeoff roll was straight. His climb was flat, his turn mild and also smooth. No signs of lack of training or rashness appear in the small snippet of his life that we have, and from that we can only state that we see no problems in his technique, that he took precautions (helmet), and that he did in fact impact the trees. He did roll left, applied right aileron, and held full aft stick until impact. He did experience a power loss, for reasons which we cannot presently know.

Beyond that, it's speculation, which bespeaks ignorance and foolishness, and does not become us. We would do best to stick to the facts in evidence, rather than venture into guesswork as to motive, cause, or even the end result, for none of them are before us. Otherwise, learn from what went wrong, compliment the man for what was done right, and leave speculation and guesswork to the national enquirer and other fine junk tabloid publications.

 

[Horizon]

Evidently you haven't made many off airport landings, forced landings, or landings in rough and hostile terrain, else you wouldn't dole out that ridiculous advice. You're probably the type who's inclined to offer that one should hold an airplane off the water as long as possible and stall it in, too. It's usually the folks with no training or experience in that area that offer such ridiculous advice, and sadly, people glob onto it, too.

Maintain minimum sink airspeed if you can't see or avoid the terrain, and maintain it until impact. Not best glide. Not stall. Not anything but minimum sink, which in most light aircraft usually approximates Vx. Whereas best glide generally approximates Vy, minimum sink is the speed to use approaching treetops, water, and rough terrain.

You can handle a lot more forward impact than you can vertical impact. You're far better landing under control than trying to stall it in. Maintain control until impact. This also has the effect of reducing impact forces to you to their minimum potential. Stalling will only result in greater forces on impact, usually vertical forces or other forces when you lose control in the stall. Especially on water, where you will not be able to judge your height.

I disagree to some extent. First of all, you mention the word "landing". If we're talking about tree-tops here, you wont be doing any type of "landing". What we are talking about here is nothing less than a controlled crash. Don't glorify it. You are in for a crash.

You say to maintain a speed of approximately Vx, all the way down to impact. Obviously this is considerably higher than stall speed. While it's true that you can typically survive greater horizontal forces than vertical, you forgot a minor detail. Just because an aircraft is stalled, doesn't mean there isn't any forward movement through the air. When we land a light single, we typically touch down very very close to stall. But there is still about 45KIAS or so as we touch the runway. If you pretend the tree-tops are a runway, you wont be dropping it in and subjecting yourself to these deadly vertical forces, as you claim. Even if you stall, there is still forward movement.

The trouble with your system, is that you hit with much greater forward speed. If you hit a thick enough tree, the rapid deceleration is going to kill you in a heartbeat. Whereas if you had simply stalled just above the trees, you forward speed will be much slower. Think about it. You have to fall through these trees no matter what you do. Better to hit at the slowest possible forward speed. This will minimize deceleration forces that can kill you.

 

[psysicx]

Isn't that how Walton died?

 

[mtrv]

Maintain minimum sink airspeed if you can't see or avoid the terrain, and maintain it until impact. Not best glide. Not stall. Not anything but minimum sink, which in most light aircraft usually approximates Vx. Whereas best glide generally approximates Vy, minimum sink is the speed to use approaching treetops, water, and rough terrain.

You can handle a lot more forward impact than you can vertical impact. You're far better landing under control than trying to stall it in. Maintain control until impact. This also has the effect of reducing impact forces to you to their minimum potential. Stalling will only result in greater forces on impact, usually vertical forces or other forces when you lose control in the stall. Especially on water, where you will not be able to judge your height.

I've now seen the results of two stall at the last second accidents involving a Cessna 310 into the mountainside, actually on to the mountainside, and a Cessna 152 into a tree. Both pilots and a passenger escaped with minimum injuries, consisting of a few scratches. I'm starting to like this stall at the last second technique, to dissapate forward airspeed.

 

[BushwickBill]

Cant an UL glide? It looked like that thing just fell out of the sky when the engine quit. If they can clide he should have climbed higher before he turned crosswind.

 

[Horizon]

I've now seen the results of two stall at the last second accidents involving a Cessna 310 into the mountainside, actually on to the mountainside, and a Cessna 152 into a tree. Both pilots and a passenger escaped with minimum injuries, consisting of a few scratches. I'm starting to like this stall at the last second technique, to dissapate forward airspeed.

Yes. You have got to dissapate the forward speed as much as you can. Avbug claims to keep the speed way up so you can smash into something very very hard. It could mean the difference between living and dying. Avbug also acts like his system won't subject you to any vertical forces at all. Lets no kid ourselves...

 

[MTpilot]

Again, it is not forward airspeed that kills you.

 

[Horizon]

Again, it is not forward airspeed that kills you.

Correct. It's the sudden deceleration of.

 

[wmuflyguy]

It does if you hit soemthing like trees, buildings, cars, etc. that bring you to a sudden bone breaking stop. The AFM i have says to touchdown with minimum vertical speed at a speed not less than stick shaker. It is a delicate balance

 

[jaxpilot]

avbugs advice makes sense to me. When I had an engine failure in a 172 I put it into a tree line in a small field. didnt stall but tried to dissipate as much vertical speed as possible.. I came out fine, my student had a cut on his leg. The seatbelts did their job.