Talk:Ultralight aviation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Regarding this bit: "A common misconception is that ultralight pilots are poorly trained, whereas in reality the quality of ultralight pilots is easily the equal of "traditional" pilots, partly owing to the fact that ultralight pilots often fly more often than general aviation pilots, and partly because many ultralight pilots are also private pilots, and even, sometimes, airline pilots." This needs some attention by an ultralighter. The low/missing training regime means that ultralight pilots are likely to be less prepared for flight at their first solo. To generalize that they must obviously be as good if not better pilots then PPLs seems awfully optimistic. At the very least, it seems to be an odd assumption. Chairboy 29 June 2005 02:35 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to discuss the same exact phrase - sounds awfully POV to me :) -Lance 29 June 2005 17:45 (UTC)

One of us should get the energy up to fix it. Not it. :) Chairboy 29 June 2005 20:32 (UTC)

Someone just rewrote the section in question, and it's quite a bit better. It's probably not unreasonable that the average ultralight'er might be more experienced then the average GA'er at this point, especially with the way the point was presented. As a general aviation pilot, I envy the casual 'Let's go fly why not' flexibility you ultralight guys have. See ya in the sky, please don't bust into the pattern with your NORDO kite when I'm turning final.  :) Chairboy 6 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Light-sport aircraft

Ultralight, microlight and light-sport aircraft are all similar enough that they should have a single page that lists them, but are different enough that each country's version of each should have a separate page. An example of this would be Pilot licensing and certification, which further links to Pilot certification in the United States, Pilot licensing in Canada and Pilot licensing in the United Kingdom.

Perhaps a single page of Light aircraft which links to Light aircraft in the United States, which then links to Ultralight aircraft (United States) and Light-sport aircraft (United States) (although that specific title might be overkill). Rinse and repeat for other countries. McNeight 02:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ultralight/microlight and light-sport aircraft are not similiar enough to each other to warrant merging, and in fact the whole point of LSA is to provide an option above ultralight/microlight aviation in this country. Please refer to the pertient Federal Aviation Regulations regarding ultralight and light sport aircraft for futher details. 24.9.10.235 03:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And which country are you referring to? Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my earlier statement, but what is considered a light-sport aircraft in the US is considered an ultralight in the UK and a microlight in New Zealand. Exact same airplane, three different categories. I tend to be a mergist in general, but with this article it seems as though there is too much generalization and ambiguity about which country has which definition.
  • What I am advocating is a "merge and separate" for all light aircraft. One meta-page to list out the different definitions and then branch from there to dedicated pages about specific categories in specific countries. McNeight 03:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
    • FAR 103 Ultralights and "Light Sport Aircraft" (both in the US) are very different and warrant their own pages. There are so many legal definitions of various light aircraft in so many different countries that they could not practically fit in one entry. However, I like the idea of a "light aviation" meta page that would guide readers to more specialized pages. Rescher 21:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The Piper Cub is considered an ultralight in the UK? I think there may be a misunderstanding about the nature of what the nature of LSA is. A See Also link to Ultralights would be entirely appropriate, merging the two would not. CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC) (Pilot)
      • While the Piper Cub does not meet the specifications for a microlight in the UK, it does come very close. See http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=393&pagetype=90&pageid=1474 for the definition of a microlight by the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority. McNeight 23:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (Cub Pilot)

[edit] Not everything under 'Ultralight aviation' falls under trike

This may seem like spam, but I can only think of 1 example. Nausicaa [1]

• Agreed Removing merge proposal tag. Alan.ca 11:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)