Here is a link to The May 28 ruling from the UK.
It creates what they call the Single Seat Deregulated Airplane.
It allows up to 660 pounds ( gross weight) and 35 mph stall.
No airworthiness certificate required.
EAA should study this and petition our FAA to create it here as well.
I did send it to the FAA 's ASTM official.
They need ideas to cut cost and burdens as mandated by congress. This does that.
http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/fo...ice2014091.pdf
We already have it. It's called part 103. Other than the weight limit being a little lower (254 empty weight, throw in 200 pounds for the pilot and 30 pounds for fuel and you're getting upthere).
My EAB does not even come in at 600 lbs ready to fly with me in her. So no way you can compare this to our par 103...No way. Par 103 comes no where close to this. This is what needed here to raise this weight limit. But it will never happen. Be happy with what you have. Not me saying this.Originally Posted by FlyingRon
If your airplane weighs twice what the pilot does its an Ultralight..In my book... You really can not call something this small much else.
Tony
Last edited by 1600vw; 06-11-2014 at 06:55 AM.
The 35 mph stall and no top speed limit makes for a smaller size wing for a safer and more useable performance. It does require pilot training, but no restriction from congested areas.
Would provide the affordable airplane the industry needs. (Or at least one option, we need more)
I agree, higher stall speed would make a more practical airplane. As long as were solo we should be able to fly just about anything over a non-congested area.
As was just pointed out, the new UK rule just "deregulates" the plane, not the pilot. You still need a "microlight" license to fly your newly deregulated plane. So, this really isn't equivalent to Part 103, it's more like a sport pilot being able to fly a fat ultralight.
Okay my Starflight was 254 pounds new. I weight about 260 fully dressed. I have a ballistic chute that added about 30 more pounds. Add 30 more for fuel. I am now 574 pounds at takeoff... I am still part 103 and spitting distance to the British rules. Honestly the full implementation of the British rules would be the final nail in the coffin for ultralights. Requiring a sport pilot license that is damn near impossible to find an instructor for without traveling half way across the country is a crappy idea. If you want to fly something that isn't part 103 God bless you and go for it... but do not ask the current Federal Government to mess with rules put in place during the Reagan Administration. You will not like what they will do for you to "protect and serve" you.
Heard that.
Bob, sorry for any misunderstanding. I did not suggest any changes to FAR103, nor do I want any changes to FAR103.
FAR103 is a Federal Regulation and requires significant effort to change. I don't think anyone wants to do that.
This UK ruling appears to be an internal policy change, an exemption from the requirement for an airworthiness certificate.
FAR103 is already sort of "exempted" by law from needing an airworthiness certificate, so doesn't need changing.
This UK category, if done here, should be a change or exemption to the Light Sport rules, I think.
The current Light Sport rules do require an airworthiness certificate. And because the rule includes two seats and gross weights all the way to 1320 pounds (or more) the standards have grown to the point where the light single seat is impossible under the rule. No light seat seat SLSA has received an airworthiness certificate yet.
The solution is removing the requirement for airworthiness certificate, as they just did in UK. I feel there was never a need for airworthiness certificates for light single seaters since no passenger can be harmed.
This new division or category should not be called "Ultralight" since legal ultralights are vehicles, not aircraft.
I suggest this new LightSport category (or permit level) be called "Light Sport Micro" or something similar.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote