PDA

View Full Version : Part 103 weight limit



aeroschmitz
11-25-2015, 02:58 PM
Is there a chance this limit could be raised?

Dana
11-25-2015, 05:15 PM
About the same chance as a packed sphere of frozen H2O in a legendary very hot place...

Mike M
11-25-2015, 08:45 PM
Is there a chance this limit could be raised?


with enough power, anything may be raised. e.g. F104

martymayes
11-26-2015, 05:44 AM
Is there a chance this limit could be raised?

If you petition the FAA for a rule change to raise the Pt. 103 max wt. and it makes it to the comment stage, I'll get at least 3 people to write a supporting comment!!

Dana
11-26-2015, 07:41 AM
As much as I'd like to see a weight limit increase, you don't want the FAA to open 103 up for revision! Who knows what they'd screw with...

1600vw
11-26-2015, 08:43 AM
As much as I'd like to see a weight limit increase, you don't want the FAA to open 103 up for revision! Who knows what they'd screw with...


What does it really matter. They killed Par103 when they did away with training. Because of what happened to training for Par 103, I myself believe this should be re opened. What is wrong with allowing a little more weight and training. If they do nothing it will die it's slow death. Kinda like recreational pilot. Its on the books but who uses it. This is the direction of Par103.

martymayes
11-26-2015, 10:09 AM
If the FAA wants to screw with Pt 103, they could do that anytime. Petitioning for vehicle max wt increase would only address that topic. Need a good argument, can't just say because I want an increase.

Byron J. Covey
11-26-2015, 10:44 AM
..... If they do nothing it will die it's slow death. Kinda like recreational pilot. Its on the books but who uses it. This is the direction of Par103.

And that would solve the FAA's problems that led to the creation of Part 103: Being responsible for regulating that which is, at best, a PITA to regulate, or, at worst, that which is incapable of being effectively regulated.

I would love to see the empty weight of unregulated airplanes set at 600 pounds, but I do not expect to see that untill after the next round of state secessions from the USA.


BJC

1600vw
11-26-2015, 09:37 PM
Safety could be the reason for the weight increase. To say this would not help in safety would just be wrong. One could use a little better engine then the two stroke. That alone is a safety issue's. Only then could one address the issue of training.

Mike M
11-27-2015, 01:32 AM
Safety the reason for a weight increase? Good point. Example. The Icon A5 LSA with a 1510lb MGW. LSA? HAHAHAHAHAHA!

FlyingRon
11-27-2015, 04:18 PM
The FAA is disinclined to touch 103 at all. They find the LSA rules a happy medium in regulatory space. Your chances to get ANYTHING changed in Part 103 are very slim.

martymayes
11-29-2015, 06:43 PM
Safety could be the reason for the weight increase. To say this would not help in safety would just be wrong. One could use a little better engine then the two stroke. That alone is a safety issue's. Only then could one address the issue of training.

Tony, you'll have to come up with a more persuasive argument than just telling people they are wrong because they don't share your point of view.

For sure, if everyone sits in their LazyBoy recliner thinking nothing will ever change, that's exactly what will happen.

1600vw
11-30-2015, 05:19 AM
Tony, you'll have to come up with a more persuasive argument than just telling people they are wrong because they don't share your point of view.

For sure, if everyone sits in their LazyBoy recliner thinking nothing will ever change, that's exactly what will happen.

Many believe two strokes to be unsafe and that the ultralight world would be better off to have something else to power these then a two stroke. Not just my point of view. But it is MHO.

Tony

Mike M
11-30-2015, 08:00 AM
Many believe two stroke to be unsafe. Many, including the manufacturer of one of the most widely used light aircraft engines in the world, also consider the four stroke products to be unsafe. From the Rotax 912 manual: 5172

1600vw
11-30-2015, 08:04 AM
Many believe two stroke to be unsafe. Many, including the manufacturer of one of the most widely used light aircraft engines in the world, also consider the four stroke products to be unsafe. From the Rotax 912 manual: 5172


Yep pretty much like the OP " Operation Limitations " say about my EAB. and every other EAB or Experimental out there. Your Point?

Tony

Mike M
11-30-2015, 04:51 PM
Yep pretty much like the OP " Operation Limitations " say about my EAB. and every other EAB or Experimental out there. Your Point?

Tony

Re-read the second sentence of my post, kind sir, to find the point.

1600vw
11-30-2015, 09:46 PM
Re-read the second sentence of my post, kind sir, to find the point.


My point even the FAA says these things air not airworthy. Do you expect the manufacturer of something for these to be any different? But that does not put the two stroke on the same field as the four stroke.

Tony

jedi
12-03-2015, 05:28 PM
Is there a chance this limit could be raised?

No, but if you would like to work the problem, here is my suggestion.

First some background information:

From AC 103 7

"l/30/84
AC 103-7 will affect the direction Government takes in future regulations. The safety record of ultralight vehicles will be the foremost factor in determining the need for further regulations.

FAA CONTACT POINTS.
The FAA will provide clarification of particular subject areas, information, and assistance pertaining to the operations of ultralight vehicles through the following contacts:

a. Flight Standards Field Offices. Flight Standards District Offices (FSDOs), General Aviation District Offices (GAB%), and Manufacturing and Inspection District Offices (MIDOs) are the FAA field offices where information and assistance are available regarding the operation of ultralight vehicles, acceptable methods of complying with Part 103 requirements, and compliance with other regulations should it become necessary to operate an ultralight as a certificated aircraft. "

If the aircraft you have is close to the requirements, contact the local FSDO and explain the issues. They can give paperwork saying that the aircraft has been demonstrated to meet the requirements of FAR 103 or assist in your obtaining the paperwork, registration etc., required otherwise. They do not like to issue paperwork as that creates a trail to their office. However, I have seen them make suggestions on ways to not have to go through the work of getting the airworthiness certificate as that is a lot of work also. Get names and document dates, etc to indicate your efforts at certification and their response.

If you can get a thousand ULers to do this it can effect the outcome for revisions to AC 103 7 to include a higher weight for safety items such as brakes, starters and transponders, etc as was promised when LS was published. I have only been successful in convincing one individual to do this but it worked well.

If the FSDO sends you to the UL clubs as was intended when 103 was published come back to ASC for assistance and we will work the problem.

As a side note know that we could have had a much higher weight when the regulation was written if those working the problem would have eliminated the infighting and asked for more than each manufacturers current product line weighed.

The same thing happened when LS was written. The FAA gave more weight than most asked for now everyone complains that 1320# is not enough.

History repeats itself. A majority of the people actually voted for Obama. If I say more........

jedi
12-03-2015, 05:42 PM
Safety could be the reason for the weight increase. To say this would not help in safety would just be wrong. One could use a little better engine then the two stroke. That alone is a safety issue's. Only then could one address the issue of training.


Along the same line as post # 18.

Go to the local FSDO/MIDO and start the paperwork to repower your 2-cycle UL with a heavier 4-cycle engine and convert it to an "aircraft with an airworthiness certificate" and see what reception you get. Don't give up, just keep going back until you get the job done. They will be very happy to be rid of you one way or the other.

Then get your friends to repeat the process a thousand times. And do not forget to tell your congressman how the FAA has helped to make aviation safer for everyone by making those "dangerous Ultra Light Vehicles" meet the higher standards of "certificated" aircraft with just a simple engine change.

1600vw
12-04-2015, 04:08 PM
Along the same line as post # 18.

Go to the local FSDO/MIDO and start the paperwork to repower your 2-cycle UL with a heavier 4-cycle engine and convert it to an "aircraft with an airworthiness certificate" and see what reception you get. Don't give up, just keep going back until you get the job done. They will be very happy to be rid of you one way or the other.

Then get your friends to repeat the process a thousand times. And do not forget to tell your congressman how the FAA has helped to make aviation safer for everyone by making those "dangerous Ultra Light Vehicles" meet the higher standards of "certificated" aircraft with just a simple engine change.

I don't believe anything but a " Certified " airplane can meet the standards of a Certified airplane. It has nothing to do with meeting any standards.

Tony

jedi
12-05-2015, 03:23 PM
I don't believe anything but a " Certified " airplane can meet the standards of a Certified airplane. It has nothing to do with meeting any standards.

Tony


There is a difference between a "certified" and a "certificated" aircraft. A certified aircraft has a "standard" airworthiness. A certificated aircraft has an airworthiness certificate. It could be experimental or otherwise.

I blows my mind that the FAA certificated the Wright Flyer replicas for the 100 year anniversary of the Wright brothers flight even though most were not capable of flight. The point is that the aircraft needs to certificated if it is not 103 compliant. It does not need to be certified. You are right, certificated, does not need to meet any flight standards. It does need to meet registration and marking regulations and certificated standards (example 51% rule for EAB). The aircraft can be certificated and still not be legal to fly or able to fly.

1600vw
12-05-2015, 07:51 PM
There is a difference between a "certified" and a "certificated" aircraft. A certified aircraft has a "standard" airworthiness. A certificated aircraft has an airworthiness certificate. It could be experimental or otherwise.

I blows my mind that the FAA certificated the Wright Flyer replicas for the 100 year anniversary of the Wright brothers flight even though most were not capable of flight. The point is that the aircraft needs to certificated if it is not 103 compliant. It does not need to be certified. You are right, certificated, does not need to meet any flight standards. It does need to meet registration and marking regulations and certificated standards (example 51% rule for EAB). The aircraft can be certificated and still not be legal to fly or able to fly.

Please explain how this has anything to do with raising the weight limit on a PAR 103 ultralight?

Tony

Dana
12-05-2015, 08:31 PM
I don't think you'll find the word "certified"anywhere in FAA regulations.

When the FAA certificates an experimental aircraft, they're not passing judgement on whether it'll fly, just whether the paperwork is in order and it shows reasonably good workmanship.

jedi
12-07-2015, 05:49 AM
Please explain how this has anything to do with raising the weight limit on a FAR 103 ultralight?

Tony

Certify definition - officially recognize (someone or something) as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards.

When the FAA issues a "standard" airworthiness certificate it is recognizing that the aircraft meets some standard, part 23 for example. The FAA has certified that that aircraft has met the design and manufacturing requirements of the specified standard. This is a long and expensive process for both the manufacturer and the FAA.

The FAA has agreed that the low public risk and limited exposure of Ultralights does not warrant their detailed investigations for issuance of a Standard airworthiness certificate provided the operation is in compliance with FAR 103 and AC 103-7.

FAR 103 was created when the FAA realized that the volume and characteristics of the aircraft being operated within the FAR 103 defined operating limitations needed to be addressed in some manner other than by issuing an airworthiness certificate and requiring operations compliant with FAR 61 and 91.

The OP is wanting the FAA to change that definition. That will not happen unless there is a need. FAR 103 was not created until there were thousands of illegal operations and it was obvious that some action to remedy the situation was required.

If thousands of people petitioned the FAA to operate their ultralight like vehicle that almost meets the FAR 103 requirements and is of less danger too the public than those FAR 103 compliant ultralights, and if they were to force the FAA to provide airworthiness certificates for those vehicles, then the FAA may conclude that it would be better to expand the Ultralight definition to include those aircraft in the accepted definition of an UL.

I would welcome additional discussion via personal message or on this or other forum. Promises were made with regard to passage of Light Sport Regulations that have not been kept. There is insufficient public complaint to make those changes. I have been unsuccessful in gathering the support needed to make those changes. In general I find that many will complain on forums such as this but few are willing to go to the FAA to make the changes happen.

There was one individual that worked with the FAA who was the catalyst for the Light Sport Regulations. We need more of that kind of person in the ultralight movement. That change was made by the one person attempting to operate an ultralight legally. FAR 103 was created by thousands operating illegally. Light Sport was created by one persons legal operation. Either or both methods can be employed. FAR 103 requirements can be changed by thousands of illegal UL operations or by certificating those that are as safe or safer and almost legal ULs. That is the message of the series of posts in question.

Byron J. Covey
12-07-2015, 06:23 AM
I don't think you'll find the word "certified"anywhere in FAA regulations.

When the FAA certificates an experimental aircraft, they're not passing judgement on whether it'll fly, just whether the paperwork is in order and it shows reasonably good workmanship.

I have always found the FAA's terminology odd; they avoid the common usage of the word "certified."

Note the title change from AC 23-11 to its replacement, AC 23-11A. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22073


BJC

martymayes
12-07-2015, 08:40 AM
Certify definition - officially recognize (someone or something) as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards.

When the FAA issues or a "standard" airworthiness certificate it is recognizing that the aircraft meets some standard, part 23 for example. The FAA has certified that that aircraft has met the design and manufacturing requirements of the specified standard. This is a long and expensive process for both the manufacturer and the FAA.

I'm with Dana, the FAA doesn't certify, they issue certificates. In aviation the terms are used synonymously and for the most part everyone understands each other, however, when the purist show up:

"Certificated" means "to furnish with or authorize by a certificate."

Anytime the FAA issues or furnishes a certificate to authorize something, that product or person is referred to as "certificated."

Aircraft are certificated, airmen are certificated, air carriers are certificated, some airports are certificated, some are not. None are certified. You know, you can buy a C-172, register it in Canada and it's still a US certificated aircraft even though it does not have an FAA issued airworthiness certificate.

I have never seen an airplane (or aeronautical product) that had a rubber ink stamp saying "FAA CERTIFIED" like USDA does with meat.

jedi
12-07-2015, 11:36 AM
I'm with Dana, the FAA doesn't certify, they issue certificates. In aviation the terms are used synonymously and for the most part everyone understands each other, however, when the purist show up:

"Certificated" means "to furnish with or authorize by a certificate."

Anytime the FAA issues or furnishes a certificate to authorize something, that product or person is referred to as "certificated."

Aircraft are certificated, airmen are certificated, air carriers are certificated, some airports are certificated, some are not. None are certified. You know, you can buy a C-172, register it in Canada and it's still a US certificated aircraft even though it does not have an FAA issued airworthiness certificate.

I have never seen an airplane (or aeronautical product) that had a rubber ink stamp saying "FAA CERTIFIED" like USDA does with meat.

We are getting into the finer points here which are off the main topic, but, since we have gone this far I would like to proceed a little farther to clarify my understanding as I expect to learn something here.

My understanding is the aircraft with the "Standard" airworthiness is the equivalent of the USDA stamp of approval indicating that the FAA has done their due diligence and certifies that the aircraft does indeed meet the appropriate standard. The "special" airworthiness certificate provides the required paperwork without specifying a standard of approval.

For the standard airworthiness certificate the FAA reviews the design and test data and the manufacturing processes to provide assurance that the aircraft, as manufactured, meets the standard in their opinion. In actual practice the aircraft may or may not meet the standard. In other words the certification is not a guarantee, it is only an official opinion.

Is there disagreement with this principle?

martymayes
12-07-2015, 01:33 PM
I think the FAA does their due diligence with a process of certifications as outlined in Part 21. The airworthiness certificate doesn't certify anything. It authorizes operation of the aircraft provided all the conditions for issuance of the certificate are met.

Dana
12-07-2015, 08:34 PM
The FAA issues a standard airworthiness certificate to aircraft manufactured to a type certificate, and a special airworthiness certificate (which may be experimental, limited, or restricted) for other aircraft.

aeroschmitz
12-20-2015, 09:34 AM
That's a good point

mcrae0104
12-20-2015, 12:09 PM
I have always found the FAA's terminology odd; they avoid the common usage of the word "certified."

Yes, it's bizarre to issue a certificate that does not denote certification.

Buzz
12-24-2015, 12:04 PM
Is there a chance this limit could be raised?
I don't mean to sound dense this late in the thread, but I can't find anywhere in it where you explained why you want it raised?

What would you personally do with the extra weight allowance?

Jim Heffelfinger
12-24-2015, 12:36 PM
The OP has another thread "Ultralight engine" where he, like many before him, is trying to make weight for part 103 compliance. This is a connecting thread without explanation but many knowing of the struggle are aware - note sarcasm .
Buzz, the weight limit of UL in the US is Under 254 pounds. This is a hard number to attain and in part the reason for light sport.

aeroschmitz
12-25-2015, 09:57 AM
It would allow more choices for engines.

aeroschmitz
12-25-2015, 10:05 AM
increased weight allowance would allow for brales (or better brakes)

martymayes
12-25-2015, 11:30 AM
It would allow more choices for engines.
increased weight allowance would allow for brales (or better brakes)

I agree. But isn't a readily available solution already here? One can use the "operating amateur built aircraft" regs, no?

At any rate, I would support raising the Part 103 max weight. It is somewhat of a arbitrary number. I'd like to see someone write a petition (that is allowed simply by following he rules under Part 11) and make a logical argument for a modest weight increase. Of course, the process (if not immediately denied) could take several yrs but one thing is for sure, the FAA isn't going to do it on their own.

Petitions for Rulemaking and for Exemption

§11.61 May I ask FAA to adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation, or grant relief from the requirements of a current regulation?

(a) Using a petition for rulemaking, you may ask FAA to add a new regulation to title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) or ask FAA to amend or repeal a current regulation in 14 CFR.

martymayes
12-25-2015, 11:38 AM
Buzz, the weight limit of UL in the US is Under 254 pounds. This is a hard number to attain and in part the reason for light sport.

It's not hard to obtain that number with a basic UL vehicle like a Weedhopper or Quicksilver equivalent. Some of those make it with several pounds to spare. It is hard to obtain by trying to make a conventional type airplane fit within the specs.

aeroschmitz
12-25-2015, 06:56 PM
Yes, there are a few of the open air flying coleman tent type airplanes that probably would make part 103 with twin cylinder engine. I fly in northern Minnesota so I need an enclosed plane like the single seat challenger.

VFR-on-top
12-27-2015, 02:53 AM
open air flying coleman tent type airplanes



:eek:

cliffo
12-27-2015, 04:14 PM
I'm about to find out if I can receive a variance for weight on my Quicksilver in the state of North Dakota, being I have to register in this state which seems that should put it under the states jurisdiction. I,m going for the safety plea,with the ballistic chute, I automatically am allowed, what 23# or close, but it seems for safeties sake It should have a flashing beacon light, brakes, a decent harness, and a steerable nosewheel. That's about all I think could maybe be gotten out of them. What's the thoughts on the legality of the state authorizing this? I'll find out this week maybe if they are'nt all out for the holidays.

Dana
12-27-2015, 09:36 PM
I'm about to find out if I can receive a variance for weight on my Quicksilver in the state of North Dakota, being I have to register in this state which seems that should put it under the states jurisdiction. I,m going for the safety plea,with the ballistic chute, I automatically am allowed, what 23# or close, but it seems for safeties sake It should have a flashing beacon light, brakes, a decent harness, and a steerable nosewheel. That's about all I think could maybe be gotten out of them. What's the thoughts on the legality of the state authorizing this? I'll find out this week maybe if they are'nt all out for the holidays.

The state has absolutely nothing to do with it; once you're airborne you're solely under federal jurisdiction, i.e. part 103. At most the state may require you to register it so they collect their tax or registration money, but they cannot authorize a deviation from federal regulations.

There is the allowance for a parachute as you have noted. Other things, like brakes, etc., people have argued for and failed to get included, because according to the FAA they're not intended "for deployment in a catastrophic situation."

But if it's a single seat Quicksilver, it looks like an ultralight... just fly it. Nobody's going to weigh it.

martymayes
12-28-2015, 06:12 AM
What's the thoughts on the legality of the state authorizing this?.

The state can not preempt federal regulations.

Buzz
12-28-2015, 09:12 AM
But if it's a single seat Quicksilver, it looks like an ultralight... just fly it. Nobody's going to weigh it.

Amen Dana.

There are 3 parts to Part 103.1(e). 1)Weight 2)fuel capacity 3)Vh[max speed level flight full power] 4)Vs[stall speed]. The FAA is no more likely to ever check one of those than the other. They haven't got the interest or the resources to check if your u/l conforms to 103.1.

The FAA had to come up with some description of what an "ultralight" was when they wrote Part 103 in 1982. What was the most popular U/L at the time? The original Quicksilver MX. Virtually every other ultralight at the time had the same physical characteristics [weight, Vh, Vs]. So those became the "description" of an "ultralight" for "Part A - Applicability".

The bottom line is the FAA is never going to come after you for anything in Subpart A. [The conformity]. The only reason the FAA is every going to come after you is if you badly violate some part of "Subpart B - Operating Rules".

Someone is probably going to bring up the "liability" of flying an illegal ultralight. Again, there isn't any to be concerned about. If you get sued because you kill or hurt someone, it isn't going to be because the ultralight was non-conforming. [Assuming it had only 1 seat]. You'll get sued on some other negligence in how you were operating it. Lack of conformity isn't going to create more negligence.

If what you fly looks like an "ultralight" to the average man on the street and you keep within the "Subpart B - Operating Rules", you are of no interest or concern of the FAA.

I've been flying U/Ls since the late '70s. Although people have been flying "fat" ultralight for decades now, I've still never heard of one person ever having an issue with the FAA for violating Subpart A. The reality is they have "bigger fish to fry" than enforcing the 103.1.

cliffo
12-28-2015, 06:05 PM
Thanks for the replies guys, I think I'm going to let the sleeping dog lay so to speak as I don't need to stir the pot and I just want to fly in peace without John Law barking at my heels. But I only live 75 miles from this new drone testing facility at an Air Force base and I hope they don't go restricting any airspace around me. So I'll just try to stay off their radar.

Dana
12-28-2015, 06:38 PM
...I only live 75 miles from this new drone testing facility at an Air Force base and I hope they don't go restricting any airspace around me. So I'll just try to stay off their radar.

Just keep up to date on airspace and TFRs, and you'll be fine.

aeroschmitz
01-02-2016, 09:52 PM
this forum should just be called the the "FAT UL STRIP", since no one gives a shttt about meeting compliance.

aeroschmitz
01-02-2016, 09:55 PM
but its fun to dream!

aeroschmitz
01-02-2016, 10:30 PM
George Kastanza once said, "It's not a lie if you believe it yourself"

pacerpilot
01-03-2016, 05:44 PM
Bill Clinton said that too.

martymayes
01-04-2016, 08:30 AM
about meeting compliance.

I share your frustration aeroschmitz. How to skirt the rules is not really a solution.

crusty old aviator
01-04-2016, 05:06 PM
Look at the postman who landed his gyro in DC to deliver his messages to Congress. The FAA was called in to weigh his Gyronimo and oooooo was she a porker! I never heard what the fine was for that, but that was probably the first time in a verrrrrry long time that the FAA weighed an ultralight, other than monitoring the weighing of a new, factory built design that had just started production.

Buzz
01-05-2016, 02:39 PM
Look at the postman who landed his gyro in DC to deliver his messages to Congress. The FAA was called in to weigh his Gyronimo and oooooo was she a porker! I never heard what the fine was for that, but that was probably the first time in a verrrrrry long time that the FAA weighed an ultralight, other than monitoring the weighing of a new, factory built design that had just started production.
He violated so many airspace and operating rules with his flight I bet the weight of that thing was violation #43 in the list he got hit with!!! It was probably a subnote to a footnote!

martymayes
01-05-2016, 03:31 PM
He violated so many airspace and operating rules with his flight I bet the weight of that thing was violation #43 in the list he got hit with!!! It was probably a subnote to a footnote!


Actually Buzz, operating an unregistered aircraft was the only felony offense he was charged with: "the 61-year-old advocate for campaign finance reform appeared in U.S. District Court in Washington, charged with violating registration requirements involving an aircraft, which is a felony"

The airspace violations were a misdemeanor: "also was charged with a misdemeanor count of violating national-defense airspace."



Interestingly, some here are advocating doing the same thing - operating an overweight ultralight which would be an unregistered aircraft.

Buzz
01-06-2016, 02:32 PM
Interestingly, some here are advocating doing the same thing - operating an overweight ultralight which would be an unregistered aircraft.I think you just came up with an excellent name for an ultralight chapter. "Flying Felons".

[One might think the government is a little nutty when violating the national defense airspace is a misdemeanor but not having registered the airplane is the felony. Until one considers that most drug running aircraft are unregistered. So having that as a felony is probably for the benefit of the DEA.]

What's being lost here is the original intent & spirit of Part 103.

The question when it was written in 1982 was "Do we want to define these all as aircraft and required them to have N numbers and the operators to be licensed?" [When I built my Easy Riser in 1977 I dutifully registered it with an N-number and flew it under my PPL.]

So they came up with Part 103 to define the category of "air vehicles" they would not consider as "airplanes" and require licenses to fly.

Clearly the lack of rigid enforcement of Part 103 conformity standards by the FAA since the law was written and the FAA leaving it alone when they wrote the Sport Pilot [they could have dropped Part 103 as part of that] seems to demonstrate that the FAA doesn't view the typical "Fat Ultralight" as an unregistered aircraft.

Rather, they too seem to view it as simply a "Fat Ultralight". As such, something they don't care to pursue.

We also have to remember this thread was started with the questions "Will they ever raise the weight limits?"

Maybe the better question would have been, "Will I ever run into legal trouble if my ultralight doesn't conform exactly to the 4 sections of Part 103.1?"

Legal precedent shows the answer is "Yes, if you land it on the lawn of the Capitol or the White House. Otherwise, essentially never."

1600vw
01-06-2016, 06:40 PM
If you are flying a single seat low weight slow flying anything the FAA really cares less what you are doing. They have bigger fish to fry. But stick an extra seat on it, now you have their attention. If you want to go out a kill yourself they really careless. Its when you want to take some poor innocent soul with you that the FAA starts caring, now you have their attention.

But myself I do not understand this. If you want to fly something that weighs over Far 103 of 254 lbs. Why not just register said airframe? So you need a Condition inspection yearly. You should be inspecting your airframe yearly anyway. I like having an extra set of eye's on my airframe once a year. Now this inspection gets logged and may cost a couple hundred bucks. Registration cost 5 bucks every 3 years. Now if anyone looks at your aircraft it's N numbered. Weigh it all you want.

Dana
01-06-2016, 08:06 PM
But myself I do not understand this. If you want to fly something that weighs over Far 103 of 254 lbs. Why not just register said airframe? So you need a Condition inspection yearly. You should be inspecting your airframe yearly anyway. I like having an extra set of eye's on my airframe once a year. Now this inspection gets logged and may cost a couple hundred bucks. Registration cost 5 bucks every 3 years. Now if anyone looks at your aircraft it's N numbered. Weigh it all you want.

Put numbers on your plane and:

You need a pilot certificate, with category and class ratings or endorsements appropriate to the aircraft type.

You need a biennial flight review.

You need a yearly condition inspection.

You're subject to all of Part 91, including 91.119 (minimum altitudes).

You have to notify the FAA and do testing in a limited area if you make any major modifications to the plane.

If you flunk a medical exam you can't fly, even as a sport pilot.

Now don't get me wrong, there are advantages to flying a registered plane, too, and I am again, after flying ultralights for 10 years. But there are disadvantages, too.

jedi
01-15-2016, 12:10 PM
Put numbers on your plane and:

You need a pilot certificate, with category and class ratings or endorsements appropriate to the aircraft type.

You need a biennial flight review.

You need a yearly condition inspection.

You're subject to all of Part 91, including 91.119 (minimum altitudes).

You have to notify the FAA and do testing in a limited area if you make any major modifications to the plane.

If you flunk a medical exam you can't fly, even as a sport pilot.

Now don't get me wrong, there are advantages to flying a registered plane, too, and I am again, after flying ultralights for 10 years. But there are disadvantages, too.

Also, you are subject to state registration and fees. Much more than the $5 every three years.

You also need to log flight time to show compliance with Part 61.

To me, 91.119 is the biggest handy cap. Many just ignore this when flying as a Light Sport Pilot in an ultralight like aircraft. This is the reg that is most likely to get you a violation. I have seen convictions on this that were not a violation. The court system is rigged to find the pilot guilty regardless of the facts and witnesses.

Dana
01-15-2016, 07:00 PM
To me, 91.119 is the biggest handy cap. Many just ignore this when flying as a Light Sport Pilot in an ultralight like aircraft. This is the reg that is most likely to get you a violation. I have seen convictions on this that were not a violation. The court system is rigged to find the pilot guilty regardless of the facts and witnesses.

Most cases don't ever get to court; the FAA is judge, jury, and executioneer. I got violated by the FAA on 91.119 years ago. I was NOT guilty (I was flying below 500' yes, but more than 500' offshore, totally legal), it was my word against the witness on the beach who claimed I flew "right over his head." I accepted a certificate suspension in lieu of fines because I had just disassembled my plane for restoration and I knew I wouldn't be flying anyway for some years (of course I didn't tell them that!).

Interestingly, the 500' rule does not apply to powered parachutes and weightshift aircraft, only to fixed wing aircraft.

1600vw
01-15-2016, 07:05 PM
Put numbers on your plane and:

You need a pilot certificate, with category and class ratings or endorsements appropriate to the aircraft type.

You need a biennial flight review.

You need a yearly condition inspection.

You're subject to all of Part 91, including 91.119 (minimum altitudes).

You have to notify the FAA and do testing in a limited area if you make any major modifications to the plane.

If you flunk a medical exam you can't fly, even as a sport pilot.

Now don't get me wrong, there are advantages to flying a registered plane, too, and I am again, after flying ultralights for 10 years. But there are disadvantages, too.

Correct....Unless you live in Alaska.

aeroschmitz
01-23-2016, 10:16 PM
alaska?

Dana
01-24-2016, 07:25 AM
alaska?

A lot of pilots in Alaska don't bother with such trivialities as pilot certificates. Dad simply teaches junior to fly the family plane, and that's it.

Buzz
01-24-2016, 05:48 PM
A lot of pilots in Alaska don't bother with such trivialities as pilot certificates. Dad simply teaches junior to fly the family plane, and that's it.
Yep.

Also, grizzlies ate nearly every FAA inspector there in the 1980s, too, so the FAA no longer tries to check pilot certificates in Alaska. :)

[I saw that on a reality TV show so it must be true.....]

-Buzz