Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 62

Thread: Part 103 weight limit

  1. #41
    Dana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by cliffo View Post
    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.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by cliffo View Post
    What's the thoughts on the legality of the state authorizing this?.
    The state can not preempt federal regulations.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by Dana View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Buzz; 12-28-2015 at 09:18 AM.

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    old 15 acre homestead on N.D. prairie
    Posts
    45
    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.

  5. #45
    Dana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by cliffo View Post
    ...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.

  6. #46
    this forum should just be called the the "FAT UL STRIP", since no one gives a shttt about meeting compliance.

  7. #47
    but its fun to dream!

  8. #48
    George Kastanza once said, "It's not a lie if you believe it yourself"

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    171
    Bill Clinton said that too.

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by aeroschmitz View Post
    about meeting compliance.
    I share your frustration aeroschmitz. How to skirt the rules is not really a solution.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •