The FAA is disinclined to touch 103 at all. They find the LSA rules a happy medium in regulatory space. Your chances to get ANYTHING changed in Part 103 are very slim.
The FAA is disinclined to touch 103 at all. They find the LSA rules a happy medium in regulatory space. Your chances to get ANYTHING changed in Part 103 are very slim.
Many believe two stroke to be unsafe. Many, including the manufacturer of one of the most widely used light aircraft engines in the world, also consider the four stroke products to be unsafe. From the Rotax 912 manual:
No, but if you would like to work the problem, here is my suggestion.
First some background information:
From AC 103 7
"l/30/84
AC 103-7 will affect the direction Government takes in future regulations. The safety record of ultralight vehicles will be the foremost factor in determining the need for further regulations.
FAA CONTACT POINTS.
The FAA will provide clarification of particular subject areas, information, and assistance pertaining to the operations of ultralight vehicles through the following contacts:
a. Flight Standards Field Offices. Flight Standards District Offices (FSDOs), General Aviation District Offices (GAB%), and Manufacturing and Inspection District Offices (MIDOs) are the FAA field offices where information and assistance are available regarding the operation of ultralight vehicles, acceptable methods of complying with Part 103 requirements, and compliance with other regulations should it become necessary to operate an ultralight as a certificated aircraft. "
If the aircraft you have is close to the requirements, contact the local FSDO and explain the issues. They can give paperwork saying that the aircraft has been demonstrated to meet the requirements of FAR 103 or assist in your obtaining the paperwork, registration etc., required otherwise. They do not like to issue paperwork as that creates a trail to their office. However, I have seen them make suggestions on ways to not have to go through the work of getting the airworthiness certificate as that is a lot of work also. Get names and document dates, etc to indicate your efforts at certification and their response.
If you can get a thousand ULers to do this it can effect the outcome for revisions to AC 103 7 to include a higher weight for safety items such as brakes, starters and transponders, etc as was promised when LS was published. I have only been successful in convincing one individual to do this but it worked well.
If the FSDO sends you to the UL clubs as was intended when 103 was published come back to ASC for assistance and we will work the problem.
As a side note know that we could have had a much higher weight when the regulation was written if those working the problem would have eliminated the infighting and asked for more than each manufacturers current product line weighed.
The same thing happened when LS was written. The FAA gave more weight than most asked for now everyone complains that 1320# is not enough.
History repeats itself. A majority of the people actually voted for Obama. If I say more........
Last edited by jedi; 12-03-2015 at 05:31 PM.
Along the same line as post # 18.
Go to the local FSDO/MIDO and start the paperwork to repower your 2-cycle UL with a heavier 4-cycle engine and convert it to an "aircraft with an airworthiness certificate" and see what reception you get. Don't give up, just keep going back until you get the job done. They will be very happy to be rid of you one way or the other.
Then get your friends to repeat the process a thousand times. And do not forget to tell your congressman how the FAA has helped to make aviation safer for everyone by making those "dangerous Ultra Light Vehicles" meet the higher standards of "certificated" aircraft with just a simple engine change.
Last edited by jedi; 12-03-2015 at 05:48 PM.