Foreigner dies in Phuket ultralight crash

[webfact]

BREAKING NEWS: Foreigner dies in Phuket ultralight crash
Phuket Gazette


Resort staff scrambled to recover the fallen foreigner from the crash site, about 500 meters offshore. Photo: Kritsada Mueanhawong

PHUKET: -- A foreigner died after his ultralight flying boat fell from the sky off the east coast of southern Phuket this afternoon.

Staff at a nearby resort in Rawai who witnessed the accident reported hearing an explosion from the machine’s engine before watching in horror as the craft plummeted into the water about 500 meters from the shore.

Resort staff scrambled a boat to recover the pilot from the crash site.

Witnesses reported that the man was unconscious when he was pulled from the water. Attempts to revive him on the beach were unsuccessful.

The identity of the foreigner has yet to be confirmed. Initial reports said the man’s given name was “George”.

Source: http://www.phuketgazette.net/phuket_news/2014/BREAKING-NEWS-Foreigner-dies-in-Phuket-ultralight-crash-24515.html


-- Phuket Gazette 2014-02-05

[webfact]

'Flying boat' German pilot dies in Phuket crash
The Phuket News


An example of the aircraft the German was flying. Photo: Polaris Motor, Italy

PHUKET: -- A German national died today when his ultralight/inflatable boat hybrid crashed on take-off around 2.30pm off Laem ka Beach in Rawai.

Chalong Police investigator Patiwat Yodkwan said that the 64-year-old was attempting to take off when the machine suffered engine failure.

Initial reports said that the aircraft exploded when it was about 500 metres up in the air. Staff of the nearby resort, formerly the Evason, dived into the water to try to help.

The pilot was pulled from the water, but he had already drowned after being trapped in the wreckage by his safety harness. His body was taken to Vachira Phuket Hospital.

The German was seen yesterday was seen taking off but then landing again abruptly, apparently with some sort of engine trouble.

The flying machine is basically a rigid inflatable boat with a microlight wing attached.

Rawai Mayor Aroon Solos said, "There are not many flying boats around here. They are expensive, so the people who fly them have to be very rich."

Source: http://www.thephuketnews.com/flying-boat-german-pilot-dies-in-phuket-crash-44449.php


-- Phuket News 2014-02-05

[andreandre]

Typical local report with conflicting info..

One says it was taking off..another says was at 500 feet..one or the other!

It has only one power source, therefore it is not a hybrid..

Anyway RIP to the pilot...sounds like engine failure and he may well have/shouldhave survived the crash , but drowned once in the water...

About 1 million baht to buy when i last enquired,[5-6 years ago] so yes they are not cheap

[Diablo Bob]

Typical local report with conflicting info..

One says it was taking off..another says was at 500 feet..one or the other!

It has only one power source, therefore it is not a hybrid..

Anyway RIP to the pilot...sounds like engine failure and he may well have/shouldhave survived the crash , but drowned once in the water...

About 1 million baht to buy when i last enquired,[5-6 years ago] so yes they are not cheap

Why can't it be a hybrid? Hybrid doesn't only relate to the power source........ it has the wing of a micro light and the hull of a boat that is a hybrid.

Personally, I rather like the more traditional designs.......

As of today, 800,000 Baht

If I want to float, I'll buy a boat

[jpduggan]

Typical local report with conflicting info..

One says it was taking off..another says was at 500 feet..one or the other!

It has only one power source, therefore it is not a hybrid..

Anyway RIP to the pilot...sounds like engine failure and he may well have/shouldhave survived the crash , but drowned once in the water...

About 1 million baht to buy when i last enquired,[5-6 years ago] so yes they are not cheap

Read it again I saw nothing conflicting.......500 feet from shore ! which usually means out not up

[Diablo Bob]

Typical local report with conflicting info..

One says it was taking off..another says was at 500 feet..one or the other!

It has only one power source, therefore it is not a hybrid..

Anyway RIP to the pilot...sounds like engine failure and he may well have/shouldhave survived the crash , but drowned once in the water...

About 1 million baht to buy when i last enquired,[5-6 years ago] so yes they are not cheap

Read it again I saw nothing conflicting.......500 feet from shore ! which usually means out not up

Yes, you better read it again:

Article 1: Staff at a nearby resort in Rawai who witnessed the accident reported hearing an explosion from the machine’s engine before watching in horror as the craft plummeted into the water about 500 meters from the shore.

Article 2: Chalong Police investigator Patiwat Yodkwan said that the 64-year-old was attempting to take off when the machine suffered engine failure.

Initial reports said that the aircraft exploded when it was about 500 metres up in the air.

[Arkady]

These things are death traps. A friend had one in the Philippines and it was his pride and joy. One day it stalled as he was coming into land in calm weather and dropped vertically nose down into the sea. He and his passenger were either knocked unconscious or just couldn't get out and drowned. RIP to all.

[impulse]

Judging from the picture, the flying boat shown breaks one of the fundamental rules of aircraft design- always have your center of gravity in front of your center of lift.

That way, if you stall, the nose drops, you pick up speed over the wings and you may actually recover. With all the weight behind the center of lift, you'll fall back end first with no airflow over the wing or control surfaces, and never be able to recover from a stall.

Anyone familiar with these things know if they're actually designed, or just cobbled together? If this were the USA, we'd be reading about lawyers and product liability lawsuits by now (even if the design were perfect).

In any case, condolences to the victim's loved ones.

Edited February 6, 2014 by impulse

[SOTIRIOS]

....never heard of those engines exploding....

[andreandre]

Typical local report with conflicting info..

One says it was taking off..another says was at 500 feet..one or the other!

It has only one power source, therefore it is not a hybrid..

Anyway RIP to the pilot...sounds like engine failure and he may well have/shouldhave survived the crash , but drowned once in the water...

About 1 million baht to buy when i last enquired,[5-6 years ago] so yes they are not cheap

Read it again I saw nothing conflicting.......500 feet from shore ! which usually means out not u

My bad ..i said feet but was meters...from OP" 500 metres up in the air."

Read it again I saw nothing conflicting.......500 feet from shore ! which usually means out not up

@diablobob

Article 1: Staff at a nearby resort in Rawai who witnessed the accident reported hearing an explosion from the machine’s engine before watching in horror as the craft plummeted into the water about 500 meters from the shore.

Article 2: Chalong Police investigator Patiwat Yodkwan said that the 64-year-old was attempting to take off when the machine suffered engine failure.

Initial reports said that the aircraft exploded when it was about 500 metres up in the air.

<>><<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Thank you, but i read it just fine the first time

As i said ..conflicting ..either attempting to take off, or 500 meters up in the air....again as i said..one or the other..

As for my interpretation of ''hybrid" yes you got me there..had my mind on hybrid cars etc=2 power sources..

Edited February 6, 2014 by andreandre

[jaiyen]

I fly gliders and ultralights and there is no way I would ever fly that piece of rubbish ! I bet it hasnt even got a Certificate of Airworthiness from any decent country. It even looks like an accident waiting to happen. As another member stated the C of G is probably in the wrong place and as for aerodynamics !! Well it probably doesnt have any ! High wing loading, overweight and pathetic glide ratio, a Death trap. Who actually sells these things ??

[stevenl]

I fly gliders and ultralights and there is no way I would ever fly that piece of rubbish ! I bet it hasnt even got a Certificate of Airworthiness from any decent country. It even looks like an accident waiting to happen. As another member stated the C of G is probably in the wrong place and as for aerodynamics !! Well it probably doesnt have any ! High wing loading, overweight and pathetic glide ratio, a Death trap. Who actually sells these things ??

If you look at the photo it says who sells these things.

[andreandre]

I fly gliders and ultralights and there is no way I would ever fly that piece of rubbish ! I bet it hasnt even got a Certificate of Airworthiness from any decent country. It even looks like an accident waiting to happen. As another member stated the C of G is probably in the wrong place and as for aerodynamics !! Well it probably doesnt have any ! High wing loading, overweight and pathetic glide ratio, a Death trap. Who actually sells these things ??

Absolute non sense {IMO} ...a great example of the phrase..'a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing"..

[sam sen]

it doesn't look very safe.

[impulse]

I fly gliders and ultralights and there is no way I would ever fly that piece of rubbish ! I bet it hasnt even got a Certificate of Airworthiness from any decent country. It even looks like an accident waiting to happen. As another member stated the C of G is probably in the wrong place and as for aerodynamics !! Well it probably doesnt have any ! High wing loading, overweight and pathetic glide ratio, a Death trap. Who actually sells these things ??

Absolute non sense {IMO} ...a great example of the phrase..'a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing"..

Nope. What's dangerous is cobbling together a wing designed for one purpose, a boat designed for a very different purpose and an engine designed for yet another purpose, then selling it on as "easy to fly" as I've seen claimed in the multiple ads I've Googled up today.

It's got a very narrow envelope of conditions under which it's safe, and those conditions tend to change around 1:00 or 2:00 just about every afternoon on tropical beaches. Interesting that's also about the time kite surfing clubs start their lessons, and about the time I pack up my kayak for the afternoon because it's no fun in that much wind.

Edited February 6, 2014 by impulse

[andreandre]

I fly gliders and ultralights and there is no way I would ever fly that piece of rubbish ! I bet it hasnt even got a Certificate of Airworthiness from any decent country. It even looks like an accident waiting to happen. As another member stated the C of G is probably in the wrong place and as for aerodynamics !! Well it probably doesnt have any ! High wing loading, overweight and pathetic glide ratio, a Death trap. Who actually sells these things ??

Absolute non sense {IMO} ...a great example of the phrase..'a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing"..

Nope. What's dangerous is cobbling together a wing designed for one purpose, a boat designed for a very different purpose and an engine designed for yet another purpose, then selling it on as "easy to fly" as I've seen claimed in the multiple ads I've Googled up today.

It's got a very narrow envelope of conditions under which it's safe, and those conditions tend to change around 1:00 or 2:00 just about every afternoon on tropical beaches. Interesting that's also about the time kite surfing clubs start their lessons, and about the time I pack up my kayak for the afternoon because it's no fun in that much wind.

Nope. What's dangerous is cobbling together a wing designed for one purpose, a boat designed for a very different purpose and an engine designed for yet another purpose, then selling it on as "easy to fly" as I've seen claimed in the multiple ads I've Googled up today.

They've been around for at least 30 years successfully all over the world.

For sure its operations are on the edge of the envelope at times, but as with everything ''extreme'' its down to the skill and commonsense of the operator at the time.[referring to your mention of tropical beach conditions]

AKAIK FAA approved and with a training programme to pass ....if USA with all its BS has an FAA approval it can not be all as bad as jaiyen is saying....eg 'A death trap" come on , no way in the world.

The wing and the engine are designed for this purpose originally as a trike setup and these have flown all over the world....the boat is an option to the trike set up..nothing at all wrong with it ,if you know the limitations and follow them.

Check these Brits back in about '05....in a very heavily loaded trike....a great feat IMO

to complete the 18264 Km (9862 Nm) flight to Sydney in 184 hours flying time over 55 days via Cyprus, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Dubai, Oman, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia.

In the end this thread is about a guy who wanted to have the freedom, without the ''wrapped in cottonwool'' so many people are used to living with..Sure, he paid with his life..but you can do that just by overeating/drinking, whatever..RIP

[papa al]

"I fly gliders and ultralights and there is no way I would ever fly that piece of rubbish ! I bet it hasnt even got a Certificate of Airworthiness from any decent country. It even looks like an accident waiting to happen. As another member stated the C of G is probably in the wrong place and as for aerodynamics !! Well it probably doesnt have any ! High wing loading, overweight and pathetic glide ratio, a Death trap. Who actually sells these things ??"

If you are an ultralight pilot, you should know that they are considered "recreational vehicles" not aircraft by the FAA.

So of course no 'Certificate of Airworthiness'; no pilot licenses required.

Fly at your own risk.

To obtain an FAA Certificate of Airworthiness costs many millions of dollars.

[cloudhopper]

Judging from the picture, the flying boat shown breaks one of the fundamental rules of aircraft design- always have your center of gravity in front of your center of lift.

That way, if you stall, the nose drops, you pick up speed over the wings and you may actually recover. With all the weight behind the center of lift, you'll fall back end first with no airflow over the wing or control surfaces, and never be able to recover from a stall.

Anyone familiar with these things know if they're actually designed, or just cobbled together? If this were the USA, we'd be reading about lawyers and product liability lawsuits by now (even if the design were perfect).

In any case, condolences to the victim's loved ones.

Yes I am familiar with how they are designed and I am licensed to fly one here in LOS (and have at some point learned to fly about every type of flying machine except blimps). They are controlled by shifting the center of gravity about the center of lift and not by the aerodynamics you are describing, which applies to fixed wing aircraft. You can let go of the control bar and they are perfectly stable without the use of any trim, due to a reflex airfoil. I very much doubt there was even an engine failure of any kind and the entire accident was due to capsizing after touchdown. Seaplanes can be landed in a crosswind but never downwind or they will pitchpole and capsize forward upon contact with the water. I suspect the hull form of a RIB has far more drag than streamlined floats and would be less forgiving. RIP to the pilot - he died doing what he loved.

[andreandre]

Judging from the picture, the flying boat shown breaks one of the fundamental rules of aircraft design- always have your center of gravity in front of your center of lift.

That way, if you stall, the nose drops, you pick up speed over the wings and you may actually recover. With all the weight behind the center of lift, you'll fall back end first with no airflow over the wing or control surfaces, and never be able to recover from a stall.

Anyone familiar with these things know if they're actually designed, or just cobbled together? If this were the USA, we'd be reading about lawyers and product liability lawsuits by now (even if the design were perfect).

In any case, condolences to the victim's loved ones.

Yes I am familiar with how they are designed and I am licensed to fly one here in LOS (and have at some point learned to fly about every type of flying machine except blimps). They are controlled by shifting the center of gravity about the center of lift and not by the aerodynamics you are describing, which applies to fixed wing aircraft. You can let go of the control bar and they are perfectly stable without the use of any trim, due to a reflex airfoil. I very much doubt there was even an engine failure of any kind and the entire accident was due to capsizing after touchdown. Seaplanes can be landed in a crosswind but never downwind or they will pitchpole and capsize forward upon contact with the water. I suspect the hull form of a RIB has far more drag than streamlined floats and would be less forgiving. RIP to the pilot - he died doing what he loved.

Spot on reply...why some people post on forums when they know SFA about the subject really beats me...They end up looking foolish...anyway you have clarified impulses post.

Regarding your points about using RIB, here from Polaris site as to why..makes sense to me;

Why we use a Rubber Inflatable Boat (RIB) as a float

The FIB's is designed to fly on all water surfaces including the sea which is the largest runway available in the world.

The pontoon's system, popular in the ultralight field, was not found safe and seaworthy for a weight shifting machine. It's well known that a single hull seaplane has better performances in rough sea than the conventional pontoon's like the catamaran style .

For this reason the most popular seaplanes in the world are all single hull : like the Catalina, the Canadair, and more .

After two years of testing Polaris Motor chose a specially made RIB (Rigid Inflatable Boat) for floating, that permitted safe take off and landings even in fairly rough sea.

The boat jumps from one wave to another with out any problems till it reaches it's take of speed.

The boat also protects the whole machine (including the propeller) from the water during take off with big waves, leaving the pilot, passenger, and engine 100% dry. In case of very bad landings, the boat slips around avoiding capsizing and relative damages .

Compared to a machine equipped with pontoon catamaran style, the inflatable boat has a more naturally aerodynamic shape that reduces the drag in the air and does not interfere negatively with the control of the aircraft.

For this reason the FIB allows take off and landing up to sea strength 3/4 without any problems.

Without a wing FIB is a very fast airboat.

With the wheel kit the FIB can be transformed in few minutes in a land trike to fly in land or, with ski, on ice and snow.

The fiberglass hull of the RIB is specially designed for surfing fast with low power, this allows the FIB to reach the take-off speed in a very short run.

It's easy to understand that the FIB is very safe while taxiing in water to reach take off and landing areas, and has many advantages if compared to other sea ultralights : transport on a little trailer, storage, parking on beaches, docks etc

PS also to the post about ''easy to fly"" yes they are easy to fly, but look at the USA requirements to do so;

A: If you live in the United States - Training varies quite a bit from instructor to instructor. To be rated as a BFI, you must first receive your solo rating (10-15 hours of dual instruction, 5-10 hours ground school, 10 hours of solo flight, and pass a test), then fly (unsupervised) for another 40 hours of solo flight, and pass another exam. We generally advise our customers to plan on around $2500 for training, although each instructor can charge a different amount.

Although Seair does offer training, it can be very expensive if you have to travel for training or bring a trainer to your area. In most cases, you can receive weight-shift training in a ground-based ultralight in your area. That training will provide most of the training you need to fly a water based weight shift craft like the Seair Flying Boat. In some cases, there may be flying boat training in your area. If you are certified for weight shift ground based ultralights, then it will be relatively few hours of training for you to be certified for weight shift water.

[impulse]

Judging from the picture, the flying boat shown breaks one of the fundamental rules of aircraft design- always have your center of gravity in front of your center of lift.

That way, if you stall, the nose drops, you pick up speed over the wings and you may actually recover. With all the weight behind the center of lift, you'll fall back end first with no airflow over the wing or control surfaces, and never be able to recover from a stall.

Anyone familiar with these things know if they're actually designed, or just cobbled together? If this were the USA, we'd be reading about lawyers and product liability lawsuits by now (even if the design were perfect).

In any case, condolences to the victim's loved ones.

Yes I am familiar with how they are designed and I am licensed to fly one here in LOS (and have at some point learned to fly about every type of flying machine except blimps). They are controlled by shifting the center of gravity about the center of lift and not by the aerodynamics you are describing, which applies to fixed wing aircraft. You can let go of the control bar and they are perfectly stable without the use of any trim, due to a reflex airfoil. I very much doubt there was even an engine failure of any kind and the entire accident was due to capsizing after touchdown. Seaplanes can be landed in a crosswind but never downwind or they will pitchpole and capsize forward upon contact with the water. I suspect the hull form of a RIB has far more drag than streamlined floats and would be less forgiving. RIP to the pilot - he died doing what he loved.

Spot on reply...why some people post on forums when they know SFA about the subject really beats me...They end up looking foolish...anyway you have clarified impulses post.

Regarding your points about using RIB, here from Polaris site as to why..makes sense to me;

You've then gone on to copy and paste an advertisement from the manufacturer.

Now, show me their wind tunnels tests that verify that the shape of the RIB bolted onto the wing don't change the aerodynamic lift during a 25 MPH cross wind, or a gust from behind at 35 MPH. And their tests to show that the RIB aerodynamic properties don't change when the temperature changes and the pressure in the bladders increases or decreases- changing the shape of the RIB. Then show me a single airworthiness directive to change the design after accidents like this teach us a little more about their limitations.

Or, you can believe the fluff from the advertiser, telling you why their unit is superior to all the other ones out there...

Thanks, cloudhopper, for the explanation without the drama. One question, though. What is the procedure to recover from a stall?

I should point out that I never characterized these things as "death traps" as a previous poster. In fact, I'd love to have one. But I'd also like to know that the design is more than somebody getting a wild hair and bolting a RIB to a wing. And to understand their safe operating envelope so I don't take off at noon when the wind is down and find myself in trouble when the winds pick up.

[cloudhopper]

Stall recovery is just like a fixed wing - reducing the angle of attack, which in a weight shift aircraft requires pulling the control bar aft (all 3 axes are opposite to fixed and rotary wing control sense BTW). My ultralight is very difficult to intentionally stall and recovers without any control input at all, and they cannot autorotate (spin).

[impulse]

Thanks. After reading about this accident, I looked up a bunch of accidents on the NTSB website (none of them flying RIBs, BTW).

It seems that some people like doing loops in the tricycle type ultralights, and occasionally to a bad result...

My understanding, then, is that in the weight shift aircraft, pulling back the control bar effectively changes the center of lift with respect to the center of gravity, putting the nose down?

Edited February 8, 2014 by impulse

[andreandre]

Judging from the picture, the flying boat shown breaks one of the fundamental rules of aircraft design- always have your center of gravity in front of your center of lift.

That way, if you stall, the nose drops, you pick up speed over the wings and you may actually recover. With all the weight behind the center of lift, you'll fall back end first with no airflow over the wing or control surfaces, and never be able to recover from a stall.

Anyone familiar with these things know if they're actually designed, or just cobbled together? If this were the USA, we'd be reading about lawyers and product liability lawsuits by now (even if the design were perfect).

In any case, condolences to the victim's loved ones.

Yes I am familiar with how they are designed and I am licensed to fly one here in LOS (and have at some point learned to fly about every type of flying machine except blimps). They are controlled by shifting the center of gravity about the center of lift and not by the aerodynamics you are describing, which applies to fixed wing aircraft. You can let go of the control bar and they are perfectly stable without the use of any trim, due to a reflex airfoil. I very much doubt there was even an engine failure of any kind and the entire accident was due to capsizing after touchdown. Seaplanes can be landed in a crosswind but never downwind or they will pitchpole and capsize forward upon contact with the water. I suspect the hull form of a RIB has far more drag than streamlined floats and would be less forgiving. RIP to the pilot - he died doing what he loved.

Spot on reply...why some people post on forums when they know SFA about the subject really beats me...They end up looking foolish...anyway you have clarified impulses post.

Regarding your points about using RIB, here from Polaris site as to why..makes sense to me;

You've then gone on to copy and paste an advertisement from the manufacturer.

Now, show me their wind tunnels tests that verify that the shape of the RIB bolted onto the wing don't change the aerodynamic lift during a 25 MPH cross wind, or a gust from behind at 35 MPH. And their tests to show that the RIB aerodynamic properties don't change when the temperature changes and the pressure in the bladders increases or decreases- changing the shape of the RIB. Then show me a single airworthiness directive to change the design after accidents like this teach us a little more about their limitations.

Or, you can believe the fluff from the advertiser, telling you why their unit is superior to all the other ones out there...

Thanks, cloudhopper, for the explanation without the drama. One question, though. What is the procedure to recover from a stall?

I should point out that I never characterized these things as "death traps" as a previous poster. In fact, I'd love to have one. But I'd also like to know that the design is more than somebody getting a wild hair and bolting a RIB to a wing. And to understand their safe operating envelope so I don't take off at noon when the wind is down and find myself in trouble when the winds pick up.

Not at all..i posted that copy and paste purely to show why they used a RIB instead of pontoons.[in reply to cloudhopper]thoughts on the use of this hull..

Not an advertisement at all...just info from Q & A on their site...fluff?

Of course all the questions you put above are valid, but just as much for pontoons as for RIB..Yes?

Suggest you.read it again...

[impulse]

Betcha these guys would make the case that pontoons are soooo much better.

Edited February 8, 2014 by impulse