ARE MICROLIGHTS DANGEROUS

[John Boucher]

Some okes have seen their backside in powered chutes big time - The same goes for parachutes, hang-gliders, trikes, microlights, ultralights, bliks, composites & heavy's

Here is my humble advice.... FLYING IS A PASSION (a job for some with a passion!) You either have it or you don't. If you enjoyed your experience the persue your passion!

Some okes prefer sitting in the recliner watching Glenn Dell throw his Red Bull aerie around thinking what an idiot - who would do such a crazy sport.....?

NEXT THING - THE OKE PASSES A KIDNEY STONE, PISSES IN PANTS WITH PAIN GETS A FRIGHT OF HIS LIFE HAS A HEART ATTACK & HAS THE RIDE OF HIS LIFE IN THE AMBULANCE TO SOWETO AFTER IT GETS HI-JACKED ON ITS WAY TO THE HOSPITAL AND HE DREAMS OF HAVING BEEN DAVID COULTHARD RACING DOWN THE TRACK IN A FORMULA 1 CAR, FINISHING ON THE PODIUM (if ever) AND WALKS TO HIS JET AND FLIES OFF INTO THE SUNSET..... AND THEN EVERYTHING WENT BLACK BECAUSE ESCOM DID SOME LOAD SHEDDING - OR SO HE THINKS - THIS POOR HAPPLESS SOUL KICKED THE BUCKET!

The only passion he had was flipping the channels as he was the KING of REMOTES!

[slysi]

It is interesting that the issue of structural failure has been raised. I guess this is to be expected given that we have two fairly recent examples of wing failure.

My question however is that surely this happens in fixed wing aeries as well? We have had a recent example of losing a prop and last year an aerie losing its engine mid flight.

So my point is that I doubt structural failure is specific to trikes. But in any event I would fit a BRS just in case.

[pietmeyer]

The only times that I found microlights to be dangerous is when you say "Honey, I will be back in 5 minutes. Just going to the hangar to get something" and you return 4 hours later with a big grin on your face and a few extra hours on the log. Then it is extremely dangerous. Other than that, it is as safe as crossing the road. It all comes down to being responsible, with the wife that is.
Go fly

[Wargames]

The only times that I found microlights to be dangerous is when you say "Honey, I will be back in 5 minutes. Just going to the hangar to get something" and you return 4 hours later with a big grin on your face and a few extra hours on the log. Then it is extremely dangerous. Other than that, it is as safe as crossing the road. It all comes down to being responsible, with the wife that is.
Go fly

Hi Piet,

I don't understand what you mean. Sometime my wife wants to burn my trike to the ground, and other times she wants to throw it into the see . And I just cant understand why!!

[John Boucher]

We'll discuss this later today Wargames....

Of course MICROLIGHTS are dangerous - so is waking up in the morning, breathing, getting married, going to work, returning from work etc.

[Morph]

Any machine that takes man away from the safe zone (typically his bed) has the propensity to kill you.

As far as chutes go, there have been many discussions on this forum. It really comes down to piece of mind. If you or your softness are more comfortable having a chute then by all means do it. Just do not believe that it is a save all device. The chute works when you have a catastrophic failure, and you have enough time to get to the lever and pull it i.e. you are flying high. There is a debate as to whether you will be able to activate it when in a tumble, due to massive G-forces.

Your chances of catastrophic failure, during normal flying circumstances (this last accident in Natal is far from normal, considering the age, abuse, flying style, etc that the trike was subjected to) are extremely rare. Your big killers are fuel mismanagement, low level flight into powerlines, and for the 3-axis guys, the last turn onto final, cross controlling and resulting in an insipient spin. All are avoidable, but due to the close proximity to the ground a parachute is useless.

I don't have a parachute.

[Papillon]

That is the problem that I have with microlights- For that reason of risk of structural wing failure I have decided on the powered parachute- no structure in the wing for possible failure. Pros and cons to both types.

Just my humble opinion.

I used to fly powered paragliders (PPG) for some time before opting to fly trikes. Had my fair share of scares and close calls but also had some very rewarding hours in the air. I know of more paraglider tragedies than trikes. Although strictly no structural failures on paragliders - don't fool yourself because that piece of cloth over your head can get rather boisterous sometimes and without active pilot input or sufficient height, trouble is inevitable.
I'm sure the "powered chute" - with the weightier trike undercarriage and less "performance" wing is probably very stable. I just found that waiting for the weather windows to be able to fly and then those from being flyable to unflyable were very frustrating. In this regard they're quite limiting.
With trikes or microlights - fly further, more often, - and as for structural failure risk - if the aircraft is maintained as required and flown within its limits, the risk of structural failure is pretty much negligable. They're well built and pretty safe IMHO.

[John Boucher]

I agree...

Different strokes for different folks - you have to do what you feel safe and confident in!

[Morph]

Remember trikes are designed typically to +6-3 G's. This means that the wing and airframe are capable of handling up to 6 times the max weight of the aircraft (450kg X 6 = 2700kg) and 3 times in the negative. Positive g's are when you feel heavier, i.e. you are pulling out of a dive, in a tight turn etc. Negative g's are when you feel lighter.

These g'ratings are very similar to a Harvard for example, which is used to aerobatic training.

The planes are incredibly tough and can take much more than the pilot can.

Also in normal flight it is extremely rare to even pull 2 G's, let alone 6. The safety margin is huge. So even in the worst possible turbulance, as long as you can maintain control over the aircraft, as uncomfortable as it feels, she can still safely fly.

The secret is to learn to identify dangerous situations and conditions and to avoid them where possible. However is you are caught in huge thumping turbulance feel comfortable that the plane will not break.

[Papillon]

Also in normal flight it is extremely rare to even pull 2 G's, let alone 6. The safety margin is huge. So even in the worst possible turbulance, as long as you can maintain control over the aircraft, as uncomfortable as it feels, she can still safely fly.

However is you are caught in huge thumping turbulance feel comfortable that the plane will not break.

I agree 100%!

I think that it would be found - if it could be properly investigated - that in probably all, or close to all of the cases in which structural failure is deemed responsible......... that structural failure actually results from (and therefore is not the cause of the crash) one or more of 3 things:
Poor maintenance
Negligence or misuse
Really bad conditions

My 2c

[John Boucher]

The FOUR main factors in GA CRASHES...

FUEL MANAGEMENT

CFIT - CONTROLLED FLIGHT INTO TERRAIN

WEATHER - FLYING INTO IMC / STORMS / SEVERE WIND etc.

FATIGUE

And the stats are very similar all over the world!

[Thatchman]

Ok so let me summarise and then we can put this one to bed.

Microlighting is only dangerous if you crash. Other than that it is a whole lot of fun.

Live life or be a boring old F#ck.

[Gaylord Focker]

What a choice of words

REILLY FOR PRESIDENT

Reilly my Boyie you rule

Gaylord Fokker

[Dish]

NO Gaylord - YOU rule - go and see the thread wednesday funny (by me) - Reilly wants me to ZAP you at NUMBI...

ha ha -

Like a bug in the light Choina....

Apologies for hijacking the thread - yes microlights are safe - so i didnt Reilly hijack it

ha ha - im in a weird mood this morning - who knew