Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 62

Thread: Part 103 weight limit

  1. #1

    Part 103 weight limit

    Is there a chance this limit could be raised?

  2. #2
    Dana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    928
    About the same chance as a packed sphere of frozen H2O in a legendary very hot place...

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    767
    Quote Originally Posted by aeroschmitz View Post
    Is there a chance this limit could be raised?

    with enough power, anything may be raised. e.g. F104

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by aeroschmitz View Post
    Is there a chance this limit could be raised?
    If you petition the FAA for a rule change to raise the Pt. 103 max wt. and it makes it to the comment stage, I'll get at least 3 people to write a supporting comment!!

  5. #5
    Dana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    928
    As much as I'd like to see a weight limit increase, you don't want the FAA to open 103 up for revision! Who knows what they'd screw with...

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Dana View Post
    As much as I'd like to see a weight limit increase, you don't want the FAA to open 103 up for revision! Who knows what they'd screw with...

    What does it really matter. They killed Par103 when they did away with training. Because of what happened to training for Par 103, I myself believe this should be re opened. What is wrong with allowing a little more weight and training. If they do nothing it will die it's slow death. Kinda like recreational pilot. Its on the books but who uses it. This is the direction of Par103.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Clarklake, MI
    Posts
    2,461
    If the FAA wants to screw with Pt 103, they could do that anytime. Petitioning for vehicle max wt increase would only address that topic. Need a good argument, can't just say because I want an increase.

  8. #8
    Byron J. Covey
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by 1600vw View Post
    ..... If they do nothing it will die it's slow death. Kinda like recreational pilot. Its on the books but who uses it. This is the direction of Par103.
    And that would solve the FAA's problems that led to the creation of Part 103: Being responsible for regulating that which is, at best, a PITA to regulate, or, at worst, that which is incapable of being effectively regulated.

    I would love to see the empty weight of unregulated airplanes set at 600 pounds, but I do not expect to see that untill after the next round of state secessions from the USA.


    BJC

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    1,609
    Safety could be the reason for the weight increase. To say this would not help in safety would just be wrong. One could use a little better engine then the two stroke. That alone is a safety issue's. Only then could one address the issue of training.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    FA40
    Posts
    767
    Safety the reason for a weight increase? Good point. Example. The Icon A5 LSA with a 1510lb MGW. LSA? HAHAHAHAHAHA!
    Last edited by Mike M; 11-27-2015 at 07:30 PM.

Posting Permissions

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