When is an Ultra Light not and Can it be a LSA

So excuse me yet another post, sorry guys but when I was younger and interested in flying I did not have the money, now I do.

I was going to build and may still yet an Ultra Light. But I see so many used on the market either single or dual seat ones that are Not Ultra Light 103 but could be Light Sport Aircraft. So right now where are these Quicksilvers, Challenger and others classed? To heavy for UL and yet not certified to have a N number? Yet a lot of those Mfg are out of business.

Is there a process? My local Ins guy who does air craft, said no N number, no Insurance.

EAA has a page with a complete copy of Part 103 for your reading pleasure:

https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-...or-ultralights

That should answer any questions on what falls within the Part 103 ultralight rules. Anything with two seats does not fit within Part 103.

A legal ultralight may be insured with third-party liability coverage through the United States Ultralight Association:

http://www.usua.org/

A difficult issue with registering an existing UL as E-AB would be proving it was amateur-built. You need to be very informed before running down this rabbit trail....

Of course all this might be more appropriate in the EAA Ultralight sub-forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmgeorge

So excuse me yet another post, sorry guys but when I was younger and interested in flying I did not have the money, now I do.

I was going to build and may still yet an Ultra Light. But I see so many used on the market either single or dual seat ones that are Not Ultra Light 103 but could be Light Sport Aircraft. So right now where are these Quicksilvers, Challenger and others classed?

---

"Lawn ornaments."

There was a ~2-year window in the middle 2000s to allow conversion of ultralights to Experimental Light Sport Aircraft. That window closed over ten years ago. An existing ultralight...or experimental amateur-built aircraft...cannot be licensed as a Special Light Sport or Experimental Light Sport aircraft.

http://www.wanttaja.com/ls2.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

So a commercial plane either factory or as a kit built say 2007 or so and not a UL but meeting LSP requirements is how classed? How would it assigned a N number or not?

The Light Sport Rule was 2004.
So a 2007 or later factory built or flying kit built should have a N-number.
If you find an unfinished kit, and it has documents that you can use to prove 51% amateur built, then it might be possible to complete it and get an N-number and airworthiness certificate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmgeorge

So a commercial plane either factory or as a kit built say 2007 or so and not a UL but meeting LSP requirements is how classed? How would it assigned a N number or not?

---

Hold on there, Pilgrim...you're mixing a lot of terms that shouldn't be mixed. Let me try to explain it from scratch.

If an aircraft design DOESN'T meet the requirements of 14CFR Part 103, it is required to be registered. To be registered, it has to hold an Airworthiness Certificate. To get an airworthiness certificate, the aircraft manufacturer has to show it meets the requirements for one.

The requirements that have to be met vary depending on a lot of factors. Primarily how the plane is to be used. Planes that will be used commercially (ie., transporting people for hire) have to meet more stringent requirements than planes that don't.

As part of this, Airworthiness is broken into two broad categories: Standard, and Special. Standard Category aircraft are approved for mass production, and to operate commercially. It has the most stringent requirements on design, manufacture, and operation. Special Category aircraft have aspects of requirements relaxed to make it easier to gain an Airworthiness certificate. In some particular cases, these airplanes can be mass produced or operate commercially. But for the Special category aircraft, there are more limitations that come into play.

Both categories are divided into multiple sub-categories. Here's an illustration:
http://www.wanttaja.com/airworthiness.jpg
Notice Standard category has the traditional production-type aircraft... the Cessnas, the Boeing 787s, the Citabrias. Light Sports, homebuilts, etc. fall under Special category. What people traditionally refer to as "Homebuilts" are Special category aircraft, in the Experimental/Amateur-Built (EAB) subcategory.

Getting an EAB certificate has few restrictions. The airplane has to be built for education and/or recreation, and an amateur has to perform the majority of the building tasks. This permits kits, as long as an amateur does the MAJORITY of the work. In return, an EAB aircraft has relatively few operational limitations. Most of the other subcategories under Special have more restrictive rules. For instance, the aircraft may not be allowed to carry passengers, or may only be flown under specific circumstances.

If the EAB meets the FAA's "Light Sport" definition, it can be flown under the Sport Pilot rules.
http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/sportpilot.jpg
However, in addition, the FAA operates two subcategories for PURPOSE-BUILT Light Sport Aircraft. "Special Light Sport Aircraft," (SLSA) and Experimental Light Sport Aircraft" (ELSA). Both these categories have easier restrictions than the "normal" special category aircraft...very similar to EAB, and even better in some ways.

But both SLSA and ELSA aircraft have specific requirements for the original certification. The designers don't have to meet the design requirements that Standard Category planes do, but there's a given set of standards that must be complied with. These requirements, and the documentation for them, are intended to support PRODUCTION of these airplanes. Once an SLSA is approved, the company is allowed to sell their product commercially. Once they have that approval, they can sell kits of that specific aircraft that are not limited by the "majority by amateurs" rules of EAB aircraft. Aircraft produced by those kits are licensed as ELSA.

But both of these, again, are configured for companies intending to produce a commercial product. It would be wild overkill for an individual to attempt to gain SLSA or ELSA approval. Could be done, but there's little point. Individual builders can use the EAB rules.

So, to make a long story short (too late!):

Getting a existing plane re-licensed as SLSA can't be done. An existing SLSA can be re-licensed as an ELSA, but otherwise, the ELSA has to be made out of an approved SLSA design.

Getting an existing plane re-licensed as EAB can't be done either. To get the plane licensed as an EAB, you need to PROVE that it was built for education or recreation. Such proof would be difficult to find, in most cases.

Similarly, licensing an existing ultralight in any other category can't be done. It won't quality as a SLSA, it's ten years past the deadline for ELSA, and again, the EAB rules would preclude it.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron, thank you for the detailed reply. I am sure others will benefit also.

Well a phone call to Quicksilver yesterday just confirmed what Ron posted. The gentleman there said even as the plane was built as an approved kit and could have been assigned a N number if procedure was followed. The kit completed and the build log up to date and then FAA inspected before flight. However if you just built the kit, and started flying it can never have a N number or approval.
Why would I care? To get Ins just liability only and unless you are always going to fly from your farm you need that policy. To crash land on a highway and cause an accident with a car load of kids, would a million cover? To purchase that Ins it needs to have a N number. Period. Even ultralight Ins now requires you as a pilot to have at least 5 hours of logged time.

Ron, why would an UL that has been flying not be eligble for EAB if build logs support the 51% rule and all paperwork is in order?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Buchanan

Ron, why would an UL that has been flying not be eligble for EAB if build logs support the 51% rule and all paperwork is in order?

---

Anything is possible, *IF* you can get a DAR to buy off on it. I recall an EAB SeaBee on the cover of SPORT AVIATION about ten or so years ago. I also seem to recall that the FAA revoked the plane's Airworthiness Certificate when it got so much publicity.

If you look at my Q.V., you 'll see terms like raconteur, bon vivant, space engineer, and ink-stained wretch, but you WON'T see any sort of official affiliation. I cannot pronounce the official Yea or Nay over the suggestion that an owner could gain EAB certification of a flying ultralight.

But let me mull through some stuff.

The main concern I'd have is the conservatism innate in any government functionary. Present them with the build logs for a brand-new airplane, even if it qualifies as an ultralight, and they'll sign it off in a heartbeat.

Present them with a used ultralight, and they'll likely be suspicious...even if there are build logs for it. Remember the EAB Seabee; I bet the DAR saw some sort of consequences for it.

If I were a DAR in this situation, I'd have to wonder: Are the "build logs" legitimate? Or were they generated after the fact? Did the applicant buy a used ultralight and forge up the "builder's logs"? Even if the "builder" is legitimate, was the ultralight originally sold as a ready-to-fly Part 103 aircraft? Did he just disassemble his flying ultralight and take pictures as he reassembled it? I think most of us would have no trouble at all cobbling up some staged photos that purport to look like we're actually building parts for the plane.

And this is where the conservatism comes in. At some point in the future, that new EAB might crash, and the FAA may focus on the legitimacy of its Special Airworthiness certificate. The DAR may need to justify his approval of the aircraft as EAB.

Now, it's a risk a DAR takes with any EAB aircraft. But there are some red flags on this one. What is the motivation for the DAR to stick his or her neck out?

Quite frankly, there isn't any. There's no reason the DAR should risk his livelihood and reputation on a project with a dodgy history.

Again, present him with what he NORMALLY gets for an EAB inspection...builder's log, receipts, photos of the builder sitting in a half-finished fuselage, and a pristine, brand-new airplane, he'll take the risk. But the more red flags presented...a design that's available ready-to-fly, and obvious signs that it HAD been flying...and they'll likely be a lot more cautious.

The lesson here is WORK THIS ALL OUT IN ADVANCE. Contact a DAR well in advance, and arrange what'll be necessary BEFORE you shell out significant money. Don't rely on some flippant comment on the Internet.

Ron "A raconteur is not a French raccoon" Wanttaja