Frans wrote:
where they fly VFR into solid IMC between 0:47 and 1:15
Yes I’d go with that, the cloud breaking towards end of the video is a non-event, but the beginning, where you have solid IMC in December in Germany, that may contain ice and no way out. We would have called that reckless even if it was a Cessna 210 (like the last years’ accident case in Austria with similar VIS). The video is cut several times, so it’s not 100% clear, but it looks like a solid ground layer that went up to about 4k feet.
This type of flying sheds a bad light on all of us and shouldn’t be in YT. My two cents.
Can’t you infer the flight date and time from various clues e.g.
then look up the wx?
and shouldn’t be in YT
I disagree strongly – while supporting your right to express what I consider to be a dangerously totalitarian view.
Of course some of us value freedom of expression – and freedom generally – less than ”safety”, but if an entertainment channel like YT showed nothing but cuddly puppies and gardening tips I would find it less, er, entertaining. 
It’s fun to watch people pushing the limits, whether as pilots or funambulists or whatever. We are not obliged to copy their antics and just as not every action which is legal is “safe”, not everything which is illegal in some dirigiste jurisdiction is demonstrably unsafe.
Jacko wrote:
I disagree strongly – while supporting your right to express what I consider to be a dangerously totalitarian view.
We don’t know each other, so I won’t go into this assumption. I never had anyone saying that my viewpoint was totalitarian, so that’s new to me. I’ll only add that my understanding of freedom seems to be different from yours. To me, freedom includes that I do not want to see more laws limiting the possibilities of what we are legally allowed to fly. And videos like this have, in my eyes, the capability to stress this and to maybe raise questions that could lead to further limiting laws. So freedom, from my point of view, ends when actions have a potential to limit the freedom of others.
And I don’t refer to the flying itself. In my opinion it’s the pilot’s discretion. But to post this openly on YT and placing this in spotlight is like sitting on top and shitting on all other pilots who then have to defend their rights.
I had a look at the video and did not see so much reckless flying..looked good fun trip
This on the other hand……
UdoR wrote:
We don’t know each other, so I won’t go into this assumption. I never had anyone saying that my viewpoint was totalitarian, so that’s new to me. I’ll only add that my understanding of freedom seems to be different from yours. To me, freedom includes that I do not want to see more laws limiting the possibilities of what we are legally allowed to fly. And videos like this have, in my eyes, the capability to stress this and to maybe raise questions that could lead to further limiting laws. So freedom, from my point of view, ends when actions have a potential to limit the freedom of others.
I agree. “And this is why we can’t have nice things” comes to mind…with all the “look at me, I do what I want” stuff spewed on YT for clicks, likes and ad money, it’s only a matter of time before the heavy bureaucratic hammer comes down on what is currently still a very liberal way to enjoy flying, “off the beaten path” so to say. Wait for it… it only takes one memo with the registration syntax circulated to ATCos to get “I-1234, negative entry into XYZ FIR”. Why? Because once stuff is public, the higher-ups CYA “told you so – why” machine starts up in full swing. :/
I also agree. Apart from the tragedy itself, just imagine the outcry in today’s world if an airliner would crash as a result of one of us ‘puddle jumpers’ having done something illegal/stupid.
Jacko wrote:
I disagree strongly – while supporting your right to express what I consider to be a dangerously totalitarian view.
There are two different things. One is the right to express stupid things. The other one is to criticize stupid things. I see no problem with both holding that the video should not have been published (with which I agree) and that the pilots in questions have every right to publish it (with which I also agree).
The language used (I got a translation from someone) makes them look in a really bad light. Can’t believe somebody would put that online, with their faces on it.
According to the manufacturer’s website (Pelegrin), the Tarragon is only available as ultralight
Yes, but only with Rotax 914/915. Not with a 200 hp ULPower. You might as well have put a IO-360 in the nose. The ULPower is considerably lighter than a 360, but considerably heavier than a 915, and much more HP. It could also be the smaller UL390, but weight difference is minimal.
It’s not clear to me that this particular aircraft still is an UL and not an experimental, since it obviously not is in the original engine configuration.
