Fat Ultralight

[robert l]

Ok, I know it's been a long time since the ruling came out about fat ultralights and the grace period. So, if someone has a fat ultralight that isn't registered, it's basically a lawn ornament, right. But a legal ultralight, unregistered, built from a kit or whatever is just that, an ultralight, no paper work required, yada, yada, yada, ect. And I don't suppose it could ever be moved up to LSA unless the builder provided all the documentation as proof. Of course I could be wrong, I was almost wrong once before.
Bob

[FlyingRon]

Basically, you've got it right. A legal ultralight is a legal ultralight, still. The blanket conversion of illegal ultralights has passed (Jan 2008). An ultralight (legal or fat) that meets the requirements for an LSA can be registered as an LSA. If it was built for recreation or educational purposes (even if not by you) and meets the requirements for experimental certification, you can take it through such certification for Experimental Amateur Built. If it meets the LSA requirements, it can be flown by a sport pilot.

[robert l]

I'm assuming that if it was never registered, and a person wanted to register it for LSA, there would need to be build documentation. It's been a long time since we went through that with the Phantom years ago. Anyway, I am just curious as I see quite a few planes out there that kina of fall into that category.
Bob

[rwanttaja]

I'm assuming that if it was never registered, and a person wanted to register it for LSA, there would need to be build documentation.

Yes, but: It would need to be documentation by the manufacturer of the kit. After the January 2008 The Other Ron posted about, the only way to get LSA certification now is for the kit manufacturer to go through the ASTM process, including documenting the design engineering. You cannot just take a random aircraft and license it as Light Sport.

But...remember, you CAN do that with an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft, and if it meets the definition of Light Sport, you can fly it on a Sport Pilot license.

Of course, like you mention, if you want to license it as Experimental Amateur-Built, you'll need build documentation.

Ron Wanttaja

[robert l]

Thanks for the info, it makes perfect sense to me, not everything in all the FAA Rule and Regs is clear to me. (Ah) But this is what I figured It would be. It would be a lot less hassle to just use it as an Ultralight.
Bob

[martymayes]

Experimental - exhibition

[Joda]

Experimental - exhibition

Experimental Exhibition isn't a guarantee, and it's not designed to be a catch-all. FAA offices are being very selective in issuing exhibition certificates these days. You have to have a legitimate need to "exhibit" the aircraft in order to get them to accept the application. Just saying something can't be proven to be amateur-built isn't going to cut it these days.

An existing aircraft that has been operated as a "fat ultralight", for which no construction records exist to prove that it was amateur-built, is going to be in a pretty tough situation when it comes to trying to get an airworthiness certificate.

[martymayes]

If you tell the FAA you want to fly the aircraft to a fly-in/airshow, you meet the FAA definition for “exhibition”’


Not to mention any kit companies by name but can’t you buy a factory assembled jet kit plane that’s licensed as experimental exhibition?

[Bill Berson]

AC103-7 has the answer for converting a legal ultralight to certificated aircraft-
Under section 2. "How To Certificate And Operate An Ultralight As An Airplane".

note: there is no airworthiness certificate for LSA.

[FlyingRon]

Yes, but the manufacturer has to show it meets the accepted standard before the type is approved. The Experimental Amateur Built (and Ex Ex for that matter) will have "special" airworthiness certificates issued.