Microlight Safety

[Bennie Vorster]

Microlight Safety
From "Aviation and Safety Magazine", edition 5, July 5005
Written by Barry Culligan
More often than not, when I mention that I fly a microlight, I am asked, "But isn't that so dangerous?" I have decided that it is time to try and answer this question comprehensively and to attempt to dispel some of the myths surrounding the safety of microlight aviation.
I must stress that I am doing so purely as an active microlight pilot, and not in any official capacity whatsoever, and that many of the views and arguments that I will put forward are either my own, or those of other pilots known to me. As regards the facts and statistics, I have taken these from the very comprehensive and interesting stats section on the CAA website at http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/ ... -total.pdf
I have been flying microlights for over 20 years, and I have seen enormous progress in the design and construction of various microlights, as well as in the training and administration of the sport. The newer machines are generally more reliable, more robust, much more stable, and fly much faster. In the old days before Rotax became the market leader in lightweight aviation engines, engine or other types of mechanical failure were not uncommon. Nowadays, to hear of someone having a non-pilot-induced engine failure is very rare.
The fact is that modern microlight aircraft and engines are extremely reliable and robust, and can generally be flown quite safely in the same conditions that a small light aircraft can handle.
The most important thing for any person flying a microlight to remember is the word microlight. The legal definition of a microlight is according to the CAA document SA-CATS-NTCA (SOUTH AFRICAN Civil Aviation Technical Standards SA-CATS-NTCA Non-Type Certificated Aircraft)
(1) For an aeroplane to be classified as a microlight aeroplane, the following perimeters need to be met:
(a) Minimum flying speed at maximum take-off mass to be less than 65 km/h;
(b) Maximum take-off mass of -
(i) 300 kg for a single-seater landplane;
(ii) 330 kg for a single-seater amphibian or seaplane;
(iii) 450 kg for a two-seater landplane; or
(iv) 495 kg for a two-seater amphibian or seaplane
This means we are dealing with very lightweight aircraft, and as such, they will be much more at the mercy of adverse weather than heavier or faster aircraft. If you fly in bad conditions, you are more likely to have an accident than a larger aircraft - period.
That having been said, it is much easier for a microlight to make an emergency or precautionary landing if required, due to their much slower approach and landing speed - a farm track, small field, or flat open space are usually quite adequate.
So why do these accidents happen?
I do not have complete statistics on the causes of accidents to back me up here, but I am confident that the vast majority of microlight accidents (probably of most light aircraft accidents) are caused by that famous and well known phenomenon, "Pilot Error" (PE).
PE can cover a whole host of sins, errors and omissions, but I think (in the case of microlights) the following are the most common causes of accidents and incidents;
Low flying - this is great fun and part of the sport of flying a microlight. But when one flies very low, all sorts of man made obstacles can get in the way. The most common and often quite hard to see obstruction is wire (power lines, telephone wires, or any other form of wire or cable).
Fuel management (or rather mismanagement) - even I have been guilty of this at times. Many microlights do not have a fuel gauge, and in some the pilot must select a fuel tank. Overlook your fuel checks, and the Rotax will become very quiet.
Poor pre-flight - I have often heard of and seen pilots forgetting to replace a fuel cap or such, or overlooking an obvious fault in the course of a pre-flight, with expensive results shortly after take off. A pilot can also be distracted by a mate or passenger in the course of a pre-flight, and then overlook some vital item.
Windgat syndrome - sometimes even the most cautious pilot can fly like a real asshole when he thinks he might be impressing someone on the ground.
In my opinion, there are three types of accidents;
Collisions - flying into an object (such as a power line, tree, other aircraft, model aircraft, bird etc). Generally this type of accident is bad news for the pilot, and sometimes fatal. Such accidents are mostly highly avoidable and unnecessary, and can only be attributed to PE.
Emergencies - an accident as a result of an emergency landing (engine failure being the most common cause of this). If the engine failure occurs while flying low, the pilot has a problem. In most cases if the aircraft has reasonable altitude, a safe emergency landing is possible, even if the aircraft suffers some damage. Also in most cases the engine will have failed due to some form of PE or fuel mismanagement.
Crashes - an accident in the course of attempting a normal power-on landing or take-off. These accidents are generally caused by inclement weather (gusting winds, wind shear, dust devils etc), or by wake turbulence (prop wash) on a calm day. These accidents, while often not caused directly by PE, can often be avoided by correctly reading the conditions and making provision for them.
I believe that microlights, like cars, motorbikes etc, are inherently very well designed, safe machines, until one adds the human element.
If a pilot stays within his/her capabilities and within the performance envelope of the aircraft, performs all recommended maintenance on time, has the aircraft properly inspected annually, and performs a thorough pre-flight inspection before each flight, he/she should never become an entry on the accident statistics.
Answers to frequent questions -
Are your fears unfounded? Absolutely. Microlighting is safe as any other sport or hobby if the pilot stays within his/her capabilities and within the performance envelope of the aircraft, performs all recommended maintenance on time, has the aircraft properly inspected annually, and performs a thorough pre-flight inspection before each flight.
Why do there appear to be so many microlight mishaps? I don't think there are so many. I can think of two or three serious microlight accidents this year off hand, but even more involving helicopters, light aircraft and gyro's. So I really believe this is a misconception.
Is it because microlighters fly at low level? Low flying has not caused an accident for some time that I am aware of. In the most recent case (this week) a pilot did fly into power lines, but that was while he was landing. But yes - it is fun to fly a microlight low level, but the pilot must exercise extreme caution while doing so. As you say, anyone who is flying low runs the risk of hitting wire, and quite often other aircraft (especially helicopters) do just that.
Is it because aircraft are built to lesser standards? In the early days, this might have been true. But most, if not all modern microlights made by a reputable manufacture conform to very exacting standards of safety and strength.
Are they perhaps safer than light aircraft? In many ways they are indeed, especially when it becomes necessary for whatever reason to perform a precautionary or emergency landing. The much lower flying speed is a huge advantage, and it is almost always possible to land a microlight safely with or without power.
Is this because of more abuse of the system by microlight pilots? This could be a possible problem as many microlighters do fly from private bush strips and might not keep proper radio procedures when flying. Also it would be easier to operate an microlight that does not have an authority to fly from such places. But otherwise I don't think microlighters abuse the system any more or any less than any other sector of aviation.
Statistics used but not published in the article
Statistics from CAA (Using 2004 figures)
Number of active pilots on CAA register
Total number of pilots 12,748
ML Microlight pilots 1,629 12.8%
PA Private pilots 4,925 38.63%

Total number if registered aircraft 8,822
Aeroplane - 1 piston engine 2,444 27.0%
Microlights 2,258 25.6%
LS1 amateur/experimental/gliders 1,359 15.4%
Others (including commercial) 2,761 32.0%

Accident statistics 2004
Total reported accidents 149
Number of fatal accidents 17
Number of fatalities 48

Accidents by sector 2004 (Total 149 accidents)
Large commercial ALTP 1 0.7%
Small commercial/charter 43 28.9%
Private operations (Part 01) 96 64.4%
Recreational/sport (Part91) 9 6.0%

Accidents by aircraft category 2004 (Total 149 accidents)
Aeroplanes and helicopters 107 71.8%
NTCA (LS1) 42 28.2% (Includes microlights, experimentals, gliders, ex-military aircraft etc)

There were 4,127 various aircraft on the NTCA (Non-type certified aircraft) register in 2004, of which 2,258 (or 55%) were microlights. If we take this 55% ratio, and say that of the 42 NTCA accidents in 2004, 23 were microlight accidents, this would work out that in 2004, 15% of the reported accidents were microlights.
As microlights comprise 25% of the total registered aircraft, this figure is not alarming.

[RudiGreyling]

Did the same a while ago:

Go read my posts over here, at the bottom of the page:
http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB2/viewtopic ... light=Rudi

Regards
Rudi