Yet another mess from the (not)Friendly Aviation Agency

[jobti]

This was in our local news. http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120105/NEWS01/301050067/whooping-crane-migration-stalls-due-to-faa-rules?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home Basically the story (if you don't want to read it) says that the FAA has stopped the use of ultra-lights to lead whooping cranes on their migration because light sport pilots are not allowed to fly for compensation. There's a whole story at the site, but I'm not going to print all of it. I just think that even under Obama the FAA has better things to do than be totally stupid like this!!:mad:

[Mike M]

maybe if the cranes were equipped with ADS-B? voice recorders?

[steveinindy]

Then they just use commercial pilots. Plenty of those around judging by the number of volunteer commercial pilots there are not only for the organization I fly with but also for things like Angel Flights, etc. I don't see the problem with the group voluntarily grounding their pilots (which is what the article says happened, not that the FAA grounded them officially) until they make sure they are abiding by the law. Given that US Fish and Wildlife is backing them up, it should be resolved fairly quickly. No harm, no foul.


the FAA has better things to do than be totally stupid like this!!

...and then someone would gripe about that. Face it, no matter what the FAA does, people are going to find a way to get their panties in a knot over it. Hell, people gripe about the LSA option even though it keeps a large number of folks flying who wouldn't otherwise be (and in some cases probably shouldn't be).

[Floatsflyer]

I (http://I) just think that even under Obama the FAA has better things to do than be totally stupid like this!!:mad:

Why do you bring Obama into this and slag him? If you think this president or any former one is involved in the daily minutia of bureaucratic decision making by government departments or agencies, you are seriously misguided or misinformed or mistaken and urgently need to take a course in elementary civics or Poli Sci 100.

This is just another example of a government agency justifying their "raison d'etre". And yes, their action appears to be ridiculous, silly and a waste of time for the migratory organization doing good work to help the cranes.

[Hal Bryan]

Course correction, guys ... This story offers plenty to talk about without getting into presidential politics. Besides, for the next 11+ months in particular, we're all going to be inundated with that stuff from every direction. We don't need to get into it here.

[Floatsflyer]

Course correction, guys ... This story offers plenty to talk about without getting into presidential politics. Besides, for the next 11+ months in particular, we're all going to be inundated with that stuff from every direction. We don't need to get into it here.

No intervention required here, Hal. Wasn't remotely getting into presidential or any other politics. Just trying to educate and inform Mr. Jobti!!

[MickYoumans]

Does anyone know if the sport pilots were being compensated or were their expenses just being covered? If their gas and travel expenses were covered, I don't understand why that should be an issue or problem. If they are making a profit in some way, that would be an entirely different story all together. Does anyone know?

[martymayes]

Are the flights done with true ultralight vehicles?

[flyingriki]

" Face it, no matter what the FAA does, people are going to find a way to get their panties in a knot over it. "

Usually with good reason. Nice to be afraid of a government agency. Remember they aren't happy until you aren't happy.....

[rwanttaja]

According to Avweb, this is *not* due to FAA action: "The ultralight aircraft-led annual pilgrimage of whooping cranes from Wisconsin to Florida has voluntarily suspended operations after a pilot raised concerns that the flights may run afoul of federal regulations. " Sounds like the FAA was leaving them alone, but the organization stopped operations after they, themselves, decided they were in violation.

What they're doing is technically against the rules, and by stopping themselves, they better position themselves to get some sort of FAA waiver.

Ron Wanttaja

[steveinindy]

Usually with good reason. Nice to be afraid of a government agency. Remember they aren't happy until you aren't happy.....

Actually it seems to be until you aren't happy. I see nothing wrong with most of their standards.

[FloridaJohn]

Then they just use commercial pilots.
There's more to it than that. Not only would they have to use commercial pilots, but they would also have to set up a Part 135 operation to be legal.

However, Operation Migration's blog seems to indicate that the FAA is willing to create an exemption for them. That would be a much simpler way to clear this up.

[steveinindy]

There's more to it than that. Not only would they have to use commercial pilots, but they would also have to set up a Part 135 operation to be legal.

I don't believe that's correct if the pilots are volunteers (as I understand them to be). I mean, if I recall correctly, Angel Flight and the various animal rescue flight permutations are not set up as 135 operators.

[rwanttaja]

I don't believe that's correct if the pilots are volunteers (as I understand them to be). I mean, if I recall correctly, Angel Flight and the various animal rescue flight permutations are not set up as 135 operators.Avweb's write-up said they were ultralights, and that the pilots were paid. This is the apparent violation;it seems for -hire operation is not allowed under Part 103.Ron Wanttaja

[martymayes]

I don't see any reason why the vehicle occupant can't be paid, the operator of an ultralight vehicle is technically not a pilot. The only snag I see in Part 103 is that an ultralight vehicle can only be used for recreation or sport purposes and I guess that's where they are running afoul (pun intended) of the regs.

[Mike M]

Avweb's write-up said they were ultralights, and that the pilots were paid. This is the apparent violation;it seems for -hire operation is not allowed under Part 103.Ron Wanttaja

so - an employee can't use an airplane to travel on company business? it seems to have been done forever under pt 91, but not pt 103? in ultralights, are they really "Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire”?? not persons, by the photos. cargo? in an ultralight? doubtful. sounds like too much reading, not enough thinking going on. perfect conditions for a written exemption to remove all doubt. hope it's timely.

[Mike M]

used for recreation or sport purposes

looks to me like those non-pilots are all smiling, must be recreation!!

[rwanttaja]

so - an employee can't use an airplane to travel on company business? it seems to have been done forever under pt 91, but not pt 103? in ultralights, are they really "Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire”?? not persons, by the photos. cargo? in an ultralight? doubtful.

Read 14CFR Part 103, Section A: "...an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that:
(a) ...
(b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only;"

One of the pilots for the company came to the realization that being paid to fly the aircraft doesn't constitute recreation or sport. Flying the ultralights wasn't incidental to their job, flying the ultralight WAS the job. Technically, then, the planes couldn't be operated under Part 103 and thus needed registration and airworthiness certificates to be legal. The company decided to shut down until they could get this straightened out with the FAA.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Berson]

Are the flights done with true ultralight vehicles?

No, they are N-numbered ELSA according to this article:
http://www.eaa.org/news/2012/2012-01-05_whoopers.asp

Both LSA and ultralights cannot be used for hire without an exemption.

[steveinindy]

They apparently got their exemption. See...that wasn't so bad. LOL

[knussear]

Now what we need is the ability to use Trikes for Commercial purposes!

[S3flyer]

Both LSA and ultralights cannot be used for hire without an exemption.Not correct. A sport pilot cannot be compensated for flying or fly in furtherance of a business but a private pilot can flu an LSA in furtherance of a business and a commercial pilot may accept compensating for hire flying and LSA. LSA and Sport Pilot are related but independent regs.

[Frank Giger]

They apparently got their exemption. See...that wasn't so bad. LOL

Good to hear!

My experience with government agencies is that that largest problem with them is that they're populated with people. It is also the greatest asset.

Government employees aren't another species spawned from the mud of Isengard; they're just people. Some are jerks, some are helpful, some are risk adverse (and won't interprete anything in a regulation, seeing them as restrictive), and others relish making the regulations work for the applicant.

The FAA people I've met are people - and like to talk flying! They don't hate pilots; they hate irresponsible pilots.

[Jim Hann]

Good to hear!

My experience with government agencies is that that largest problem with them is that they're populated with people. It is also the greatest asset.

<snip>

The FAA people I've met are people - and like to talk flying! They don't hate pilots; they hate irresponsible pilots.

Frank, you've got it right, the sad part is the memory of the bad one(s) always seems to overshadow the memory of the good one(s).

Jim

[steveinindy]

Now what we need is the ability to use Trikes for Commercial purposes!

Don't they do that for sightseeing flights in Hawaii? I seem to recall a series of two or three crashes a couple of years back involving sightseeing tourists in trikes. However, I'm not sure if they were operated by folks as traditional "sightseeing" flights or as "training flights".

[FlyingRon]

They weren't ultralights, they were LSA's and I heard this morning that they got the approval to continue.

[Bill]

Looks like the FAA isn't as unfriendly an aviation agency as the OP thought. Yesterday the FAA said that it is granting a one-time exemption to complete this year's Operation Migration flight and will work with Operation Migration to find a permanent solution for the future.

[Bill Berson]

Not correct. A sport pilot cannot be compensated for flying or fly in furtherance of a business but a private pilot can flu an LSA in furtherance of a business and a commercial pilot may accept compensating for hire flying and LSA. LSA and Sport Pilot are related but independent regs.

I don't think so.

Here is the FAR:
§ 91.327 Aircraft having a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category: Operating limitations.(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category for compensation or hire except—
(1) To tow a glider or an unpowered ultralight vehicle in accordance with §91.309 of this chapter; or
(2) To conduct flight training.

[S3flyer]

Bill,Thanks for the correction.

[knussear]

Don't they do that for sightseeing flights in Hawaii? I seem to recall a series of two or three crashes a couple of years back involving sightseeing tourists in trikes. However, I'm not sure if they were operated by folks as traditional "sightseeing" flights or as "training flights".


These are operated a "training flights" as trikes are one of the last of the classes of aircraft for which there is no commercial certification. We really need a group like EAA, or AOPA to help us get these aircraft included as the rest of them are.

[Dana]

These are operated a "training flights" as trikes are one of the last of the classes of aircraft for which there is no commercial certification. We really need a group like EAA, or AOPA to help us get these aircraft included as the rest of them are.

Trikes nowadays are either single seat ultralight, or LSA like any other LSA airplane. But yes, I guess sightseeing flights would be operated as a "training flight", just like they were in the old days as 2 seat ultralights under a training exemption.

[Bill Berson]

The fact that LSA cannot be used for rides is a major hindrance to new pilot starts.
Any person can go to a gliderport and schedule a glider ride for payment. I suspect the Soaring Society of America would say this is a major draw for the sport of gliding and SSA protects this right to give rides, since rides probably outnumber instruction flights ten to one.

And any person can go to a local parachute jumpsite and pay for a dual person skydive "ride" because the United States Parachute Assoc. acquired this right for their members. (remember when George Bush Sr. went for a parachute ride on his 80th birthday)

But EAA has NOT secured this right to provide rides with Light Sport Aircraft. And without the option to give rides and sightseeing tours, almost no local operator can justify a new LSA solely for instruction only.

[Frank Giger]

Bill, I think you might have had a couple rules mixed up for you regarding LSA's and who pilots them.

Manufactured LSA's are for all intents and purposes certified aircraft - they just are limited to two seats, gross weight, top cruising and stall speeds. They can be used for any purpose under VFR conditions (I don't know of any certified for IFR) by the holder of a Private or Commercial license, including the furtherance of a business.

LSA compliant certified aircraft, such as the Cub and the Champ, fall under these rules as well. When the owner of the Champ I fly (insert many three letter combinations) is at the stick there are a whole bunch of things the aircraft is allowed to do that are strictly verboten when I'm PIC, as I hold a SPL.

Experimental aircraft that fall under LSA compliance have different restrictions, of course.

Restrictions often come at the pilot level. For example, as a Sport Pilot I can give rides (have a passenger) all the VFR day long so long as said passenger doesn't pay one penny over half of the gas and it's not part of the furtherance of a business. I also can't do charity flights, or tow a banner.

That was the crux of the matter - the pilots had Sport tickets and were getting paid to fly, and needed an exemption from the rule.

[Bill Berson]

Bill, I think you might have had a couple rules mixed up for you regarding LSA's and who pilots them.

Manufactured LSA's are for all intents and purposes certified aircraft - they just are limited to two seats, gross weight, top cruising and stall speeds. They can be used for any purpose under VFR conditions (I don't know of any certified for IFR) by the holder of a Private or Commercial license, including the furtherance of a business.

.

LSA are not FAA type certificated (they are self- complied to a consensus standard) and not to be used for hire.
see post #28

[rosiejerryrosie]

Frank is still right - to a certain extent. An SPL can GIVE rides in an LSA he/she just can't SELL rides.

[Bill Berson]

Sure, anyone can give rides for free. But this thread is about getting paid or not.
Since getting paid for rides in an LSA is not approved, very few local airport operators will sell their C-150 or C-172 and replace it with a SPECIAL LIGHT SPORT AIRCRAFT (SLSA) because they cannot give sightseeing tours, photo flights, etc.

The result is my local airport operator and most others do not offer any LSA to rent. This is a problem.

Even a person with a FAA commercial certificate cannot fly for hire in a SLSA, so why would any FBO buy one?

[rosiejerryrosie]

Sure, anyone can give rides for free. But this thread is about getting paid or not.
Since getting paid for rides in an LSA is not approved, very few local airport operators will sell their C-150 or C-172 and replace it with a SPECIAL LIGHT SPORT AIRCRAFT (SLSA) because they cannot give sightseeing tours, photo flights, etc.

The result is my local airport operator and most others do not offer any LSA to rent. This is a problem.

Even a person with a FAA commercial certificate cannot fly for hire in a SLSA, so why would any FBO buy one?

To provide LSA flight training. Lots of them in my area....:D

[Bill Greenwood]

I don't think that legal fine point would deter an FBO as much as the price difference, Who's going to sell an older C-150 for $50k and then pay $130k for a new LSA; unless of course the new plane with good paint and fancy computers brings in new customers.
We used to have two 172a at a school, one had a old old engine, but good paint, the other had old paint, but good radios and a fresh OH engine.
The better plane with the lesser paint mostly sat while the other got rented.
The school or fbo can easily give a ride as an introductory lesson, thus both staying within the FARs and giving the renter more for his money also.

[FloridaJohn]

Who's going to sell an older C-150 for $50k
Yeah, just to answer that part of the question for 'ya, no one is going to buy a C-150 for $50k. :)

C-150s are selling for around $20k right now, with many less than that and a few for more. There are none sold for over $30k unless they have something unique, like a 150 HP engine or something, and even those are selling for less than $50k.

It does make an economical way to get into owning your own plane, though.