Flight planner for ultralight flying

nashfan

Member
Joined
May 18, 2023
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Have a Flight planner for ultralight flying in the Ifly app just like the flight planner, except would plan a route that you could fly your ultralight. Sent the idea to Ifly team and they said they loved the idea and to post it on this board to see who would like the idea. :)
 
Nashfan,

I like the idea in general but what are you looking for in planning an ultralight flight that is different than a "regular" flight. Is it being able to set a user defined waypoint (such as a field or beach) as your "airport" or takeoff/landing point? Not trying to diss the idea as I only hold a Sport Pilot license and have limitations on what I can do compared to Private and higher pilots.

The Real Plan option can be set to avoid particular air space classes. Is there an addition to that page that would help?
1684429998390.png

Tony
 
Nashfan,

I like the idea in general but what are you looking for in planning an ultralight flight that is different than a "regular" flight. Is it being able to set a user defined waypoint (such as a field or beach) as your "airport" or takeoff/landing point? Not trying to diss the idea as I only hold a Sport Pilot license and have limitations on what I can do compared to Private and higher pilots.

The Real Plan option can be set to avoid particular air space classes. Is there an addition to that page that would help?
View attachment 150

Tony
There are so many altitudes & airspace rules it is hard to keep up with unless you are out in the middle of nowhere. This would keep you at the correct airspace and altitudes. Would be great!
 
There are so many altitudes & airspace rules it is hard to keep up with unless you are out in the middle of nowhere. This would keep you at the correct airspace and altitudes. Would be great!
I don't understand. Are you saying you agree with Tony that iFly already does what you're asking for? If not...please elaborate on what, exactly, you are asking for that iFly doesn't already do?

"Plan a flight for an ultralight" doesn't convey your vision to the rest of us. Help us understand.
 
There are so many altitudes & airspace rules it is hard to keep up with unless you are out in the middle of nowhere. This would keep you at the correct airspace and altitudes. Would be great!
There are many "non tower" airports that ultralights fly from/to, so it would work. I am a private pilot but thinking on getting an ultralight now that I am a lot older. It would make it sooo much better.
 
There are many "non tower" airports that ultralights fly from/to, so it would work.
*What* would work?? Please be specific. I'm trying to understand what you're asking for, but you're not giving me much to work with, here.

iFly already will let you create a custom waypoint and call it an Airport, if that's what you're asking for.
 
I'm also a bit confused. It seems that Real Plan pretty much does what you want (if you want an automated planner). Whether you use RP or do your own planning, you can set up your own custom waypoints for places you want to land. And you can use the Alitudes button in Flight Plan to see how you're going in relationship to airspaces.

BTW, ultralights do have a couple of restrictions that aren't commonly known:
  • Ultralights must avoid flying over congested areas (something I think most UL pilots don't know or ignore). I don't know how iFly would know what the boundaries of congested areas are -- I doubt there's an easy database of the boundaries of populated areas, and even if there was, "congested" can mean a neighborhood or a concert or a lot of people on a beach. It's basically anywhere you don't have landing options that don't involve crashing into people or property.
  • Along with not being able to ever fly into B/C/D, they also may not fly into Class E airports without prior permission.
 
*What* would work?? Please be specific. I'm trying to understand what you're asking for, but you're not giving me much to work with, here.

iFly already will let you create a custom waypoint and call it an Airport, if that's what you're asking for.
It would not only plan your waypoints (as flight planner does now) but ALSO (the biggie) keep you in legal airspace and altitudes for ultralights. And like I already noted, many, many ultralights take off and land and documented (identified ex KIPJ, N92, etc) airports, just not controlled (towered) airports.
 
It would not only plan your waypoints (as flight planner does now) but ALSO (the biggie) keep you in legal airspace and altitudes for ultralights. And like I already noted, many, many ultralights take off and land and documented (identified ex KIPJ, N92, etc) airports, just not controlled (towered) airports.
OK, I'm not familiar with "legal airspace and altitudes for ultralights". What specific constraints would you like to see added that aren't already there? Example: If you can't fly into Class B/C/D, then uncheck "Class B", "Class C", and "Class D" in RealPlan. iFly already handles that. What *doesn't* it handle that you want to see added?

iFly already has all the documented airports, including the two examples you mentioned. You can also define any lat/lon you want as a a custom waypoint and then designate it as an airport. So...what needs to change there?

There are certain things that iFly doesn't restrict you from doing, even if you're not legal to do them. For example, you can add a military base to your flight plan, even if you're not in the military. It doesn't protect you 100% from planning something you shouldn't do. Are you trying to get iFly to do more for ultralight pilots than it does for any other type of pilot?
 
OK, I'm not familiar with "legal airspace and altitudes for ultralights". What specific constraints would you like to see added that aren't already there? Example: If you can't fly into Class B/C/D, then uncheck "Class B", "Class C", and "Class D" in RealPlan. iFly already handles that. What *doesn't* it handle that you want to see added?

iFly already has all the documented airports, including the two examples you mentioned. You can also define any lat/lon you want as a a custom waypoint and then designate it as an airport. So...what needs to change there?

There are certain things that iFly doesn't restrict you from doing, even if you're not legal to do them. For example, you can add a military base to your flight plan, even if you're not in the military. It doesn't protect you 100% from planning something you shouldn't do. Are you trying to get iFly to do more for ultralight pilots than it does for any other type of pilot
 
OK I quit, seems you just don't like ultralight piloting. I started thread because Ifly answered me and said they loved the idea, to post on the forums, so I did. Some ultralight such as Merlin Light, Hummel ultracrusier are very nice ultralights is why I was considering one. Not a "kite" type. I was told that you can fly anywhere outside of the "inverted wedding cake" controlled areas. ( not over cities, etc, I know - so pleeeze don't bring that up again.) I got my pilots license in 1976 so please don't jump on me for bringing up the word ultralight. So never mind the question, forget I asked.
 
Although it may not seem that way, nobody is dumping on you. What you have is a group of individuals who are trying their best to help you, but don't understand what you want. Because, to us, what you want is already provided. That may be because we have a more in-depth knowledge of the product. Have you actually tried to create your own waypoints and do manual (or Real Plan) flight planning? It sounds like maybe not. But maybe we just don't understand exactly what you feel is lacking. Could you give a very specific example?
 
???

I'm just trying to understand what you're asking for. "Make it work for ultralight pilots" is very vague. From what I can tell, iFly already does most or maybe even all of what you're asking for. If there's something missing, you haven't yet clearly explained what that is. 🤷‍♂️

If you state specifically what you want, folks can either help you understand how to do that with the capabilities that already exist, or else vote on whether they think the new stuff your suggesting is a good idea or not.

But "Make it work for ultralights!!!" is too vague to be actionable. Please don't get upset if I can't read your mind to understand what you mean.
 
Trying to take my own advice to "be specific", here's what I think I've gathered so far:
  1. "Keep me out of unallowed airspace".
    1. OK, I'm not an ultralight guy and I don't really have any idea what airspace that is. If you could clarify what airspace you need to be kept out of, that would help me understand.
    2. Others have mentioned that ULs can't enter Class B/C/D, and Tony pointed out that iFly already accommodates that constraint in RealPlan.
    3. Does that satisfy your request? If not, what other specific airspace constraints would need to be addressed?
  2. "Keep me out of unallowed altitudes".
    1. Again, I'm not an ultralight guy so I don't know what altitude constraints ULs have, but I'm guessing a lot of them probably have to do with the various altitudes of Class B/C/D airspace.
    2. Again, iFly will already keep you out of Class B/C/D if you uncheck those boxes in the RealPlan configuration settings
    3. Does that satisfy your request? If not, what other specific altitude constraints would need to be addressed?
  3. You've stated "ULs fly into non-towered airports, and sometimes no airport at all". That's a statement, not a request, so I'm not sure what to do with it, but presumably you mean something by bringing it up, so I'll take some guesses:
    1. I've pointed out that iFly already includes all airports with a 3- or 4-"letter" identifier, and additionally you can designate any arbitrary point on the globe as a custom waypoint and label it an airport so it will behave just like the 3- or 4-letter airports iFly already knows. Thus, for any airport or arbitrary wide patch of grass you want to land on, iFly will let you add it as an "Airport" to your flight plan.
    2. iFly doesn't protect any pilot from flying to an airport that's not suitable for them. Examples:
      1. Military bases are off-limits to non-military personnel, but iFly doesn't stop you from listing one as a destination and doesn't ask if you're in the military.
      2. iFly doesn't warn or prevent Cessna Citation pilots from identifying a 1500' grass strip as a destination.
      3. iFly doesn't warn or prevent King Air pilots from identifying a seaplane base as a destination
      4. iFly doesn't warn pilots that they need to get clearance from ATC before landing at a Class B/C/D airport
      5. Etc.
    3. Does that satisfy what you're looking for? If not, what specifically are you wanting to see iFly do about airports, instead?
 
Last edited:
OK I quit, seems you just don't like ultralight piloting. I started thread because Ifly answered me and said they loved the idea, to post on the forums, so I did. Some ultralight such as Merlin Light, Hummel ultracrusier are very nice ultralights is why I was considering one. Not a "kite" type. I was told that you can fly anywhere outside of the "inverted wedding cake" controlled areas. ( not over cities, etc, I know - so pleeeze don't bring that up again.) I got my pilots license in 1976 so please don't jump on me for bringing up the word ultralight. So never mind the question, forget I asked.
Steady, Nashfan, they're just eager (and somewhat ascerbic). They've pointed out that iFly already does most of what you want, but they seem to have missed Hook's reply (above) that says, "Along with not being able to ever fly into B/C/D, they also may not fly into Class E airports without prior permission." iFly hasn't a clue about Class E airports, and as far as I know has no way to identify them.

Actually, now that I think about it, I'd like some kind of flag for Class E airports too, because whether Class E airspace goes to the ground or not can affect the cloud clearance altitude and distance over an airport--and that can determine whether or not you can take off or land there when there's a low overcast.
 
Thank you for a of your inputs.
An example, go to real plan and make a flight plan from KIPJ to N92. A short 7 mile trip. Looking at the sectional you should be fine as long as you stay below 4000ft (uncontrolled airspace) . Ifly says you can't fly that route without ADSB.
But yes you are right I don't know how to use it as well as you do, really haven't used it (or flown) in about 9 months. Just been thinking about an ultralight now that I am older and saw the Merlin lite and the Hummel Ultracrusier. But thanks again for your help.
 
I'll try Real Plan for your two airfields and see what it comes up with.

BTW, I checked out the Merlin Lite at Sun N Fun. Seemed real nice and a good price. Substantial machine for a UL. Don't know the Hummel one.
 
I can see your concern, as you're flying under a Class B shelf (starts at 4000'). BTW: I don't know the technicalities of flying a UL within the Mode C veil (I'm assuming you are not going to be equipped with a Mode C Transponder plus ADS-B Out, both of which are required for registered aircraft). I know for one student I had with a Light Sport powered parachute (without Mode C & ADS-B Out) that was going to be flying in a similar situation, I suggested (and TRACON concurred) that she should call them on the phone and let them know her approximate flight times and location (and definitely stay out of their Bravo). So, at the minimum, that's probably what Charlotte TRACON would like.

If you fly a straight line, you also have an obstacle in that path that reaches 1179' MSL. It doesn't specify the AGL for that obstacle, but judging by the nearby one to the west, it should be about 205' AGL.

I already have a powered parachute aircraft defined, so I'll use that in my planning. If you don't have a UL type aircraft defined, then go into Menu | Setup | Aircraft | Create New Profile and define some generic UL-type aircraft to use for now.

After selecting my aircraft, I went into Flight Plan (4th button from the left along the bottom of the app), clicked on Enter Flight Plan, and entered KIPJ and N92 and clicked the Done button. It created the flight plan and displayed it in tabular form. I clicked on the Altitudes button just to see what it picked for a default altitude (you can change it by dragging it in the graph, or by setting it in the table), and what it showed for airspace. It shows solid purple above my flight path, from 4000' to 10,000'. That's the Class B. The graph also shows my estimated flight duration and fuel burn, taking into account the projected winds at my flight altitude. There's a slider you can use to adjust when you plan to do the flight, and it will adjust the winds appropriately -- and thereby also change the flight duration and fuel burn. There's also an Optimize button which will try to choose a flight altitude that works best taking into account the winds at various altitudes.

I clicked on the Close button in Flight Plan to returned to the map to see my magenta course line. Again, it takes me right towards that obstacle, so I "grabbed" the course line (clicked on it and held the mouse button down; or you can do it with your finger on a portable device) and drug it to one side of the obstacle. It asked me if I wanted to set this new waypoint to the given Lat/Lon and I clicked on OK. I went back to Flight Plan, and it now shows an intermediate waypoint. If you want to add a waypoint more manually you can use the Add Waypoint button in Flight Plan to add by Lat/Lon or by name. So, if there are waypoints you want to save and use, you should create/name them in advance. The easiest way to do that is go to the map screen, put the mouse pointer on the spot you want, right click there (or long-press your finger on a portable device), and then click the Add Custom Waypoint button. To remove a waypoint that's in your course line, you can remove it by clicking on it, choosing Flight Planning, and Remove Waypoint. Or delete it in the Flight Plan page (click on the gear icon to the left of the waypoint and choose Remove This Waypoint).

So, that's the manual way of doing things.

To see what automation ("Real Plan", aka "RP") would do, I removed the intermediate waypoint so I would just have the starting point and destination. (I could've left it in there, and RP would've used it.) I went into Flight Plan and used the More Options button, then chose Real Plan. I checked all the boxes in Airspaces To Avoid and set a Max Alt of 3000' and Min AGL of 1000'. I unchecked ADS-B Equipped, and checked Avoid Water. After clicking on the Run Real Plan button, it came back with a warning that it couldn't optimize the path because I didn't have ADS-B (remember, we're inside the Mode C veil). It popped me back into the RP options page and I lied and said I had ADS-B. It created a plan that usurprisingly was a straight line. That's OK, since it figures you're flying at 3000', so will clear that obstacle (actually the course probably passes by it to the side by a little).

To make it more of a challenge I made my Flight Plan KIPJ N92 MRN so I have to fly around the Class D at HKY. After I ran RP again it curved me around that airspace.

Then I substituted 14A for MRN (flight plan now: KIPJ N92 14A) so there's water in the way. I did that by going into Flight Plan, clicking on the gear icon next to MRN and chose Change This Waypoint. I ran RP again. I was thinking it would route me all the way around the water (it has me crossing some narrow channels). To completely avoid the water I went back into RP and in the options clicked on the Moderate button and changed it to Safest. [Brian: can't that be changed to a dropdown box?] It didn't end up changing the route though. It's trying to compromise between safety and how far it would have to go around to completely avoid water and distance seems to win here. Maybe it's figuring the glide distance of this aircraft is sufficient for the width of water I'm crossing.

At this point you can tweak the flight plan to your preferences by dragging it on the map or modifying it in the Flight Plan page.

Also, it is my understanding that RP takes into account your usable fuel capacity so as to not plan you a trip that out-flies your fuel. I believe it will alter your route, if necessary, to plan in a fuel stop if one is required. Since there aren't that many airports that provide "mogas", which I'm sure you'd be using, then this is not helpful. But you should know that RP is working under this constraint.

Hopefully this was helpful.
 
Last edited:
Have a Flight planner for ultralight flying in the Ifly app just like the flight planner, except would plan a route that you could fly your ultralight. Sent the idea to Ifly team and they said they loved the idea and to post it on this board to see who would like the idea. :)
Welcome to our forums, and thank you for posting. Admittedly, we at Adventure Pilot also don't seem to have much experience with Ultra-Lights, as you can see, so far, there is no one chiming in here (yet) that is an ultra light pilot.

From my perspective, for us to add new support, we need to determine the business case, which starts with "how many active UL pilots are in the USA now? And at what rate is this market growing?" We'd surely like to provide a navigation tool for these pilots, if we are able to estimate a business case that supports the development/etc efforts involved.

If you could provide us some market research info, to this effect, we would really appreciate it.

In the upcoming release (end of May 2023), version 12.1, we are adding Helicopter/Gyro support. Adding support for UL's sounds like it might be comparable in nature (maybe involves including UL airports, and other types of data, e.g. congested-areas shape files).
 
Brian: I fly ultralights, Light Sport, amphib, and GA. There are probably others here that fly ultralight, and might've been "chiming in here". As far as I, and others can tell, Nashfan was asking for Real Plan. I illustrated how to do that (as well as manual planning) above in some detail.

I believe the UL segment is fast growing. But I'm not sure what needs they would have that you don't already fulfill. I myself have not found a lack in GPS/EFB, which I use across all the aircraft I fly. (And if I had I would've made a suggestion - you know I'm not shy that way.)

But let Nashfan pipe up here. He hasn't posted since I posted my detailed reply to him.
 
Brian: I fly ultralights, Light Sport, amphib, and GA. There are probably others here that fly ultralight, and might've been "chiming in here". As far as I, and others can tell, Nashfan was asking for Real Plan. I illustrated how to do that (as well as manual planning) above in some detail.

I believe the UL segment is fast growing. But I'm not sure what needs they would have that you don't already fulfill. I myself have not found a lack in GPS/EFB, which I use across all the aircraft I fly. (And if I had I would've made a suggestion - you know I'm not shy that way.)

But let Nashfan pipe up here. He hasn't posted since I posted my detailed reply to him.
Hook, right now our Aircraft Profile has a 'class' - that can be "Fixed-Wing", "HELO", "Gyro"... perhaps we should add another call "Ultra-Light"? And if so, this could tweak "default behaviors" of iFly, to make the user have to be a little less savvy/aware of "how to make iFly satisfy their UL needs"... If we did something like this -- what would be the most appropriate default behaviors/settings to change?
 
I'll cogitate on that. All that occurs to me right away, is that UL's don't need W&B. And can't file an official flight plan. You could also suggest RP whenever they're starting a flight plan. And for RP options you could check all the Avoid Airspace checkboxes (and maybe not let them be changed?). I'll have to think some more...
 
I'll cogitate on that. All that occurs to me right away, is that UL's don't need W&B. And can't file an official flight plan. You could also suggest RP whenever they're starting a flight plan. And for RP options you could check all the Avoid Airspace checkboxes (and maybe not let them be changed?). I'll have to think some more...
I think adding a UL "class" might be the way to go. In addition to what Hook said you could probably limit the fuel load to 5 gallons and max speed to 55 knots in the aircraft profile. Maybe a preflight warning that lists all of the UL "don'ts" or possibly a disclaimer on the RP results that says the pilot is responsible to check that the calculated route does not take you over populated areas, etc...

Tony
 
I think adding a UL "class" might be the way to go. In addition to what Hook said you could probably limit the fuel load to 5 gallons and max speed to 55 knots in the aircraft profile. Maybe a preflight warning that lists all of the UL "don'ts" or possibly a disclaimer on the RP results that says the pilot is responsible to check that the calculated route does not take you over populated areas, etc...

Tony
FYI, we adopt a pretty strict policy of "letting pilots do what they want" when it comes to settings, but we might "warn them". So where you say "limit fuel load", if we had a good spec for this limit, would simply "warn" them if they exceeded it. If pilot thinks they have good reasoning for doing something, despite the warnings -- we want to let them do it. The same thing might go for avoiding Airspaces --we can default them to "avoid all airspaces", and if they change this default, warn them.

The biggest/hardest need I can think of has to do with "UL airstrips" database (their version of airports)... How many thousands of these are there, and what is a good data source for this data?

Also, if we can find a data source for "UL prohibited populated areas" - that would be a benefit too. Many many hundreds/thousands of these areas are there? With this data, no only can we RP around them, but also can warn the pilot if they are headed into one, real-time, just like any other airspace.
 
It's not really "UL-prohibited populated areas", it's just "cannot fly over congested areas". And that's not defined as far as I know. I always told my students that if you make an engine-out landing and you couldn't help but hit somebody or somebody's property, the FAA is probably going to say "well, that was a congested area".

I just pulled up an AOPA article and they state: Rather than publish a definition so pilots can know how to shape their aeronautical behavior, the FAA purposefully doesn’t—it comes up with its definition on a case-by-case basis. The FAA says it does that so it can balance the pilot’s interests with the need to protect persons and property. In enforcement actions, the FAA has successfully declared that a congested area includes a group of people on an airport ramp, sunbathers on a beach, a small subdivision covering less than a quarter mile, and traffic on an Interstate highway.
 
FYI, we adopt a pretty strict policy of "letting pilots do what they want" when it comes to settings, but we might "warn them". So where you say "limit fuel load", if we had a good spec for this limit, would simply "warn" them if they exceeded it. If pilot thinks they have good reasoning for doing something, despite the warnings -- we want to let them do it.
I see what you're saying. So instead of "limit fuel load" it's probably default the fuel capacity to 5 gallons in the profile (the max allowed by part 103) but let them override the setting if they have a non-compliant tank. Same for the default speed (55 knots max allowable).

Tony
 
Thinking more on the subject... Although there is no database (or even a solid definition) of congested areas, that still doesn't mean that there isn't a database of populated areas. Obviously there is one somewhere, because the FAA manages to color those yellow on sectional charts. If you could access that (which would be yet another data set to download to our devices), then you could at least provide another "avoid" checkbox in the RP options (which you could turn on by default for a UL Class vehicle). This may be quite a bit of work for a subset of EFB users, who may or may not even use RP to do their flight planning.

[Side note: the FAA calls UL's vehicles. And it calls their users operators. They are not aircraft, and they're not flown by pilots. A little harsh, but there it is.]

That's if (a big IF) they even use an EFB. With an even smaller subset of them that would be using iFly's EFB. Although it is my understanding that UL buyers & flyers are a growing segment, I would hazard a guess that only a slim minority of them use EFB's at all. (I can say that none of the ten or so others that I know of in the Arlington UL Park fly with an EFB. I would get a blank look if I even asked them what an "EFB" was. They'd probably laugh if I asked them if they wanted a moving sectional chart. Some would ask me what a sectional chart is.) They fly low and slow (very slow), and fly by pilotage. They have very few, if any, instruments. They might use their phone to get a GPS ground speed reading. For the distances UL operators fly, it's just not necessary on most days to have a map. A UL at best can do 63 mph (55 kts), but most are probably flying around 30-45 mph. More at 30 than 45. You have 5 gal fuel capacity, and you're burning 3-5 gph. You're rarely flying to somewhere that has fuel. You're just flying out to a field and back, or flying around and landing back where you took off. Even if you're a fast 45 mph and burning only 3 gph, with 5 gal you only have 1.2 hrs (3.5 gal) of flight duration if you want to land back home with 30 min (1.5 gal) of reserve fuel. That means you can fly out 0.6 hrs (27 miles) and back. Most probably don't even do that big a radius. That being said, I do use iFly. Mostly because I'm used to using it, and I would use my phone for a GPS ground speed reading anyway.

I'll continue to think on this. Others may have differing opinions. I think that those of us that are Private (or Sport) pilots will say that they will or do use EFB when flying very light aircraft. (Please note that everyone on this forum uses iFly EFB -- that's why we're here.) That's where we're coming from. But the majority of operators of UL vehicles did not come up the same path as us.

It's still probably worthwhile to make some changes to how EFB operates if the selected aircraft (vehicle) is marked as UL. IMHO it's not worth too much effort though. Sorry. I just can't think of what you could change or add that would make EFB such a great tool for UL guys that they would: A) hear about it; and B) start buying it. Even if you could, I don't think most would buy it. My opinion.
 
Last edited:
And that's if (a big IF) they even use an EFB, and a smaller subset of them that would be using iFly's EFB. Although it is my understanding that UL buyers & flyers are a growing segment, I would hazard a guess that only a slim minority of them use EFB's at all. (I can say that none of the ten or so others that I know of in the Arlington UL Park fly with an EFB. I would get a blank look if I even asked them what an "EFB" was. They'd probably laugh if I asked them if they wanted a moving sectional chart.) They fly low and slow (very slow), and fly by pilotage. They have very few, if any, instruments. They might use their phone to get a GPS ground speed reading. For the distances UL operators fly, it's just not necessary on most days to have a map. A UL at best can do 63 mph (55 kts), but most are probably flying around 30-45 mph. More at 30 than 45. You have 5 gal fuel capacity, and you're burning 3-5 gph. You're rarely flying to somewhere that has fuel. You're just flying out to a field and back, or flying around and landing back where you took off. Even if you're a fast 45 mph and burning only 3 gph, with 5 gal you only have 1.2 hrs (3.5 gal) of flight duration if you want to land back home with 30 min (1.5 gal) of reserve fuel. That means you can fly out 0.6 hrs (27 miles) and back. Most probably don't even do that big a radius.
I've held my tongue on this bit, because I was worried I was being a Negative Nancy on this topic in general. But my (admittedly limited--I have known two UL operators and stopped in at a "busy" UL field once (there were three vehicles in operation, and a handful more on the ground) and kind of watched from a polite distance) experience with ULs perfectly fits Hook's words on the subject:
  • UL operators (didn't know that was the right term!) typically aren't going anywhere. They're flying locally to enjoy the experience of being in the air. RealPlan is not useful for such flights.
  • UL operators are not flying behind glass panels full of gauges and data. They're out in the breeze with little or nothing in the way of instrumentation or guidance.
  • I can count on one hand the number of UL fields I've seen. I can count on my two hands and two feet the number of times I've seen a UL in flight. ULs might be a "growing segment" (really? They didn't peak in the late 70s / early 80s?), but it still seems like a very small niche today.

That being said, I do use iFly. Mostly because I'm used to using it, and I would use my phone for a GPS ground speed reading anyway.

I'll continue to think on this. Others may have differing opinions. I think, those of us that are Private (or Sport) pilots will say that they will or do use EFB when flying very light aircraft. And the people on this forum all use iFly EFB. That's where we're coming from. But the majority of operators of UL vehicles did not come up the same path as us.

It's still probably worthwhile to make some changes to how EFB operates if the selected aircraft (vehicle) is marked as UL. IMHO it's not worth too much effort though. Sorry. I just can't think of what you could change or add that would make EFB such a great tool for them that UL guys would hear about it and start buying it. Even if you could, I don't think most would buy it. My opinion.
(Highlighting is mine.) ^^^That's what I've been thinking, too. The one person who's been vocal and excited about it here isn't even actually flying a UL today. He's only thinking about flying one.

UL operators as a group are probably not clamoring for a tool like EFB. They don't want it, they don't need it, and they're not going to buy it.
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify a couple of things: Calling ultralights "vehicles" with "operators" is the FAA's way of not having to regulate them by placating the lawyers. It's analogous to the FAA allowing Light Sport seaplanes to have "relocatable" landing gear, but not "retractable" landing gear.

As for the number of potential ultralight iFly purchasers--it's probably true that most ultralight operations stay local in the USA because of the 5-gallon fuel tank limitation. (Not so in Europe.) On the other hand, many modern ultralights can cruise for 2 or 3 hours on 5 gallons of gas. That's at 55 knots, which does permit travel and requires navigation. And the weight of an iFly-capable phone or tablet doesn't count against the 254 lb weight limit. So if it doesn't cost AP much to implement iFly features that appeal to ultralight "operators," why not do it and advertise in ultralight forums.
 
Thanks for the discussion. I'm guessing this may get something like "Ultra Light" Class setting, and a few considerations, just to say "Hey UL guys, we want you. " :) And they can say "wow, they got 'UltraLight support'"
 
Back
Top