One key difference I see between something like this and an ultralight is the danger to people on the ground. A few thousand pounds moving at up to 200mph or so (potentially 300+ after structural failure) is a lot of kinetic energy.
Definitely not "key". On the ground fatalities are very rare, perhaps 1%-2% of all general aviation fatalities [1].
One massive restriction on ultralight airplanes is that you can't carry passengers. Again, on paper, because of risk, but it ends up having some controversial effects. If you want to occasionally carry passengers, as many pilots do, you can't fly a cheap, simple, light, and slow ultralight aircraft. No, the regulations push you to fly a more expensive, complex, heavier, and faster one that is type-certified, but requires higher skill and currency (regularly recurring flight experience) to operate safely.
Given that pilot error is far and away the main cause of general aviation crashes, that push does not seem very wise, safety-wise, even disregarding the question of costs.
> A few thousand pounds moving at up to 200mph or so (potentially 300+ after structural failure) is a lot of kinetic energy.
Also, FTR, Cessna 152, a type-certified two seater, weights 1670 lbs gross, cruises at 120mph, and if it ever hits the ground wrong, it very likely won't be because it broke up in mid-air and plummeted at terminal velocity onto someone's house, but because the pilot stalled it at low altitude while turning from base to final, crashing onto airport property or an empty field nearby.
> One massive restriction on ultralight airplanes is that you can't carry passengers. Again, on paper, because of risk, but it ends up having some controversial effects. If you want to occasionally carry passengers, as many pilots do, you can't fly a cheap, simple, light, and slow ultralight aircraft.
Ineresting. I get a ride as a passenger in an ultralight two-seater. The pilot was a Vietnam vet. It was in Virginia, and we overflew part of the Great Dismal Swamp, which has alligators.
Nice! If it was a two seater, it does not legally qualify as an ultralight in the US, see FAR 103.1(a) [1]. Back in the day, some older ultralights were designed with a very wide seat ("loveseat"), that physically but not legally allowed the pilot to take a passenger. Not sure if that's the case here. If the aircraft actually had two distinct seats, one clearly intended for a passenger, then it may have been a homebuilt aircraft, registered in the "experimental" category (FAR 21.191). Just like ultralights, these also operate without a type certificate, but upon completion of the build, the builder needs to provide a bunch of logs / photos / etc. documenting the construction process for the FAA to approve the aircraft for flights. Because such aircraft are designed to be built/assembled mostly (51%) by regular people (not at the factory), they often look very basic, just like proper ultralights, but they can be heavier, faster, carry passengers, etc.
I see, so thus guy was probably licensed to carry passengers. Thanks.
The seating arrangement was pilot in the front, passenger behind. When my son (about 8) get off his ride and was asked if he enjoyed it, he said "I prefer planes with doors".
I’m fairly certain there’s little difference between being hit by a 2 ton car going at 100mph and a 4 ton aircraft going at 200mph. Either way you splatter.
The clear difference is that cars have a limited, well known and clearly visible area where they are dangerous, planes could land on your face while you are having a picnic at the middle of the park.
