|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
PUFA NEWSLETTER
 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
October 20, 1997
Jeff Rochon, President
Bernie Strotmann, Vice-President
Ken Buck, Treasurer
Glenn Ursel, Secretary
Mail to: Pacific Ultralight Flying Association
102-16071 82 Avenue
Surrey, B.C. V3S 2L6
PUFA Newsletter published by Glenn Ursel
I just returned from Ottawa and the meeting hosted by COPA. The reason for the meeting was COPA's possible increased involvement in the Ultralight industry. Also several issues which had previously been tabled at a CARAC meeting were on the agenda. These issues had not been resolved at the previous CARAC meetings although they were far along the process of implementation. COPA hoped to have some consensus concerning these passenger carrying and related proposals in order to push them through.
I arrived in Ottawa on Friday night and checked in to my hotel. Some other attendees were gathered in COPA Secretary Treasurer Herb Cunningham's suite for refreshments. I attended and met most of the other guests of the meeting including Kathy Lubitz, new President of UPAC.
The meeting convened the next morning at 10 o'clock. These are a few of my observations.
We were given an overview of how the CARAC process worked by Lindsay Cadenhead who stated that any flying group (sport, ultralight, commercial, conventional, balloon, even powered hang gliders) can have input in the Aviation regs (how about more seat room on those jets?).
On the COPA verses UPAC question, it was evident that some old conflicts between the clubs were unresolved with accusations running back and forth. Some of it went over my head. COPA said UPAC did not have a consensus among their members on passenger carrying. UPAC said COPA did not help inthe negotiation process at the last CARAC meeting and have not represented ultralighters that are already COPA members. COPA countered by accusing UPAC of being splintered internally in their last negotiations with CARAC on the various matters. UPAC president Kathy Luhitz shot back that neither CARAC or Transport Canada were abiding by their own arbitration structures.
COPA asked our delegates if their involvement as some sort of umbrella role, or in forming a ultralight division, would he welcomed. I stated that UPAC should be given an opportunity to carry on in the negotiations with CARAC and Transport Canada and that COPA was not the club to best represent ultralights. The majority of delegates did not agree. COPA has decided to meet officially and decide whether they wish to involve themselves in the ultralight picture in a more substantial way.
On the passenger carrying issue and RPP equivalency training, there was agreement from the strong air school representation that the plan be put into effect. UPAC thought the proposals were far too sweeping and needed much reduction in their scope.
The only delegate to actually put forth a detailed plan on this issue was Claude Roy, president of the Challenger Assn. (members 100). Note: While Roy's group is not a school, they favoured much of the original proposal as well as inspections of ultralights for carrying of passengers. They also endorsed multi-tiered Commercial Instruction. I was told that the club was comprised of 80% private pilots wanting the passenger carrying privilege on ultralights.
Transport Canada representative Arlo (...?) went on at great length about how nothing in the CARAC rules are written in stone and we should not create road blocks for ourself. My take on this is, if we want to input our points of view, we should not necessarily draw on existing rules as precedent. Example: 25 hours of training for the RPP on conventional aircraft does not necessarily mean 25 hours for the RPP on ultralights in order to carry a passenger.
Medicals were not on the agenda...very little was said on the subject. No motions other than adjournment were made. No committees were struck.
I came away from the meeting with the distinct feeling that events at the meeting had been somewhat orchestrated by COPA. I have heard it said that, if the full picture was presented to the separatist movement in Quebec on the results of separation, there probably would not even be another referendum. Similarly, if the average ultralight pilot could use a crystal ball and see the future on the ramifications of passenger carrying etc., I believe he/she might prefer the status quo. However it will probably all happen. We might be able to slow the juggernaut but stop it?...See you at the next PUfA meeting.
Final note: How ironic that the single most complained about issue in the recreational area was too much regulation!
This issue of the PUFA Newsletter is again devoted to the passenger carrying privilege for ultralight pilots and the COPA sponsored meeting in Ottawa on September 27th, 1997 which was attended by the delegates listed in Herb Cunningham's faxed invitation published in last month's issue of the PUFA Newsletter. Because some of the points Herb raised in his fax may have been misleading, I have included Kathy Lubitz' reply published on the Internet last month.
Since both Jeff Rochon's comments above and Kathy Lubitz' following assessment on the COPA meeting do not indicate a very clear consensus on the ultralight passenger carrying issue, I have tried to sift through the most pertinent papers published on the internet to try to bring some focus to the proposals. Accordingly, I have included the paper by Claude Roy of the International Challenger Owners Association (ICOA Canada) which Jeff mentions as being presented at the meeting on proposals for carrying passengers in ultralight aeroplanes. Following the ICOA paper, I have inserted the previous UPAC proposal on the same issue as presented at a meeting of the Recreational Working Group meeting on November 16th, 1996. Finally, I include UPAC President Kathy Lubitz' review of the September 27th COPA meeting and her assessment of the discussions.
If you can manage to wade through this material, it would facilitate discussion of this issue at this month's meeting on October 29th. I suggest you bring this newsletter to the meeting for reference.
As most of you know by now, Bob Christen crashed his Rans Courier at
approximately 3 pm on Monday, October 13th after striking a power line
during a landing approach. Amazingly, he phoned me from the hospital
on Saturday, October 18th to thank those of us who helped him at the scene.
We offer our heartfelt wishes to him for a speedy
recovery.
Kathy Lubitz' Response to Assertions in COPA Invitation to September
27th Meeting in
Ottawa
I do not want to discuss all of the specifics of Mr. Cunningham's letter. My memories of the events are quite different than his. However, there are a few points Mr. Cunningham makes that are very misleading and deserve comment now.
I can tell you that even though UPAC's representatives changed, UPAC's efforts to protect the relatively free flying environment we enjoy have not. The implication of the President resigning and a director being hospitalized is that UPAC can no longer function. This is not so! UPAC had a successful AGM on August 16th with Vice-President Mike Collins in the chair. The Board of Directors has the full complement of 8 and it will be electing officers at the meeting on September 12th. (UPAC's web page has been updated.)
It is true that we have done nothing since April. This was at the request of Transport Canada to give System Safety time to complete its review of the risk of passenger carrying in ultralights. The delay is theirs not ours. This review is still not finished. The basic difference between UPAC's position and the "industry" (including TC) position is the amount of risk to the passenger. UPAC believes there is minimal risk; TC believes it to be much higher. Maybe System Safety can more accurately define the level of risk. That is why the safety review was requested by the CARAC Part IV Chair, Mr. Ray Rohr. Once the safety review is finished, meetings will be scheduled where hopefully a proposal will be developed that can go to CARAC.
We are aware that we need the cooperation of the rest of the aviation community but we will not agree to any proposal that could be detrimental to the ultralight community. The passenger carrying endorsement is supposed to be "in addition to" the present training requirements, but little changes keep showing up that will affect the current regulations. The "status quo" is continually being threatened (see agenda item 6.c. for example). We see it as an accomplishment that we have maintained the status quo.
And no, we never said that it was beyond the capabilities of ultralight pilots to demonstrate knowledge or skill similar to the RPP holder. We only stated that is was unnecessary for ultralight pilots who are limited to aircraft that have a gross weight of 1200 lb or less and a stall speed of 45 mph or less to have the same requirements as the RPP holder who can fly aircraft up to 12,000 lb with a stall speed higher than 60 mph.
If you would like any further clarification of the above or any other point Mr. Cunningham raises, please let me know. Thanks,
Kathy Lubitz
ICOA Canada Proposal for Passenger Carrying Endorsement, Pilot Permit - Ultralight Aeroplane
1) Prerequisite
An applicant shall hold a Pilot Permit - Ultralight
Aeroplane.
2) Medical Fitness and Validity
(a) An applicant shall hold a Category 4 Medical Certificate
valid for a Pilot Permit - Recreational
Aeroplane.
(b) An applicant who meets the medical conditions specified on
the Civil Aviation Medical
Declaration and has signed it shall
be deemed to have met the Category 4 Medical Standards,
providing a physician licensed to practise
medicine in Canada has signed Part C of the
declaration.
(c) The medical validity period for endorsement under 40 years
of age is 60 months and for an
endorsement holder 40 years of age or
over, is 24 months.
(d) The endorsement is maintained by a valid Category 1, 3 or
4 Medical Certificate.
3) Knowledge
An applicant shall receive an additional 5 hours
of dual training concentrating solely on applying
all appropriate techniques to safely fly an ultralight
with non-paying passengers.
4) Experience
An applicant shall have completed a minimum of 25
hours flight time aboard ultralight
aeroplanes. The flight time shall include
a minimum of:
(a) 15 hours dual instruction flight time, including a minimum of 2
hours cross country flight time
with a cross country of two legs of a minimum
of 30 minutes each, and
(b) 5 hours solo flight time.
5) Skill
An applicant shall complete a flight test aboard an
ultralight aeroplane. The flight test will be at
least 30 minutes in duration and will assess the capability
of the applicant to safely fly with a
passenger aboard an ultralight. Upon successful
completion of the flight test, an applicant shall
have his/her logbook certified by the holder of
a Flight Instructor Rating - Ultralight Aeroplane
authorized to conduct passenger carrying endorsement.
The certification will state that the
applicant has demonstrated the ability to perform
both normal and emergency manoeuvres
appropriate to the passenger carrying endorsement
on the Pilot Permit - Ultralight Aeroplane.
6) Credits
(a) The knowledge requirement shall be deemed to
have been met if the applicant has within
the preceding five years passed with
success a General Aviation Ground School course or a
written examination for Pilot Permit
- Recreational Aeroplane (RPPAE)
(b) The knowledge and experience requirements shall be deemed
to have been met if the
applicant holds, or has held within
the preceding two years a Recreational Pilot Permit (RPP)
and has a minimum of 10 hours of flight
time aboard ultralight aeroplanes, including a
minimum of 2 hours of dual instruction
and a minimum of 5 hours solo flight time.
(c) The knowledge, experience and skill requirements shall be
deemed to have been met if the
applicant holds, of has held within
the preceding two years a Canadian Pilot Licence -
Aeroplane or Helicopter and has a minimum
of 10 hours on flight time aboard ultralight
aeroplanes, including a minimum of 2
hours of dual instruction and a minimum of 5 hours solo
flight time.
7) Period of Validity
The passenger carrying endorsement is maintained
by a valid Pilot Permit - Ultralight
Aeroplane.
No change with present regulations.
Flight Instructor Rating - Ultralight Aeroplane -Authorization to Conduct Passenger Carrying Endorsement Training Proposal by ICOA Canada
1) Prerequisite
An applicant shall hold a valid Flight Instructor Rating
- Ultralight Aeroplane.
2) Medical Fitness
An applicant shall hold a Category 3 Medical Certificate.
3) Knowledge
If they have not already done so, an applicant shall
have passed, with success, a General
Aviation Ground School Course or a written examination
for Pilot Permit - Recreational
Aeroplane (RPPAE).
4) Experience
The applicant shall have acquired no less then 100
hours (200 to 250 debated at COPA
meeting) of flight experience aboard ultralight aeroplanes.
5) Skill
An applicant shall have his logbook certified by the
holder of a Flight Instructor Rating -
Ultralight Aeroplane authorized to conduct passenger
carrying endorsement certifying that the
applicant has demonstrated the ability to perform and
instruct both normal and emergency
manoeuvres appropriate to the passenger carrying endorsement
on the Pilot Permit - Ultralight
Aeroplane.
6) Credits
(a) The knowledge requirement shall be deemed to have been met
if the applicant holds, or has
held within the preceding 5 years, a
permit or licence in any other category of aircraft
(b) The knowledge and experience requirements shall be deemed
to have been met if the
applicant holds, or has held within
the preceding 5 years, a Pilot Licence - Aeroplane or
Helicopter and has a minimum of 50 hours
of flight time in ultralight aeroplanes.
(c) The knowledge, experience and skill requirements shall be
deemed to have been met if the
applicant holds, or has held within
the preceding 2 years, a Flight Instructor Rating - Aeroplane
or Helicopter and has a minimum of 20
hours of flight time in ultralight aeroplanes, including a
minimum of 2 hours dual instruction
flight time and a minimum of 10 hours solo flight time.
7) Period of Validity
(a) The authorization to conduct passenger carrying endorsement
is maintained by a valid
Instructor Rating - Ultralight Aeroplane.
(b) The requirement for a letter of recommendation for renewal
of the Instructor Rating -
Ultralight Aeroplane can be satisfied
by a successful instructor renewal flight test in the
aeroplane or helicopter category
aircraft.
UPAC Review of the Recreational Working Group meeting November 14, 1996 concerning the Passenger Carrying Proposals for the holders of the Pilot Permit - Ultralight Aeroplane. Discussion since then has meant slight modifications:
Introduction
Passenger carrying in the Ultralight aeroplane is currently not allowed. With the new weights and the Advanced Ultralight Aeroplane being shifted into the "I" category aircraft, passenger carrying in the basic ultralight aeroplane category is a possibility. Besides the approval of the ultralight aeroplane for passenger carrying, there is the requirement that the Ultralight Pilot must certified for passenger carrying.
Safety Data
"There is ... a demand among ... the ultralight community to occasionally take family or friends for a flight. The current ultralight accident record does not justify prohibiting passengers, and would tend to indicate that carrying passengers under the status quo would not involve any significant risk to the public." (From the 1993 NRAC report) The current ultralight safety record is better than that of general recreational aviation.
The current training for the Pilot Permit - Ultralight Aeroplane and the Flight Instructor Rating - Ultralight Aeroplane (formerly the CPL-UL) has not resulted in any increase in hazard. Between 1990 and 1995, only 40% of ultralight accidents were caused by ultralight pilots. In fact 42% are caused by pilots with a higher licence and a history of conventional flight training.
There is no correlation between the ultralight accident rate and the ultralight licence. More ultralight accidents are caused by pilots with conventional training. If the training of the ultralight pilot was an issue, the correlation would be positive; that is, most ultralight accidents would be caused by ultralight pilots. This is clearly not the case. The standard of ultralight training has little bearing on the accident rate of ultralights. (Even though licence information is available for only half of the accidents, it is significant that no clear trend was seen.) There is an argument that the statistics aren't relevant, that a lot of ultralight accidents go unreported. That can be also said of general aviation accidents. The accidents that go unreported are those that are of a minor nature, where there is minimal damage or injury. If the statistics are not valid for ultralights, then the statistics for general aviation are equally invalid.
Ultralight Environment
The Ultralight Flight Instructor trains for the Ultralight environment; that is, little aeroplanes that are limited in weight (under 1,200 lb.) and performance. The conventional Flight Instructor trains for the general aviation environment; that is conventional light aircraft (under 12,500 lb.) that have wide variations in performance and capacity, i.e. small turbine jet aircraft to 2 place light recreational aircraft. Therefore, the conventional instructor program is, by necessity complicated because it addresses a complex environment. (Note: the aircraft weight alone is a tenfold increase) The simplicity of the ultralight operational requirements is reflected in the simplicity of requirements for the ultralight pilot and instructor. The appeal of ultralight flying is the low technology, "back to basics," "seat of the pants," flying away from busy airports and control zones. Because of the light weight and wing loading, ultralights are moreweather sensitive than the bigger heavier aircraft.
Current Situation
Most ultralights pilots own their own aircraft and have a vested interest in keeping it in a safe and sound flying condition. Typical ultralight pilots are middle aged, with enough disposable income to finally fulfill a childhood dream. They are responsible, established business men and women who, contrary to popular opinion, are not crazy and do not have a death wish.
Currently, the Flight Instructor Rating - Ultralight Aeroplane requirements can be divided into two components, handling the aeroplane and instructing the student. The aircraft handling component is addressed by the requirement to obtain 50 hours flight time in an ultralight aeroplane. The instructional component is the requirement for a ground school and exam (FITEN) on instructional techniques, as well as 5 hours of dual flight time on instructional techniques. With this rating, the Ultralight Instructor can demonstrate ultralight flying to prospective students as well as providing flight training. He provides training for the Pilot Permit -Ultralight Aeroplane and for the Flight Instructor Rating - Ultralight Aeroplane. This situation that has been in place for over 10 years and has resulted in the safety statistics cited above. In discussion with local Transport Canada personnel, there is general agreement that a flight training applicant is not officially a student until he is issued his Student Pilot Permit. One official insisted that the Student Pilot Permit is required before an Ultralight Flight Instructor can do a demonstration flight. Normally, the Student Pilot Permit is not issued until after several hours of training, and the student is ready to go solo. Before that he has spent several hours as a "passenger" (for instruction only) in a dual control ultralight. Therefore, there has been a de facto safety record for passenger carrying in ultralight aeroplanes for over 10 years. Transport knows that passenger carrying by ultralight pilots has been going on for years. In spite of this, the safety record for ultralight accidents is better than for general recreational aviation. This further reinforces the de facto safety record for passenger carrying by ultralight pilots.
Previous Discussions
The Recreational Aviation Working Group and the Technical Steering Committee have been working on proposals for the passenger carrying ultralight licence for over a year. The stepping stone approach to licensing was initially favoured but was dropped because the ICOA standards for instructors and flight time credits could not be guaranteed. It was agreed that an ultralight solution, divorced from the ICOA professional licensing stream, was the best approach..
Transport's Draft Proposal
The draft proposal for Passenger Endorsement for the Pilot Permit - Ultralight Aeroplane is a mirror of the Pilot Permit - Recreational Aeroplane requirements. In spite of the safety record of ultralight pilots, Transport has repeatedly stated that the minimum "comfort level"for passenger carrying is the Pilot Permit - Recreational Aeroplane. The proposals also detail a "Flight Instructor Rating - Ultralight Aeroplane - Authorization to Conduct Passenger Carrying Endorsement Training." This creates two levels of Ultralight flight instructors. This mirrors the conventional flight training with multiple levels of instructors. It is curious that the proposal requires more dual and more knowledge to carry passengers than is presently required for the ultralight instructor. Transport would certainly agree that providing flight training requires more skill and experience than that required for passenger carrying.
The instructor must not only be able to fly the aeroplane with a second person on board, he must also recognize and be able to recover from any situation in which the student may place the aircraft.
Since the safety record does not indicate a problem with the current requirements for Flight Instructor Rating - Ultralight Aeroplane, UPAC views the proposed requirements for the Flight Instructor Rating - Ultralight Aeroplane - Authorization to Conduct Passenger Carrying Endorsement Training as excessive and unworkable, and as unnecessary when considering the ultralight safety record and environment.
The requirement for excessive experience, 250 hours of flight training experience, becomes a means of effectively limiting competition and discourages the revitalization of recreational aviation that Transport is encouraging. Because of Canada's geography and distance between ultralight schools and the dearth of instructors who would qualify for this "super" instructor, it may impossible for an applicant to get his certification.
UPAC's Proposal
In the interests of safety and simplicity, UPAC proposes the following stepping stone approach to the Ultralight permits:
The Pilot Permit - Ultralight Aeroplane
Knowledge: ground school, pre-solo exam, and 90% on the DOT exam ULTRA.
Experience: minimum 10 hour (with not less than 5 dual and 2 solo,
including 30 takeoffs and landings with 10 solo).
Skill: demonstrated ability certified by the holder of a Flight Instructor
- Ultralight Aeroplane.
The Passenger Carrying Endorsement - Ultralight Aeroplane
Prerequisite: the current Pilot Permit - Ultralight Aeroplane.
Experience: 50 hours flight time with 25 solo certified in log book.
Knowledge: 5 hours of review including not less than 2 hours of flight
time, i.e. a check ride.
Skill: demonstrated ability certified by the holder of a Flight Instructor
- Ultralight Aeroplane.
The Flight Instructor Rating - Ultralight Aeroplane
Prerequisite: the Pilot Permit - Ultralight Aeroplane endorsed for passenger
carrying.
Knowledge: 10 hours of ground training on instructional techniques
and 80% on the DOT exam FITEN.
Experience: 5 flight hours of dual on instructional techniques.
Skill: demonstrated ability certified by the holder of a Flight Instructor
- Ultralight Aeroplane.
UPAC's approach is simple and safe. The statistics justify this approach. The ultralight community was promised an Ultralight Solution. Mirroring conventional training ignores the ultralight environment and imposes unnecessary burdens on the applicant. If fulfilling the requirements to carry passengers is seen as onerous and excessive, there will be little call for it. (An example is the unsuccessful Recreational Pilot Permit in the United States where the tether made the license too restrictive.) Transport has repeatedly stated that the minimum "comfort level" for passenger carrying is the Pilot Permit - Recreational Aeroplane. UPAC requests that this position be revisited.
In light of the safety record, it seems that anecdotal evidence is determining this totally arbitrary, unquantifiable "comfort level." Anecdotal evidence can be found to support any position, but the statistics show that ultralight flying is safer than general aviation. Remember, according to the TSB data there is no correlation between the ultralight accidents and the ultralight licence.
Regulation must be justified by performance and safety requirements. Regulation should not be driven by arbitrary personal feelings of comfort no matter how wide spread. The simplicity of the approach means that most pilots would fulfill the requirements for legal passenger carrying. If the more complicated approach is used, and the fulfillment of the requirements become difficult or impossible for lack of "super" instructors, ultralight pilots will continue to carry passengers illegally.
We realize that this is only a proposal. We need your feedback as ultralight pilots. Do you agree with this proposal or with Transport's? UPAC takes its direction from its members, so let us know what you think. EMail us directly at elubitz@ionline.net
Kathy Lubitz
November 14, 1996
COPA's Ultralight Meeting
On September 27, 1997, the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association (COPA) sponsored a meeting of leading members of the ultralight community and officials of the Ultralight Pilots Association of Canada (UPAC) in Ottawa. The meeting was called to discuss issues facing ultralight operators and how to best present recommendations to Transport Canada. Herb Cunningham, Secretary Treasurer of COPA, first offered some background for the meeting. He listed the accomplishments of the last three years, including the Recreational Pilot Permit, aerobatics in approved amateur-builts, IFR in approved amateur-builts, the 1200 lb.Ultralight, the proposed reclassification of certified aeroplanes, and the operation of ex-military aircraft in Canada. These were accomplished because of the cooperation of the government and the "industry."
One issue that remains unresolved is that of passenger carrying by ultralight pilots in ultralight aeroplanes.
In the invitation to the meeting, Mr. Cunningham states, "For the past year, I have had concerns about the ability of UPAC to properly represent the interests of ultralight pilots, many of whom are COPA members." He further states, "COPA's purpose in organising this meeting and paying the expenses of those attending is to decide what COPA should be doing to represent our many members who are a part of this important segment of our recreational aviation community."
Item 4 on the agenda was, "A discussion as to whether UPAC is the best organisation to represent ultralight enthusiasts or whether another group or committee should be formed."
(Mr. Cunningham's faxed invitation was published in last month's PUFA Newsletter and UPAC's reply precedes the ICOA proposal above.)
COPA as the umbrella organisation
Mr. Psutka, manager of COPA, stated that the ultralight community is fragmented and is being represented by too many groups. This is not an efficient use of resources. There should be only one organisation representing ultralight pilots. He offered COPA as that organisation.
However, it is the members of the organisations who decide which groups to belong to and why. Many of us belong to more than one organisation. The reason is that we get something different from each one. It may not be efficient, but it's what the members want. If COPA wants to represent ultralight pilots, that is COPA's choice, but that does not mean that the other groups will cease to exist.
The irony here is that COPA adds yet one more organisation to the list claiming to represent ultralight pilots.
UPAC's position on the issue of ultralight representation:
UPAC is the only national organisation which has been representing
ultralight pilots in Ottawa. There are other regional or local
ultralight pilot organisations; some of them agree with UPAC's
position, some of them do not. All of UPAC's members are ultralight
pilots; we do not try to represent general aviation pilots. Our focus
is exclusively ultralight pilots and ultralight activity.
UPAC has gone to its members and to the ultralight community in general
to get feedback.
This meeting was sponsored by COPA to discuss whether COPA
should start to actively represent its members who are ultralight
pilots. The attendees at the meeting were invited by COPA and the
majority of them are COPA members. UPAC sees this meeting is
a discussion between COPA members and the COPA board.
UPAC does not advise COPA on whether or not to represent its ultralight
members. COPA has always had ultralight pilot members; the fact that
until now it had not represented them has nothing to do with
UPAC.
The decisions reached at this meeting will have no impact on UPAC
and how the directors run the organization. UPAC directors
are accountable to UPAC members not to COPA members or the COPA board.
Results of the meeting:
There was consensus around the table that COPA could represent
its ultralight pilots. The COPA Board members acknowledged
that they do not have any background in ultralights and that they
will have to get some people involved who have that expertise.
The possibility of hiring someone to head a division was floated.
Jim Snow will have discussions with the COPA Executive to decide
how that representation will work and how many resources can be devoted
to it.
The COPA executive acknowledged that they have no way
of knowing which of their members areultralight pilots. To find out
what their ultralight members want, they will put a questionaire
in the COPA Flight and go by the responses received. However, there
is no guarantee that the responses are from ultralight pilots.
Another point made Mr. Psutka is that the COPA board will listen
to the wishes of the majority of its members, not necessarily its
ultralight members.
Herb Cunningham, president of the Canadian Sport Aviation
Council (CSAC), pronounced that CSAC was not going to be an effective
organization; in effect, CSAC is dead. This statement was made
during discussion of the process that the passenger carrying
proposals were supposed to follow. (For clarification, the proposals
were supposed to go to Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council
(CARAC) from CSAC after the CSAC members reached agreement.)
It was unanimously agreed by the COPA members around the table,
that some ultralight pilots want to carry passengers. It was
also unanimously agreed that passenger carrying would be an "add
on" to the existing pilot documents and that there would be no change
for UL pilots or instructors who do not want to carry passengers
(that the current ultralight permits and instructors would remain
the same).
There was agreement to start discussing the additional requirements
for the pilots and for the aircraft. It was too early to determine
just what those requirements would end up being; there would have to be
input from COPA's ultralight pilots.
There is a feeling among some COPA members that ultralights are "proper little airplanes" and therefore the operators of these ultralights must conform to the same regulations as conventional airplanes and pilots.
Personal thoughts on the meeting
As President of UPAC and a COPA member, I hope that COPA will take this
challenge and start to represent the ultralight pilots it already has as
members. If the COPA board really listens to its ultralight members,
then UPAC may
have an ally in Ottawa.
If you are an ultralight pilot and a COPA member, it is vitally important that you let COPA know where you stand. Go back through the older issues of the COPA Flight to refresh your memory of the issues and then write to COPA to let them know where you stand (please send a copy to me as well).
In the give and take of the meetings in Ottawa, it will be too easy for uninformed representatives to trade away too much. UPAC has not been able to get other industry groups to see our side of the issue. Maybe with COPA's cooperation, we will succeed in getting a workable solution to passenger carrying in ultralight aircraft by ultralight pilots.
Kathy Lubitz
October, 1997