Yet another mess from the (not)Friendly Aviation Agency

[steveinindy]

Usually with good reason. Nice to be afraid of a government agency. Remember they aren't happy until you aren't happy.....

Actually it seems to be until you aren't happy. I see nothing wrong with most of their standards.

[FloridaJohn]

Then they just use commercial pilots.

There's more to it than that. Not only would they have to use commercial pilots, but they would also have to set up a Part 135 operation to be legal.

However, Operation Migration's blog seems to indicate that the FAA is willing to create an exemption for them. That would be a much simpler way to clear this up.

[steveinindy]

There's more to it than that. Not only would they have to use commercial pilots, but they would also have to set up a Part 135 operation to be legal.

I don't believe that's correct if the pilots are volunteers (as I understand them to be). I mean, if I recall correctly, Angel Flight and the various animal rescue flight permutations are not set up as 135 operators.

[rwanttaja]

I don't believe that's correct if the pilots are volunteers (as I understand them to be). I mean, if I recall correctly, Angel Flight and the various animal rescue flight permutations are not set up as 135 operators.

Avweb's write-up said they were ultralights, and that the pilots were paid. This is the apparent violation;it seems for -hire operation is not allowed under Part 103.Ron Wanttaja

[martymayes]

I don't see any reason why the vehicle occupant can't be paid, the operator of an ultralight vehicle is technically not a pilot. The only snag I see in Part 103 is that an ultralight vehicle can only be used for recreation or sport purposes and I guess that's where they are running afoul (pun intended) of the regs.

[Mike M]

Avweb's write-up said they were ultralights, and that the pilots were paid. This is the apparent violation;it seems for -hire operation is not allowed under Part 103.Ron Wanttaja

so - an employee can't use an airplane to travel on company business? it seems to have been done forever under pt 91, but not pt 103? in ultralights, are they really "Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire”?? not persons, by the photos. cargo? in an ultralight? doubtful. sounds like too much reading, not enough thinking going on. perfect conditions for a written exemption to remove all doubt. hope it's timely.

[Mike M]

used for recreation or sport purposes

looks to me like those non-pilots are all smiling, must be recreation!!

[rwanttaja]

so - an employee can't use an airplane to travel on company business? it seems to have been done forever under pt 91, but not pt 103? in ultralights, are they really "Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire”?? not persons, by the photos. cargo? in an ultralight? doubtful.

Read 14CFR Part 103, Section A: "...an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that:
(a) ...
(b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only;"

One of the pilots for the company came to the realization that being paid to fly the aircraft doesn't constitute recreation or sport. Flying the ultralights wasn't incidental to their job, flying the ultralight WAS the job. Technically, then, the planes couldn't be operated under Part 103 and thus needed registration and airworthiness certificates to be legal. The company decided to shut down until they could get this straightened out with the FAA.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Berson]

Are the flights done with true ultralight vehicles?

No, they are N-numbered ELSA according to this article:
http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/2012-01-05_whoopers.asp

Both LSA and ultralights cannot be used for hire without an exemption.

[steveinindy]

They apparently got their exemption. See...that wasn't so bad. LOL