Microlight/Ultralight Accident Statistics

These statistics were compiled in an effort to try to gather actuarial data for insurance purposes, trying to setup an insurance plan with the world’s largest insurance underwriter for weight-shift-control Light-Sport aircraft (it may be on the way). Of course there is no good accident data for ultralights in the US, so insurance companies are basically starting from zero, especially with weight-shift-control, which they don’t feel too comfortable with. We hoped that this data would help.

Besides the insurance implications, there is a lot to be learned from accident data. A lot of accidents could be avoided if people could learn from the mistakes of others. For that reason, GA magazines such as FLYING publish accident analyses in each issue. It is to the discredit of US ultralight magazines that more effort has not been put into covering the common causes of accidents, probably in an attempt to underplay the component of danger integral to aviation. This, of course, is a disservice to pilots.

Below is the incomplete, raw information gathered to date from Microlight Association sources in each country:

FRANCE
GERMANY
UK
AUSTRALIA
CANADA

FRANCE

---

GERMANY

Total trikes in operation: 1,200
Total fixed-wings in operation: 2,400
 

Year 2004 Accidents:
54 accidents
7 accidents with fatalities
12 fatalities
2 severely injured
5 slightly injured

Year 2005 Accidents:
55 accidents
8 accidents with fatalities
11 fatalities
5 severely injured
5 slightly injured

As a result of an investigation of all accidents between 1998 and 2005 the following causes were determined:

43% uncontrolled flight attitude
20% other
18% structural failure
13% engine failiure
5% uncontrolled ground contact
3% fire in flight
 

UK

Click here for the complete British Microlight Accident Analysis (Word doc)

Extract of Points to Note from the document:

• The overall accident rate for the 20 years is 5.5 per 100,000 hours.  This is more than three times that of general aviation.  Part of this was during the period when microlight flying was unregulated with no licences or airworthiness standards.
• 73% of accidents were during the 6 summer months, indicating when most of the flying takes place.  September is the safest summer month.  By comparison 66% of general aviation flying is during the summer but this figure is influenced by the fact that commercial flying by general aviation aircraft continues throughout the winter.
• Pilots in the 30 to 39 age range were at the greatest risk.
• Nearly half the accidents were to pilots with a total of over 100 hours whereas over 90% were to pilots with less than 100 hours on the type.  This indicates that hours on type are more important than total hours.
• In 17% of accidents the pilot did not have any kind of licence. 
• Fig. 2 shows that Loss of control accounted for 44% of accidents.  Airframe failure, mainly in the early days prior to the introduction of Airworthiness criteria, was the second most frequent type of accident with 31%.  In addition, some cases of loss of control resulted in structural break-up.  Continued flight into adverse weather which is so prevalent in general aviation flying, is conspicuous by it’s absence. 
• Medical collapse accounts for 5% of accidents, less than in general aviation where a full medical examination is required with an aeromedical examiner.
• Fig. 3 shows that where pilot knowledge and skill are concerned, incorrect control input, inexperience, failure to follow procedures and unfamiliar aircraft, feature in many accidents.
• Flying beyond the aircrafts limitations was a feature of 25% of accidents. 
• In Fig. 4 it can be seen that in nearly half of the accidents either the rules on aircraft standards, the flying rules or licence requirements were broken, sometimes all three.  This is not thought to be the case with the majority of pilots who have avoided fatal accidents.
• Unauthorised modifications were a feature of 20% of accidents.
• It is pleasing to note that alcohol is not a feature.
• Stall/spin was a feature of 34% of accidents.
• From Fig. 5 it can be seen that the design of the microlight, technical failures of the structure and poor maintenance were major external influences.
• Less than 10% of accidents were due to engine technical problems resulting in forced landings.  It may be that the effect of using un-certificated engines has been offset by their ability to make a steep approach into small fields.
• Strong wind and turbulence are the main weather factors.
• Fig. 6 shows that fire after impact is very rare compared with general aviation and helicopters, both often contain much more fuel and because of the greater speed are much more severely damaged.  In nearly 20% of accidents fortuitous rescue is attempted.

AUSTRALIA

Accident Report

Year    Membership  Fatalities

2001    4500          5
2002    4800          7
2003    4950          7
2004    5150          5
2005    5750          5
2006    6000+        1 to date

Note: These figures are for both Fixed-Wing and Weight-Shift
 

CANADA

Table 1 - This data shows a comparison of ultralight accident rates compared with the same data for general aviation. In 1987, there was one accident for every 70 ultralights flying, this gives an accident rate of 0.014. In 1996 there was one accident for every 145 ultralights flying, which yields an accident rate of 0.007. Compare that to the figures for general aviation where in 1987 there was one accident per 47 aeroplanes, an accident rate of 0.021, and in 1996 there was one accident for every 63 aeroplanes flying, an accident rate of 0.016. In the ten years covered by this data, the accident rate for ultralight aeroplanes is lower than for general aviation, in many years by half.

Accident Rate - Accidents per Aircraft Registered, Ultralight and General Aviation

Table 2 - To eliminate the variable of unreported accidents for both ultralight and general aviation activity, a comparison was made using fatal accidents (all of which are reported). Table 2 shows the results of that comparison. The accidents rates for ultraights varied from a high of 0.0020 to a low of 0.0005. The rates for general aviation varied from a high of 0.0029 to a low of 0.0016. Again, ultralight activity shows a lower rate of fatal accidents than general aviation.

Accident Rate - Fatal Accidents per Aircraft Registered, Ultralight and General Aviation

Table 3 - Table 3 compares the license type of pilots involved in ultralight accidents. This data demonstrates that having a conventional pilot license rather than an ultralight permit does not increase safety. General aviation pilots flying ultralight aeroplanes are responsible for 53 % of ultralight accidents while ultralight pilots are responsible for 29.7% of the ultralight accidents. The remaining 17.3% of the accidents were caused by unlicensed pilots. This category includes trained pilots whose medicals had expired as well as persons with no training.

Ultralight Aeroplane Accidents by Pilot License Type

*License type unavailable for 205 accidents, total accidents for the period was 596

**Ultralight student, private, and instructor permits are included under this category

***Student refers to general aviation student pilots.

Data for 1981 to 1990 from "Statistical Study of Ultralight Aircraft Accidents" supplied by Lindsay Cadenhead, Transport Canada