Part 103 weight limit

[jedi]

I don't believe anything but a " Certified " airplane can meet the standards of a Certified airplane. It has nothing to do with meeting any standards.

Tony

There is a difference between a "certified" and a "certificated" aircraft. A certified aircraft has a "standard" airworthiness. A certificated aircraft has an airworthiness certificate. It could be experimental or otherwise.

I blows my mind that the FAA certificated the Wright Flyer replicas for the 100 year anniversary of the Wright brothers flight even though most were not capable of flight. The point is that the aircraft needs to certificated if it is not 103 compliant. It does not need to be certified. You are right, certificated, does not need to meet any flight standards. It does need to meet registration and marking regulations and certificated standards (example 51% rule for EAB). The aircraft can be certificated and still not be legal to fly or able to fly.

[1600vw]

There is a difference between a "certified" and a "certificated" aircraft. A certified aircraft has a "standard" airworthiness. A certificated aircraft has an airworthiness certificate. It could be experimental or otherwise.

I blows my mind that the FAA certificated the Wright Flyer replicas for the 100 year anniversary of the Wright brothers flight even though most were not capable of flight. The point is that the aircraft needs to certificated if it is not 103 compliant. It does not need to be certified. You are right, certificated, does not need to meet any flight standards. It does need to meet registration and marking regulations and certificated standards (example 51% rule for EAB). The aircraft can be certificated and still not be legal to fly or able to fly.

Please explain how this has anything to do with raising the weight limit on a PAR 103 ultralight?

Tony

[Dana]

I don't think you'll find the word "certified"anywhere in FAA regulations.

When the FAA certificates an experimental aircraft, they're not passing judgement on whether it'll fly, just whether the paperwork is in order and it shows reasonably good workmanship.

[jedi]

Please explain how this has anything to do with raising the weight limit on a FAR 103 ultralight?

Tony

Certify definition - officially recognize (someone or something) as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards.

When the FAA issues a "standard" airworthiness certificate it is recognizing that the aircraft meets some standard, part 23 for example. The FAA has certified that that aircraft has met the design and manufacturing requirements of the specified standard. This is a long and expensive process for both the manufacturer and the FAA.

The FAA has agreed that the low public risk and limited exposure of Ultralights does not warrant their detailed investigations for issuance of a Standard airworthiness certificate provided the operation is in compliance with FAR 103 and AC 103-7.

FAR 103 was created when the FAA realized that the volume and characteristics of the aircraft being operated within the FAR 103 defined operating limitations needed to be addressed in some manner other than by issuing an airworthiness certificate and requiring operations compliant with FAR 61 and 91.

The OP is wanting the FAA to change that definition. That will not happen unless there is a need. FAR 103 was not created until there were thousands of illegal operations and it was obvious that some action to remedy the situation was required.

If thousands of people petitioned the FAA to operate their ultralight like vehicle that almost meets the FAR 103 requirements and is of less danger too the public than those FAR 103 compliant ultralights, and if they were to force the FAA to provide airworthiness certificates for those vehicles, then the FAA may conclude that it would be better to expand the Ultralight definition to include those aircraft in the accepted definition of an UL.

I would welcome additional discussion via personal message or on this or other forum. Promises were made with regard to passage of Light Sport Regulations that have not been kept. There is insufficient public complaint to make those changes. I have been unsuccessful in gathering the support needed to make those changes. In general I find that many will complain on forums such as this but few are willing to go to the FAA to make the changes happen.

There was one individual that worked with the FAA who was the catalyst for the Light Sport Regulations. We need more of that kind of person in the ultralight movement. That change was made by the one person attempting to operate an ultralight legally. FAR 103 was created by thousands operating illegally. Light Sport was created by one persons legal operation. Either or both methods can be employed. FAR 103 requirements can be changed by thousands of illegal UL operations or by certificating those that are as safe or safer and almost legal ULs. That is the message of the series of posts in question.

[Byron J. Covey]

I don't think you'll find the word "certified"anywhere in FAA regulations.

When the FAA certificates an experimental aircraft, they're not passing judgement on whether it'll fly, just whether the paperwork is in order and it shows reasonably good workmanship.

I have always found the FAA's terminology odd; they avoid the common usage of the word "certified."

Note the title change from AC 23-11 to its replacement, AC 23-11A. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...cumentID/22073


BJC

[martymayes]

Certify definition - officially recognize (someone or something) as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards.

When the FAA issues or a "standard" airworthiness certificate it is recognizing that the aircraft meets some standard, part 23 for example. The FAA has certified that that aircraft has met the design and manufacturing requirements of the specified standard. This is a long and expensive process for both the manufacturer and the FAA.

I'm with Dana, the FAA doesn't certify, they issue certificates. In aviation the terms are used synonymously and for the most part everyone understands each other, however, when the purist show up:

"Certificated" means "to furnish with or authorize by a certificate."

Anytime the FAA issues or furnishes a certificate to authorize something, that product or person is referred to as "certificated."

Aircraft are certificated, airmen are certificated, air carriers are certificated, some airports are certificated, some are not. None are certified. You know, you can buy a C-172, register it in Canada and it's still a US certificated aircraft even though it does not have an FAA issued airworthiness certificate.

I have never seen an airplane (or aeronautical product) that had a rubber ink stamp saying "FAA CERTIFIED" like USDA does with meat.

[jedi]

I'm with Dana, the FAA doesn't certify, they issue certificates. In aviation the terms are used synonymously and for the most part everyone understands each other, however, when the purist show up:

"Certificated" means "to furnish with or authorize by a certificate."

Anytime the FAA issues or furnishes a certificate to authorize something, that product or person is referred to as "certificated."

Aircraft are certificated, airmen are certificated, air carriers are certificated, some airports are certificated, some are not. None are certified. You know, you can buy a C-172, register it in Canada and it's still a US certificated aircraft even though it does not have an FAA issued airworthiness certificate.

I have never seen an airplane (or aeronautical product) that had a rubber ink stamp saying "FAA CERTIFIED" like USDA does with meat.

We are getting into the finer points here which are off the main topic, but, since we have gone this far I would like to proceed a little farther to clarify my understanding as I expect to learn something here.

My understanding is the aircraft with the "Standard" airworthiness is the equivalent of the USDA stamp of approval indicating that the FAA has done their due diligence and certifies that the aircraft does indeed meet the appropriate standard. The "special" airworthiness certificate provides the required paperwork without specifying a standard of approval.

For the standard airworthiness certificate the FAA reviews the design and test data and the manufacturing processes to provide assurance that the aircraft, as manufactured, meets the standard in their opinion. In actual practice the aircraft may or may not meet the standard. In other words the certification is not a guarantee, it is only an official opinion.

Is there disagreement with this principle?

[martymayes]

I think the FAA does their due diligence with a process of certifications as outlined in Part 21. The airworthiness certificate doesn't certify anything. It authorizes operation of the aircraft provided all the conditions for issuance of the certificate are met.

[Dana]

The FAA issues a standard airworthiness certificate to aircraft manufactured to a type certificate, and a special airworthiness certificate (which may be experimental, limited, or restricted) for other aircraft.

[aeroschmitz]

That's a good point