In general aviation, the focus tends to be about doing things right: proper procedures, precise flying, etc... Ultralight tends to be more about getting prepared in case things go wrong. In fact, more than half of my training was about dealing with engine failures.
I think the difference in training comes from the fact that crashes are more frequent with ultralight aircraft but they are also more survivable. A big part of it is that ultralight aircraft are lighter (duh) and can fly slow, which mean mush less energy to dissipate, and it matters a lot if you are going to crash into a forest.
Big aviation has no such procedures because crash landing a Boeing or a fighter jet is not an option. Even landing on water (perfectly doable in a glider, though all instruments will be kaput) is a huge achievement in an airliner.
Such as:
Not only did the plane remain stable in the tree, one of the volunteer first-responders had the appropriate tree climbing experience and equipment to reach the accident site.
That experience could have easily gone to waste - arborist climbing techniques and standards are very different from what is used for vertical rescue.
The fact that the rescuers made the pragmatic decision to go ahead with borrowed techniques is very unusual.
>Officials are trying to determine how to remove the plane from its perch and warned people to stay away from it.
She had no bone hurt and a dozen people survived. Minus the injuries due to spending 10 days without disinfectant in the jungle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliane_Koepcke
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/authorinterviews/9...
This is sitting inside a cramped metal can with the engine in your lap and propeller in your face. There are so many ways to die in that situation that focusing on the diameter of tree trunks was just too much for me.