What is the actual safety record of ultralights or microlights? I have no idea but is it materially worse than certified aircraft?
The ultralight and microlight safety record might be interesting to know, but its a different issue than the homebuilt safety record. This is a homebuilt, the $25K total, 200+ mph aircraft I mentioned above, and in fact every component shown in the photo, save two, was made from raw materials by the builder. (the two exceptions are the tires 
)
I think I was in the aircraft this day.
What is the actual safety record of ultralights or microlights?
That is of course a capital question – unfortunately, there is no realistic answer to it. Regulations vary per country, and many countries do not require flight logs to be kept. So that there is not the slightest estimation of how many hours are flown, by microlights, in most countries. Add to that the general tendency to hush up incidents/accidents^, and you know both parameters are missing to the “(fatal) incidents per million hour flown” safety statistic.
From a gut feeling, I would say that microlights see a far greater number of incidents, probably by a factor of five, but with generally much less impact/damage/expense/victims. Even the chap who landed^^ a microlight on top of a tree went home without major hurts – try that in your “complex SEP”!
When my own pride and beauty ran away with me after landing, breaking prop and nosewheel, the incident never entered any statistics – neither did the EFATO and subsequent flip-over of my training plane.
^ microlighters are especially good at it, but try to find an account of the demise of OO-VCG on the www for a counterexample from the “certified” environment…
^^ couple of years ago, ISTR, near a golf course in Scotland
UK situation:
The Jodel DR1050 I fly was factory built, but has been maintained by ourselves since EASA designated it an “orphan” non-EASA aircraft. Many Jodels were homebuilt. In the UK, a “Permit to Fly”, issued by the LAA, and renewed annualy, is required. The examination, list of required work, and aproval of said work is done by an LAA Inspector, who I think may not be a licensed engineer. Homebuilds have a Build Log which must be signed by the Inspector at stages – eg. before wooden wingspar is closed. In the UK, homebuilds test flights have to be done by an LAA approved test pilot, who may be the builder if he is suitably experienced.The US situation is different. I know nothing about other EU countries.
The last few C of A Annuals, done at distant firms after our local engineer retired, all had some problem – radio ptt misconnected, throttle linkage worked loose, fuel leak, and assymetric controls on the return flight.
Our retired engineer continued as an LAA Inspector for a few years. We now have as Inspector an ex-RAF engineer who worked up from hacksaw and file to very senior engineer rank.
Since going on Permit, our annual costs have reduced by thousands of pounds – almost everything we spend on maintenance is for material. Comparing work, before most of the cost must have been admin rather than mechanic hours worked and material.
PS No pitot heat on any Jodel I’ve flown for almost 24 years – and no AH since 1999.
From a gut feeling, I would say that microlights see a far greater number of incidents, probably by a factor of five, but with generally much less impact/damage/expense/victims. Even the chap who landed^^ a microlight on top of a tree went home without major hurts – try that in your “complex SEP”!
I can’t offer any numbers (and that will always leave a comment like this open to an argument) but I have a clear feeling that you are right – the stall speed is so much lower.
However the one thing where a lower Vs will not help is an in-flight breakup, or even an in-flight fire. And while CofA GA cases of in-flight breakups are very rare, I recall reading a number of accident reports where there clearly was a structural failure. The wreckage was all there – unlike high speed (often IFR) breakups where say a wing is found a mile away – but “something” came apart.
Quote Since going on Permit, our annual costs have reduced by thousands of pounds – almost everything we spend on maintenance is for material. Comparing work, before most of the cost must have been admin rather than mechanic hours worked and material.
Since our Auster went on permit, the same. We now spend money on actual maintenance and on the renewal/improvement of parts instead of reams of pointless paperwork and fees. The aircraft is safer and in better condition since moving to an LAA permit.
In terms of finding out whether a particular type of homebuilt is safe, quite often it’s revealing to find out how much they cost to insure (except when there are so few examples, there’s not good insurance data). If they get crashed often the insurance will probably be higher than what you would expect. Then you can go hunting for the underlying reason why they are getting crashed.
Since our Auster went on permit, the same. We now spend money on actual maintenance and on the renewal/improvement of parts instead of reams of pointless paperwork and fees.
It seems to me those flying N-registered normal airworthiness category aircraft (like many posting on EuroGA) have even less government paperwork and fees, actually none.
That aside, factory built light aircraft, microlights, ultralights etc are not homebuilts regardless of their paperwork. In answer to the original post, I think it’s fair to say that not all homebuilt aircraft are safe, including some of those licensed in the UK. They are experimental, and are exactly as safe as the individual builders goals and individual competence allow. Some are very safe, some are very experimental.
My first experience with homebuilts was my father’s plane that I helped him build as a kid. During development, it had two engine failures and an airframe broken twice during landings. My dad being the holder of ~55 parents in engineering is not the kind of guy who chooses to follow too much in others footsteps, and he had a limited budget. Luckily for me he was just careful enough, flew an aircraft that would carry two at 150 mph cruise on 60 HP, and he’s still with us – telling stories about his 60 years designing and building aircraft. In my view the point of homebuilts is just that: allowing people to learn from their own lessons and manage their own risk level without interference. If they were all ‘safe’ by somebody else’s definition that would no longer be possible.
Since EASA as Chief Engineer I spend less time in the hangar supervising and advising the workforce and more time pushing paper.
In my opinion EASA has only pushed up prices and eroded safety by replacing real time supervision with paper supervision, I guess it looks good from a lawers office in cologne or Brussels but the whole is a very bad joke for European GA.
LAA Permit to Fly homebuilts have had each stage of building signed off by an LAA Inspector, and any modifidcations to the design have been approved by the LAA Engineering section. Some US designs have been refused UK acceptance. I don’t recall any accidents caused by in-air airframe problems. However replicas of old designs will have all the handling problems of that age.
As regards insurance, I think the cost depends more on the pilot than the aircraft. eg an RV6A flown by the builder, a low hours, elderly, NPPL (it has been damaged on landing) as opposed to a Jodel taildragger built and flown by a 60 year old with 25+ years taildragger flying.
I think it’s fair to say that not all homebuilt aircraft are safe, including some of those licensed in the UK. They are experimental, and are exactly as safe as the individual builders goals and individual competence allow. Some are very safe, some are very experimental.
The UK and US ‘homebuilt’ categories are very different, the UK homebuilts being much less experimental than the US system allows. If I were a professional engineer like your father, I suspect I would find the UK system frustrating. As a reasonably technically proficient pilot with no specialist I find the oversight in the UK reassuring – particularly when it comes to purchasing an aircraft that someone else has built – not that I wouldn’t exercise due diligence, of course.
