Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

LSA / UL accident rates, and French microlight license

Another factor in the US statistics is that a large fraction of the LSA fleet statistics is newly built Cubs and similar, while I suspect in Europe the fleet is completely different and hardly comparable.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 23 Aug 20:48

For France, numbers are published by the DSAC, (in french)
https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/aviation-loisir

In this year report, you’ll find the number for GA, microlights and gliders
http://salledelecture-ext.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/externe/Videos/Aviation_de_loisir/Chiffres_Accidentologie_2017.mp4

Last Edited by Olivier14 at 23 Aug 20:50
Caen LFRK, France

You think you could translate those french numbers?

If you broaden the discussion to certified types that can flown by FAA Light Sport pilots, I think an older pilot who has flown larger 1950s-on nose wheel aircraft for years is highly unlikely to adapt to many of them successfully.

Probably. That could also explain the low accident rates of tail wheel aircraft, the “carbon” LSA Cub. It’s highly unlikely that an old person would purchase a Cub without long experience with tail wheel from before. For the others, they are bought by persons with experience from nose wheel only, but larger planes.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

I can recount an anecdote showing how stubborn some older pilots can be. A local pilot owned a Jodel 1050 Ambassadeur for 30 years and was thoroughly accomplished, even flying to Africa. He had previously been a part time ferry pilot for Socata. Getting on in years, health problems accumulated whose details are not clear to me. He was also rather cantankerous, and reading between the lines of what he told me he had argued with his aeromedical doctor who had refused to give him a certificate.
He sold the Jodel and decided to buy a new Flight Design CTLS. It happens that a friend of mine worked for the French importer and is both FI and UL instructor. He has also flown a CT twice from Toulouse to Brazzaville so knows its in and outs. He told me that he had taken the ex-Jodel pilot for a flight review, but did not consider him safe to fly without more training. The ex-Jodel pilot took umbrage and managed to persuade a fellow pilot to bring him to our more isolated airfield where he could fly it around on his own. The part I find extraordinary was that the fellow pilot was a doctor and even I could see that he performed simple tasks with some difficulty.
He was very pleased with the CT and I had a good look at it. The next I heard was that he had taken it up one hot afternoon and crashed in a field not all that far away. I don’t know the findings of the accident report, but we assumed that he had had some sort of heat stroke. The plane burned and he obviously perished as well.
The new owner of the Jodel, having little tail-wheel experience, wrecked it, so that was a double loss.
Simon

Last Edited by simon32 at 24 Aug 09:46

Basically, it says that microlights have more accidents and more fatalities with less pilots and less airplanes. As mh says, it’s not possible to calculate the rate per hour for microlights
For 2015, they calculated the rate fatalities/licence holders for each activity.
GA it was 1/2600
Gilders 1/10.000
Mirrolights 1/333
(And they compare theses numbers with motorcycles : 1/5000)

This ratio microlight/GA is stable in the last 5 years.

The video specifies that 19 of the microlights fatal accidents were with an instructor on board.
15 of the microlights fatal accidents seem to be consequence of risky behaviors (low pass, deliberated flight in IMC), 9 loss of control in flight, 6 of a engine failure and 5 weather related

Caen LFRK, France

Olivier14 wrote:

15 of the microlights fatal accidents seem to be consequence of risky behaviors (low pass, deliberated flight in IMC), 9 loss of control in flight, 6 of a engine failure and 5 weather related

Seems to be rather different than US LSA then, still similar rate.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Speaking of which. There was another fatal accident with a microlight yesterday (in Norway). The result is that all microlight licenses have been suspended! They will not be operational again before we have taken a (theoretical) safety course.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Which law in Norway authorises whom to take such draconian measures?

Biggin Hill
LeSving wrote:
There was another fatal accident with a microlight yesterday (in Norway). The result is that all microlight licenses have been suspended! They will not be operational again before we have taken a (theoretical) safety course.

That’s amazing. I wonder how it is legal for government to make an ‘emergency’ judgement that the microlight licensing system is to blame and remove the rights of every licensed microlight pilot, regardless of the lack of a responsible investigation and the unproven actual cause?

Last Edited by Silvaire at 29 Aug 17:45

Silvaire wrote:

I wonder how it is legal for government to make an ‘emergency’ judgement that the microlight licensing system is to blame and remove the rights of every licensed microlight pilot, regardless of the lack of a responsible investigation and the unproven actual cause?

It doesn’t work like that. There is no governmental control of microlights. It’s free (in principle) for anyone to start “on their own”, as long as they can get a “safety system” approved by the aviation authority (LT). The microlight license is an “approval” to fly according to that system. It’s more or less the same way gliders always have been organized, except until recently. There is only one organisation though, and one safety system. The problem is the poor accident rate. It’s about 3 times as high as PPL also here, and it’s not due to technical faults.

One person has been elected to be in charge of the licenses and system, and he is free to say “enough is enough, let’s take a few days off to assess the current situation”. That’s part of his “job”, and why he is elected. This has even been in the head line news, as it is a drastic measure nonetheless. LT has commented they agree with that decision.

I really don’t want to comment what I mean about this. Right or wrong, it’s a reaction to unnecessary deaths at a rate that doesn’t seem to decline. Worst case scenario is LT takes over and everyone needs LAPL to fly these things (which IMO wouldn’t change a single thing except cost). Besides, it’s a bit the same problem as LSA. There is no lack of flying experience or technical faults at play that can explain the 3 to 1 ratio.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top