GDL

Hi Riley. I forgot to add that my dad also flew out of Prince Rupert for a year (1966) for Pacific Western Airlines (which eventually became Canadian Airlines). I liked a lot of places we lived in, but Rupert was not one of them. Too wet all the time. Bad weather in the winter. You were isolated. Most of my friends would have considered Prince Rupert (much less Port Hardy where I also spent a summer) a pimple on the world. Too small, too isolated. Where you were would be isolation extreme. Incidentally DOT is now Transport Canada. And they still have their helicopters although I think they retired the S-61. Most have gone to the heli-logging companies. Yours would have been a neat adventure. Prince Rupert has hardly changed at all. About the same population, about the same look. And you are right. The inland passage is considered a great place for sail and power boats. A huge tourist attraction, although many less Americans these days because of the recession in the US. And some of the gorgeous area to fly over in a plane. With caution of course. Geoff

Hi Maj. You are absolutely right about how much price does one put on one's life when flying. Still, the cost is so expensive here ($20,000 and Bombardier is a Canadian company) that all of us have looked at alternatives. Lots of car conversions (especially the Suzuki and I continue to explore them), Smart engine, Mid-West rotary, 2-strokes, diesel, and so on. And each time, have come back to 912. Yes, I trust my 912. Ran it out of coolant once (overflow failed because of my stupidity), and it made it back to base (~10 minutes) with no problems. Had the cylinders tested for hardness after that and they were fine. When I fly from my home base into the the Interior, I have to cross the Coast Mountains (up to 4000m). In some spots, no place to set down easily or at all. Have done that trip on several occasions with a decent sense of comfort behind the 912. It is a trip with a 582 I wouldn't have the same joy. Do you find the same thing in Australia as I see in Canada? Some of the hard core conventional guys here are (seriously) suggesting that I replace my engine with a real engine like an O-200 or a C-85. They have zero comfort level with any Rotax. Geoff

Hi Latestarter. I would like to put my 2 cents worth in a Canadian perspective. I fly on the west coast where the terrain is not often very good, I prefer 4-strokes. Having owned and flown Rans S6, one with 2-stroke 582 and 1 with 4 stroke 912 (my current machine), the conditions under which we fly often dictate the type of engine we use. I like the 582 but it really only is good for ~300 hrs, uses more fuel, and is prone to seizing (had this happen in the mountains). Never had a problem with the 912 in more than 1000 hrs. I just feel more comfortable on long trips. 2-strokes have their place, and Rotax makes good ones. On the other hand, 912 engines are very expensive.

Hi Jetjr. Short field may have more importance here but not sure. People fly ultralights out of major airports but the biggest fields discourage us (too slow, unreliable, and all the other terms we are still judged by). I happen to learn on a very short grass field (I love grass fields) but most of the fields are 500-800 m and paved. The problem is there are so few fields. So one needs to know the limits of the plane just in case. Here, most ultralights fly limited distances because we are hemmed in by mountains along the spine of Vancouver Island, and mountains running the length of the BC coast. Most flying goes ~north-south. BC has difficult terrain (4 mountain ranges between where I live and into the next province of Alberta), and distance flying is doable but need to understand the limits of pilot & plane. Fun flying though because there are many uncharted or little used logging strips cut out of the bush. I have been into many of them. Weather is also a problem here. July/August/September is the best but always with an eye out. Winter time I am not really interested. Lots of rain, high winds, miserable (happening right now). Geoff

Hi Student Pilot. An addendum to my previous post. So many places I fly around here (west coast of BC) has few good places to land, especially if on wheels. 2000 m places are few and far between. So best be prepared for a (narrow) logging road, or beach (our beaches generally are rocky) or something similar. It can be intimidating (I feel it at times). Geoff

Hi Skidmark. I guess my VFR charts for the coast of BC won't work when I get over to the Brisbane area! Especially considering the magnetic variation is a little different.

Hi Riley. My dad is no longer around but I will ask my uncle and a cousin if they remember Ray Salo. You would find that the bush flying world of Campbell River has changed a lot. Campbell River no longer has a pulp mill, logging is a fraction of what it once was, and bush flying has been reduced drastically as a result. My dad flew out of Ocean Falls, Port Hardy, Campbell River, Vancouver, Powell River during that period. I got to see much of the BC coast as a kid. My uncle flew out of Port Hardy, Kyuquot, and Powell River between 1965 and 1990. My cousin out of Tahsis and Tofino from 1975 to 1980 before he joined Canadian Airlines. Did you manage to see many of those places. Rivers Inlet. My dad went there many times but I never saw it. I can't stand big city life. Too crowded. Vancouver has grown so much in the last 25 years that flying over it is an adventure if you have any problems. And too many restrictions on where you can go. Flying at 1200 feet (because of Vancouver airport flight path restrictions) in densely packed suburbs is not safe in my mind. Campbell River (now 30,000 people) is so much more comfortable, and still not crowded in the area to fly. Did you ever get down to Chilco Lake? Geoff

Hi BlackRod. I always adjusted my approach speeds to suit the circumstances. On my home field, I use the typical speeds unless I am in traffic in which case I am faster until on short final. But there are a lot of mountain strips around, and speed control is critical to get in safely. If I am lighter I can slow the plane a little (but always within safe limits). Windsheer would add an element of excitement to landings. At my airport it is cross winds (up to 15kts) and flapless landings work best then and a little more speed. I can see you coming in a little faster under your circumstances. The accurate flying you comment on was the reality of the situation. Runway length roughly 200 m (fortunately at sea level), winter time (so field was soggy and one end had a big pool of water). I had hours before my ultralight training in Pipers, and I was frustrated for weeks trying to get my control to the point where I get it in (without going around) with little trouble. That training really helped me in developing future skills. My home airport at 1500 m seemed a waste of land (but of course it also got jets and large turboprops). In Alaska (land of planes because of terrain) they have short takeoff and landing competitions. You Tube has videos showing the results. I also worked on that skill. Geoff

Hi Student. I was an instructor with my own school for 8 years. I am very comfortable with slow speeds because they were practiced - at altitude - many many times. And the same with my students. And then practiced on approach (carefully). My favorite flying is short, tight, gravel strips. Speed control and plane confidence is critical. Most good ultralights will give you ample warning that something is about to happen. It isn't a sudden boom, and your are not flying. My Rans (I have a Rans S6S) will lose elevator authority at very low speeds. Plane will actually mush. So I keep above that speed. But I know it exists. And it takes time to develop the confidence. I tried out an A22 Foxbat last summer, and had to relearn new numbers. Proper speeds are above the danger zone. But know your aircraft. I have seen so many pilots who learn to fly and never develop any confidence because they go for a 'burger' run (that is what it is called here) from home airport to favorite airport. No new challenges. No growth in skill. When I am flying I always have a field in sight to land. 2000 m fields are good but not always available, so practice shorter. You are right, go with a good instructor who makes you feel comfortable when flying outside normal speeds. Geoff

Hi David. The 39kt speed is something Transport Canada does not want to see change because of increased risks on landing. I watch a Bede 5 land at our airport (1500m, hard surface). Plane is supposed to stall at 40 kts. Real stall speed was about 80. It was scary for a first time flight (notwithstanding that the turbocharged blew up as well). The Sport Licence is 45 kts as well but that is flapless and at gross I believe. So close to Canada's 39 kts which is based on flaps at gross. Geoff

Hi FactHunter. I agree that government agencies involved in almost anything can be traumatic. I have sometimes thought that we should be allowed to do what we want (excluding hurting others) but governments liked to be seen to be managing things whether it was effective or not. In Canada I have seen very little of improvement, and any progress is painfully slow. I was constantly told it was because they were short of people to do the work, because of 9/11 (heard that one many times), and so on. Actually, the best system has always been the sharing of info like you and I and you and others because that can lead to movements. And movements can be powerful if directed. Actually, its possible that the US Sport Licence may lead the way. Many governments like the restrictions placed there.

Hi Sleemanj. NZ seems to have an enlightened approach to my (and presumably other countries) level of expertise. I looked at the requirements for NZ at one point (interest more than an real expectation of getting to NZ) but saw nothing like what you are saying. In comparison, in the US I would have to take the Sport Licence training program (and get permission from Homeland Security to even be allowed to do that). I am doing a British ultralight permit in Portugal in March, and they will forgive my dual training part but I need to do the solo hours (7) + tests before being issued a licence. In Canada, you would be forced to take the course (minimum 10 hrs). In Australia, as far as I have been informed (I am visiting in 2012) I need to follow a similar approach to the British. But most demand the extra training. I have little objection to that - who doesn't need a refresher at times - but for someone on a quick visit, can be a limitation. Not sure what the best course of action is. Better cooperation between organisations, tacitly accepting what is allowed elsewhere. I am a dreamer I know. Your comment on diabetes is fascinating. It is an absolute killer here with Type 1. Fail here medically and your ultralight permit is finished.

Hi JetJr. I am not suggesting an ultralight should be brought in as slowly as it can fly (although my instructors & I did experiment with control at the lowest possible speed) but just be used correctly. Increasing speeds can lead to other issues like floating, like runway length, speed of decision making for students, etc. And I would disagree some that 3-5 kts makes little difference. Our governing body, Transport Canada, has done studies on the accident rates on landing at various stall speeds. Goes up drastically (and the results are more often fatal). That is why they are resisting (in part) a changeover to the Sport Licence with its higher stall speeds and greater weights. An interesting topic and so many variables to flying involved in how it is interpreted. So many ways to fly a plane.

Hi BlackRod. I know we are getting off the topic of 600kg but the approach speeds when landing are related indirectly. Much of my experience when learning to fly (Rans S6ES 912UL powered) was from a grass strip 200 m long. Approach & correct speeds (55 mph on base, 50mph on final) was critical when landing. This is the classic 1.3 x stall speed that schools (GA and ultralight) teach in Canada. I had to do 2 things to land safely (option to go around): keep correct speed and touch down within a 3m point. That teaching was critical for my development as a pilot. My enjoyment centres around short & rough fields. Wouldn't be able to do that without the knowledge. I taught on a Rans (S6S) and my students were taught proper approach - a Rans will float on landing if brought in too fast. And the same is true of the A22 Foxbat I flew last year. We are given (with our planes - but I have never flown a Jabiru) the opportunity to land reasonably slowly. That can save your life if you know the machine you are on. Thanks for the info on the Pioneer. I am looking forward to flying one (if they allow me). Don't have much time in low wings.

Hi Cficare. All planes have limits, and performance issues. The worst I flew was a Cessna 150. My Rans (80hp) would run rings around it except for top speed. 600 kg would probably only force people to the 912S rather than the Rans 912UL. Geoff

Hi BlackRod. I think in Canada the holy grail of government regulations towards ultralights is stall speed. They have show us instructors studies on stall speed and at what point does raising it become a risk to low time pilots. Fortunately, we don't have to put up with the fixed pitch props (I had an IVO controllable at one point although I never trusted it), and 120 kts and retracts. I sometimes dream of a Dallach Evolution or a AeroDyn Ban-Bi but then wake up and realise I need to eat as well as afford a plane. I agree that 120 kts is silly but having worked with students who liked to buy beyond their flying abilities. 100 hp, love the engine (flown A22 Foxbat and Rans S6ES with one). I think climb rate. Your experience with the Jabiru instructor seems strange. Too fast for students is a good way to overwhelm them, especially if the runway is not long. What do you think of the Pioneer? I will be flying one (I hope) in March?

Hi Facthunter. I think what I am looking for is a simpler system of world regulation (forlorn I know). Two things in particular: being able to fly similar aircraft in different countries without getting a local licence, but just an authorised check ride; similar aircraft in different countries to simply the design & building. The new generation of ultralights are becoming so expensive. I am trying to convince a cousin who flies for Air Canada to replace his Cessna 180 on floats with a co-owned ultralight. He took one look at the costs and asked why he would want to spend $100,000 for a plane to fly at reasonable speed when he could buy a used Luscombe or something like that. I know, I am a dreamer. I know that Transport Canada (our regulatory body) doesn't like other countries telling them what to do. So our permits are different from others. Sad.

Hi Sleemanj. You are right about the limitations with the Sport Licence. But a world standard of some sort is better than what we currently see. My Canadian ultralight permit (with endorsements for instructor & passenger carrying - yes Canada demands an instructor also have a passenger carrying rating!) with all my hours is worth nothing when flying outside Canada. I can fly to the US with special permission, but its limited. I can't fly legally in Europe, so I am getting my British permit. I can't fly legally in Australia (and NZ as well I presume) so therefore an Australian permit in 2012. A standard of some sort would help people like myself with the skills but not the local permit. Would also help manufacturers. Canadian standards for ultralights are less restrictive compared to the SPL except for the weights. But most of us wouldn't miss them. The SPL driver's licence medical is not really a big deal for most again. In Canada ultralight pilots use a Class 4 - co-signed by your doctor (not necessarily a Aviation medical specialist). Easy. I have a Class 3 as a current instructor. Same fail in Canada has same consequences as in the US. Diabetes for instance is a licence killer.

Hi David. You must have seen Courtenay Airpark then (little airport by the estuary). If so, that is close (50km) from where I live. I used that airstrip for training students and loved every minute. My students used to freak when they first saw it (my airport is 1500 m - Courtenay is 500m) but then realized that 500 m in an ultralight is so much overkill. My dad died in a plane crash when I was young but I also had an uncle who was a bush pilot and a cousin my age who now flies for Air Canada. 3 of the best people to learn to fly from. But I love ultralights the best. Not the early ones, I was never interested, but what they have become. This is a beautiful place (I am one of the few born & raised in BC) but Vancouver is not. Just talking to a friend and saying again how much I dislike the big city - too crowded, too noisy. I have lived there off and on all my life and don't even like going back (but family forces one). And becoming a difficult place to fly around with the restricted airspace. Not like Campbell River.

BlackRod. Been reading this thread with some interest. Let me put the discussion in a Canadian perspective. Canadian ultralight standards are similar to Australia (560 kgs, 39 kt stall with flaps), and the basis for the US Sport licence. Having spent a lot of time at one point talking with Transport Canada people (our regulators), the following is critical to their appreciation of the problems. First, the stall speed has to be manageable. That gives us the 39 kts. Second, our licencing has a minimum of 10 hrs (5 hrs dual min, 2 hrs solo min, the rest spread between the 2). TC is looking for a simple system to manage with little outside interference (although they interfere all the time), and still offer a cheap solution. Low stall speed is a big part of their mandate. They are resisting the changes offered by the Sport licence because of 2 things - potentially higher stall speed, and medical requirements. Having flown Capellas and Rans and other ultralights, I do not have a problem with 560, but would not be against moving to 600 kg. But I instructed here for 8 years and know that giving higher performance can lead to more problems for students, for schools, and so on. More instructing is the obvious solution, but the original rules (in Canada started in 1983) were designed to keep the sport cheap and easy to attain. The higher the weights, the higher the speeds, the greater the potential issues. On the other hand, I think the move to 600 kgs as a world standard would be a good thing. For standardization of planes & licences. I have never found that 80 hp was a problem at gross for any of my ultralights. But then I don't fly in the same temps. On the other hand, I have spent time fly at altitude in the mountains around here. No real problems. Geoff

Hi Ryan. I fly ultralights in Canada and Canadian rules are very restrictive for ultralight pilots from elsewhere. I can fly in the US under special permission (could do this even before Sport licence introduced) but other than that, not much else. Difficult to even get the various bodies to agree. The US Sport licence comes from the Canadian advanced ultralight rules but Canada will not follow suit (I asked) by making our rules same (ours are similar to Australia). I am heading off to Portugal to do a British ultralight licence in March to allow me to fly in most of Europe. And I am doing same in 2012 in Australia. I am hoping that the US Sport licence will eventually become a world standard but am not holding my breath. I have heard that Europe is trying to standardize on something similar to the Sport licence but not many details. I will have a better idea once I am in Europe. Geoff

Hi John. I am not completely sure of my schedule in Australia yet, but if I get the chance I will come & visit. I have not flown a Bush Caddy (the plane is mostly found in eastern Canada where it is made) and know very little about it (never seen one). I actually live 100 km north of Qualicum and have flown in there many times. I was a flight instructor and used it as part of my cross-country work. Nice airport, beautiful place. I think roughly equivalent to your Gold Coast in terms of retirement/beach environment. Very expensive area, very trendy. Who did you meet at the fly-in? I am just finishing up rebuilding my Rans (with a partner) after 4 years in storage. It has served me well over the years (used for training) but needed refreshing. Debating whether to sell & get another or keep it flying. Not sure yet. If I do keep it, I would like to put a new engine in and change the wing to the new Sport version. Take care. Geoff

Hi Frank. my dad was a commercial (bush) pilot so I have flown all my life, but I really became interested when ultralights in Canada evolved beyond the original Lazairs and others. I like my Rans although sometimes I would prefer a go fast CT or Tecnam or something like that. And at other times, perhaps a Savannah to get into short and tight spots. That is beautiful country you fly in. Where I live, on Vancouver Island, we live surrounded by water, with high mountains behind, and high mountains across on the mainland. Nice in our summer. Terrible (wet, windy, miserable) in the winter. Geoff

Hi William, I have been watching the weather in Australia (since I expect to be there next February 2012) and hoping that the Brisbane area will not be flooded when I finally get there. Bad enough that I can't fly much right now in Canada (plane is being rebuilt and weather has been terrible) but then it is winter here. What ultralights have you flown? Geoff

I'm a Canadian, been flying ultralights in western Canada for about 20 years, own a Rans S6S, and will be coming to Australia in 2012 for holiday and hopefully to take an Australia ultralight licence. Looking forward to flying at a time when when have few opportunities (right now it just finished snowing and the rains have come back with a vengeance).