Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 62

Thread: Part 103 weight limit

  1. #51
    crusty old aviator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    You can't get here from there
    Posts
    237
    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.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by crusty old aviator View Post
    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!

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    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.

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by martymayes View Post
    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."
    Last edited by Buzz; 01-06-2016 at 02:56 PM.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,609
    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.

  6. #56
    Dana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by 1600vw View Post
    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.

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by Dana View Post
    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.

  8. #58
    Dana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by jedi View Post
    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.

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Dana View Post
    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.

  10. #60
    alaska?

Posting Permissions

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