When is an Ultra Light not and Can it be a LSA

[wmgeorge]

So excuse me yet another post, sorry guys but when I was younger and interested in flying I did not have the money, now I do.

I was going to build and may still yet an Ultra Light. But I see so many used on the market either single or dual seat ones that are Not Ultra Light 103 but could be Light Sport Aircraft. So right now where are these Quicksilvers, Challenger and others classed? To heavy for UL and yet not certified to have a N number? Yet a lot of those Mfg are out of business.

Is there a process? My local Ins guy who does air craft, said no N number, no Insurance.

[Sam Buchanan]

EAA has a page with a complete copy of Part 103 for your reading pleasure:

https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-interests/ultralights-and-ultralight-aircraft/getting-started-in-ultralight-flying/about-faa-part-103-for-ultralights

That should answer any questions on what falls within the Part 103 ultralight rules. Anything with two seats does not fit within Part 103.

A legal ultralight may be insured with third-party liability coverage through the United States Ultralight Association:

http://www.usua.org/

A difficult issue with registering an existing UL as E-AB would be proving it was amateur-built. You need to be very informed before running down this rabbit trail....

Of course all this might be more appropriate in the EAA Ultralight sub-forum.

[rwanttaja]

So excuse me yet another post, sorry guys but when I was younger and interested in flying I did not have the money, now I do.

I was going to build and may still yet an Ultra Light. But I see so many used on the market either single or dual seat ones that are Not Ultra Light 103 but could be Light Sport Aircraft. So right now where are these Quicksilvers, Challenger and others classed?

"Lawn ornaments."

There was a ~2-year window in the middle 2000s to allow conversion of ultralights to Experimental Light Sport Aircraft. That window closed over ten years ago. An existing ultralight...or experimental amateur-built aircraft...cannot be licensed as a Special Light Sport or Experimental Light Sport aircraft.

http://www.wanttaja.com/ls2.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

[wmgeorge]

So a commercial plane either factory or as a kit built say 2007 or so and not a UL but meeting LSP requirements is how classed? How would it assigned a N number or not?

[Bill Berson]

The Light Sport Rule was 2004.
So a 2007 or later factory built or flying kit built should have a N-number.
If you find an unfinished kit, and it has documents that you can use to prove 51% amateur built, then it might be possible to complete it and get an N-number and airworthiness certificate.

[rwanttaja]

So a commercial plane either factory or as a kit built say 2007 or so and not a UL but meeting LSP requirements is how classed? How would it assigned a N number or not?
Hold on there, Pilgrim...you're mixing a lot of terms that shouldn't be mixed. Let me try to explain it from scratch.

If an aircraft design DOESN'T meet the requirements of 14CFR Part 103, it is required to be registered. To be registered, it has to hold an Airworthiness Certificate. To get an airworthiness certificate, the aircraft manufacturer has to show it meets the requirements for one.

The requirements that have to be met vary depending on a lot of factors. Primarily how the plane is to be used. Planes that will be used commercially (ie., transporting people for hire) have to meet more stringent requirements than planes that don't.

As part of this, Airworthiness is broken into two broad categories: Standard, and Special. Standard Category aircraft are approved for mass production, and to operate commercially. It has the most stringent requirements on design, manufacture, and operation. Special Category aircraft have aspects of requirements relaxed to make it easier to gain an Airworthiness certificate. In some particular cases, these airplanes can be mass produced or operate commercially. But for the Special category aircraft, there are more limitations that come into play.

Both categories are divided into multiple sub-categories. Here's an illustration:
http://www.wanttaja.com/airworthiness.jpg
Notice Standard category has the traditional production-type aircraft... the Cessnas, the Boeing 787s, the Citabrias. Light Sports, homebuilts, etc. fall under Special category. What people traditionally refer to as "Homebuilts" are Special category aircraft, in the Experimental/Amateur-Built (EAB) subcategory.

Getting an EAB certificate has few restrictions. The airplane has to be built for education and/or recreation, and an amateur has to perform the majority of the building tasks. This permits kits, as long as an amateur does the MAJORITY of the work. In return, an EAB aircraft has relatively few operational limitations. Most of the other subcategories under Special have more restrictive rules. For instance, the aircraft may not be allowed to carry passengers, or may only be flown under specific circumstances.

If the EAB meets the FAA's "Light Sport" definition, it can be flown under the Sport Pilot rules.
http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/sportpilot.jpg
However, in addition, the FAA operates two subcategories for PURPOSE-BUILT Light Sport Aircraft. "Special Light Sport Aircraft," (SLSA) and Experimental Light Sport Aircraft" (ELSA). Both these categories have easier restrictions than the "normal" special category aircraft...very similar to EAB, and even better in some ways.

But both SLSA and ELSA aircraft have specific requirements for the original certification. The designers don't have to meet the design requirements that Standard Category planes do, but there's a given set of standards that must be complied with. These requirements, and the documentation for them, are intended to support PRODUCTION of these airplanes. Once an SLSA is approved, the company is allowed to sell their product commercially. Once they have that approval, they can sell kits of that specific aircraft that are not limited by the "majority by amateurs" rules of EAB aircraft. Aircraft produced by those kits are licensed as ELSA.

But both of these, again, are configured for companies intending to produce a commercial product. It would be wild overkill for an individual to attempt to gain SLSA or ELSA approval. Could be done, but there's little point. Individual builders can use the EAB rules.

So, to make a long story short (too late!):

Getting a existing plane re-licensed as SLSA can't be done. An existing SLSA can be re-licensed as an ELSA, but otherwise, the ELSA has to be made out of an approved SLSA design.

Getting an existing plane re-licensed as EAB can't be done either. To get the plane licensed as an EAB, you need to PROVE that it was built for education or recreation. Such proof would be difficult to find, in most cases.

Similarly, licensing an existing ultralight in any other category can't be done. It won't quality as a SLSA, it's ten years past the deadline for ELSA, and again, the EAB rules would preclude it.

Ron Wanttaja

[wmgeorge]

Ron, thank you for the detailed reply. I am sure others will benefit also.

[wmgeorge]

Well a phone call to Quicksilver yesterday just confirmed what Ron posted. The gentleman there said even as the plane was built as an approved kit and could have been assigned a N number if procedure was followed. The kit completed and the build log up to date and then FAA inspected before flight. However if you just built the kit, and started flying it can never have a N number or approval.
Why would I care? To get Ins just liability only and unless you are always going to fly from your farm you need that policy. To crash land on a highway and cause an accident with a car load of kids, would a million cover? To purchase that Ins it needs to have a N number. Period. Even ultralight Ins now requires you as a pilot to have at least 5 hours of logged time.

[Sam Buchanan]

Ron, why would an UL that has been flying not be eligble for EAB if build logs support the 51% rule and all paperwork is in order?

[rwanttaja]

Ron, why would an UL that has been flying not be eligble for EAB if build logs support the 51% rule and all paperwork is in order?
Anything is possible, *IF* you can get a DAR to buy off on it. I recall an EAB SeaBee on the cover of SPORT AVIATION about ten or so years ago. I also seem to recall that the FAA revoked the plane's Airworthiness Certificate when it got so much publicity.

If you look at my Q.V., you 'll see terms like raconteur, bon vivant, space engineer, and ink-stained wretch, but you WON'T see any sort of official affiliation. I cannot pronounce the official Yea or Nay over the suggestion that an owner could gain EAB certification of a flying ultralight.

But let me mull through some stuff.

The main concern I'd have is the conservatism innate in any government functionary. Present them with the build logs for a brand-new airplane, even if it qualifies as an ultralight, and they'll sign it off in a heartbeat.

Present them with a used ultralight, and they'll likely be suspicious...even if there are build logs for it. Remember the EAB Seabee; I bet the DAR saw some sort of consequences for it.

If I were a DAR in this situation, I'd have to wonder: Are the "build logs" legitimate? Or were they generated after the fact? Did the applicant buy a used ultralight and forge up the "builder's logs"? Even if the "builder" is legitimate, was the ultralight originally sold as a ready-to-fly Part 103 aircraft? Did he just disassemble his flying ultralight and take pictures as he reassembled it? I think most of us would have no trouble at all cobbling up some staged photos that purport to look like we're actually building parts for the plane.

And this is where the conservatism comes in. At some point in the future, that new EAB might crash, and the FAA may focus on the legitimacy of its Special Airworthiness certificate. The DAR may need to justify his approval of the aircraft as EAB.

Now, it's a risk a DAR takes with any EAB aircraft. But there are some red flags on this one. What is the motivation for the DAR to stick his or her neck out?

Quite frankly, there isn't any. There's no reason the DAR should risk his livelihood and reputation on a project with a dodgy history.

Again, present him with what he NORMALLY gets for an EAB inspection...builder's log, receipts, photos of the builder sitting in a half-finished fuselage, and a pristine, brand-new airplane, he'll take the risk. But the more red flags presented...a design that's available ready-to-fly, and obvious signs that it HAD been flying...and they'll likely be a lot more cautious.

The lesson here is WORK THIS ALL OUT IN ADVANCE. Contact a DAR well in advance, and arrange what'll be necessary BEFORE you shell out significant money. Don't rely on some flippant comment on the Internet.

Ron "A raconteur is not a French raccoon" Wanttaja

[Sam Buchanan]

My point is that I'm not aware of any regulatory obstacles to obtaining an experimental airworthiness certificate for a flying ultralight IF all paperwork is in order.

I built a Legal Eagle and the build was documented on my website, in a detailed log......and a highly regarded magazine. Since the LE is a plans-built aircraft, and documented as amateur-built, and I could sign notarized affidavits stating same, there are no differences in this case of presenting a flying UL from when I presented my fresh non-UL Fokker replica for inspection. The fact the LE was already flying is a non-factor because it was an ultralight with no prior inspection required.

We need to resist the urge to create defacto regulation where it doesn't exist. :)

[Bill Berson]

Install a single seat, 5 gallon tank and fly it under FAR 103.

[FlyingRon]

The major legal obstacle is that many ultralights don't meet the requirements for an E-AB aircraft. First, someone has to have built it for educational or recreational purposes. The thing must be instrumented in accordance with 91.205, etc. (yes I know that says for standard airworthiness but you can bet you'd have difficulty if you don't meet at least the day vfr requirements). Your plans-built planes are one thing, someone's fat QuickSilver two seater is another.

The issue is taking some factory-built aircraft that doesn't meet the 103 limits and doing something with it, NOW. The grace period for moving these things to LSA is past and there's no legal way forward.

[Sam Buchanan]

The issue is taking some factory-built aircraft that doesn't meet the 103 limits and doing something with it, NOW. The grace period for moving these things to LSA is past and there's no legal way forward.

Agree. In that case we are not talking about meeting FARs in regard to the aircraft being a legal UL. My corner of the discussion is in regard to a previously flown single-seat, five-gallon UL being presented for an experimental airworthiness inspection. It sounds like this is not the case with the aircraft referenced by the original poster--I just wanted to address the possibility of mis-guided info being circulated that isn't supported by FARs.

I had a very close encounter with this situation many years ago with my plans-built MiniMax. I flew it for a couple of seasons as a UL then decided to move it to EAB for insurance purposes and being able to log flight time. I even went as far as registering it and receiving an N-number but a fellow pilot rekitted the plane before the inspection could occur. That was the end of that endeavor..... ;)

[wmgeorge]

Let me toss this out. Granted I am not a pilot and just learning, but for most of my 74 years I have been gainfully employed in some pretty techy fields thank you. So what IF the air craft in my question had been flown for a number of years as a Ultra Light or whatever but clearly qualified as a Light Sport Air Craft why can it not be inspected and certified air worthy and assigned a N number? Just because a deadline had passed, the air craft has flown, had logged time on the books. There are NO proceedures within the FAA to re-inspect on a case by case basis?
When I was in the USAF on the flight line I saw a lot of repairs. I was an air craft electrician, mid 1960's Cessna 310s to B52s.

What happens to a air craft after damage say from hard landing is it assigned to the junk pile never to fly again?

[Bill Berson]

You need an Airworthiness Application. It lists all options. Pick the category you think will work and study what is required.
The FAA will likely not approve any option other than Exhibition, is my guess.
Exhibition has operational limitations.

A damaged aircraft can be repaired by following repair procedures because it already has an airworthiness certificate. If you buy something without an Airworthiness Certificate, it might not be possible to get one. Do the research. It isn't simple.

[Sam Buchanan]

Let me toss this out. Granted I am not a pilot and just learning, but for most of my 74 years I have been gainfully employed in some pretty techy fields thank you. So what IF the air craft in my question had been flown for a number of years as a Ultra Light or whatever but clearly qualified as a Light Sport Air Craft why can it not be inspected and certified air worthy and assigned a N number? Just because a deadline had passed, the air craft has flown, had logged time on the books. There are NO proceedures within the FAA to re-inspect on a case by case basis?
When I was in the USAF on the flight line I saw a lot of repairs. I was an air craft electrician, mid 1960's Cessna 310s to B52s.

What happens to a air craft after damage say from hard landing is it assigned to the junk pile never to fly again?

The answers to your questions have been covered in the last few posts but apparently you missed them. :)

The hypothetical aircraft you mentioned was never an "aircraft" in the eyes of the FAA because it didn't have an airworthiness certificate. That means there is no valid "log book" regardless of whether or not it has flown. It can't be "re-inspected" because it was never inspected in the first place.

What may be confusing to you is ultralights never undergo an FAA inspection, they don't have any FAA paperwork.....they don't exist as far as FAA registration is concerned. The only time the FAA will get involved in UL matters is if there is reckless operation of the "aerial vehicle" or an accident with serious injuries. UL accidents will most likely be examined by local law enforcement since the accident didn't involve an "aircraft".

The problem with presenting your aircraft for certification is the necessity of proving it was at least 51% amateur-built. This would be impossible if no good documentation exists (why would a UL builder go to such trouble....it ain't an aircraft!).

Hope this helps. I realize this can be confounding to someone with no aviation background. Your question about a damaged aircraft was answered in Bill's post above.

[wmgeorge]

You need an Airworthiness Application. It lists all options. Pick the category you think will work and study what is required.
The FAA will likely not approve any option other than Exhibition, is my guess.
Exhibition has operational limitations.

A damaged aircraft can be repaired by following repair procedures because it already has an airworthiness certificate. If you buy something without an Airworthiness Certificate, it might not be possible to get one. Do the research. It isn't simple.

So instead of spending time on some internet forum I really need to do my research on the FAA site and communicate with them for informed valid answers.

[Bill Berson]

You should ask specific questions on the forum, instead of "why can't I do this" again and again.
We gave you some options to consider, but we feel it can't be done legally without build documentation.

Of course you can call the FAA. I prefer to research the laws myself. Many times the folks at the FAA are young and can't answer these rare questions. If you are an EAA member you can call EAA for better advice, in my opinion. You can attend a forum at Airventure about registering aircraft.
Know the facts before you buy.
I bought an unfinished kit. I will likely be able to get an airworthiness certificate with documentation I must provide. But I don't expect it to be simple.

[wmgeorge]

Yes of course I am a EAA member, I am not one of those people who expect something for nothing and I do support groups and organizations financially. I will try to structure my future questions in a more acceptable and understandable manner.

[Dana]

Let me toss this out. Granted I am not a pilot and just learning, but for most of my 74 years I have been gainfully employed in some pretty techy fields thank you. So what IF the air craft in my question had been flown for a number of years as a Ultra Light or whatever but clearly qualified as a Light Sport Air Craft why can it not be inspected and certified air worthy and assigned a N number? Just because a deadline had passed, the air craft has flown, had logged time on the books. There are NO proceedures within the FAA to re-inspect on a case by case basis?
When I was in the USAF on the flight line I saw a lot of repairs. I was an air craft electrician, mid 1960's Cessna 310s to B52s.

What happens to a air craft after damage say from hard landing is it assigned to the junk pile never to fly again?

I think you're still missing a couple of points. First, "Light-Sport Aircraft": the term means two different things, which causes many people confusion. Some aircraft may be registered as a LSA, "special LSA" or "experimental LSA." S-LSA is a factory built aircraft and certificated as such. E-LSA can be one of three things: either an approved E-LSA kit, a former ultralight that was registered during the transition period (no longer possible), or a certificated S-LSA that had the registration converted to E-LSA by the owner. None of these apply to you Today the only path to LSA certification is factory built (SLSA) or approved kit (ELSA). There are no exceptions.

However, an aircraft registered in another category (standard, experimental, primary, etc.) that meets the LSA requirements (2 seat, 1320# gross weight, etc.) may be flown by a Sport Pilot as if it was an LSA, but it's still not registered as LSA; it's a standard or experimental or whatever. From an operational standpoint it's the same, but the paperwork and inspection requirements are different.

A homebuilt aircraft not built from an approved ELSA kit gets an Experimental-Amateur Built airworthiness certificate. There are certain requirements for this, the most important one is that the aircraft must have been built for "education or recreation", that the "major portion" of the aircraft is indeed amateur built (the so-called "51% rule"). At the time of initial inspection, the applicant is required to show documentation (photos and build log) to prove that the major portion was indeed amateur built. If you have this documentation, no problem, even if the plane was previously flying as an ultralight. If not, then you can't do it, though some DARs may be more picky than others about the completeness of the documentation. I do know of already flying Quicksilvers that have successfully been registered as E-AB, but I don't know what level of documentation was provided.

If the aircraft cannot be registered E-AB (insufficient build documentation) it may be possible to register it as Experimental-Exhibition. This is more restrictive, requiring yearly notification to the FAA of where and when you expect to fly it (airshows and such), though local "practice flying" is permitted. Some people take this route and some abuse it, though I don't know to what level the restrictions are enforced.

In the case of a damaged aircraft, that's an entirely different thing as it already has an airworthiness certificate so it's just a matter of making repairs.

[wmgeorge]

Interesting Dana but since I just received my new 2018 FAR-AIM can you list the regulations that cover this? I am really not in the market for purchasing right now until I get my ticket, but others may be interested.

Interesting as he offers solution's to the issues or road blocks presented above... http://www.sportaviationspecialties.com/Useful_Information.htm

[Joda]

I just received my new 2018 FAR-AIM can you list the regulations that cover this?

You won't find everything in the regulations, but here are a few that will help out. Look at 21.191. This regulation outlines the various experimental certificates. Pay particular attention to 21.191(i), which talks specifically about experimental light-sport aircraft. You'll note that 21.191(i)(1) relates to pre-existing aircraft that had not been issued an airworthiness certificate but met the LSA definition. You'll see that this provision can no longer be used for issuance of an airworthiness certificate. That leaves only approved LSA kits, and aircraft that were formerly SLSA that can be converted to ELSA.

21.191(g) talks about amateur-built aircraft (which we commonly call "homebuilts"). These aircraft may or may not meet the LSA definition. If they do, they are eligible to be operated by sport pilots.

21.190 talks about the Light-Sport category. These are what we refer to as "special LSA", or "SLSA". These are the factory-built aircraft sold ready to fly.

For pilot certification rules, you need to go to part 61, sub-part J. This will cover the requirements for a sport pilot certificate.

For specific procedures for certificating these aircraft, you need to go to FAA Order 8130.2J, which you can find by going to the FAA website (www.faa.gov) and doing a search for 8130.2. it's a large document, but all the info is in there regarding certification procedures for all the aircraft referred to above.

[wmgeorge]

Thanks Joe for the help! I will do some reading right now its back to the kitchen remodel.

[Joda]

Thanks Joe for the help! I will do some reading right now its back to the kitchen remodel.

More good info can be found here:

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/light_sport/

[tmnolte]

@rwanttaja - these was the simplest and easiest way to understand the Ultralight/LSA difference. Honestly, it was like I had an epiphany looking at the illustrations.

[cdlwingnut]

Also in FAR part 1 definitions light sport aircraft you can see if your airplane meets the requirments.

[Geezer]

I’ve read all the posts and think I understand the Ultalght vs LSA. The prove it to myself, I would like to have the folks in this thread “vote” on my understanding.

If I purchase an Aerolite 103 Ultralight built by the Factory, I then add some equipment, I also replace the engine and as a result, exceed the UL weight/performance limits, I have an airplane that IS an LSA of some kind but cannot be registered as a E-AB nor an E-LSA.

There is one thing that is interesting and is a possible “loophole” is that all of the mods that I would install could be purchased from OEM and installed on the airplane at the factory before delivery. I’m assuming then it might be a S-LSA and could be converted to an E-LSA.

If this is confusing to you as it is to me, let me know.

Thanks.

[Dana]

I’ve read all the posts and think I understand the Ultalght vs LSA. The prove it to myself, I would like to have the folks in this thread “vote” on my understanding.

If I purchase an Aerolite 103 Ultralight built by the Factory, I then add some equipment, I also replace the engine and as a result, exceed the UL weight/performance limits, I have an airplane that IS an LSA of some kind but cannot be registered as a E-AB nor an E-LSA.

The aircraft would not be an LSA of any kind, even though it may conform to the LSA limits. But you're correct that it can't be EAB or ELSA. At best you might be able to register it as experimental-exhibition, but I wouldn't count on it.


There is one thing that is interesting and is a possible “loophole” is that all of the mods that I would install could be purchased from OEM and installed on the airplane at the factory before delivery. I’m assuming then it might be a S-LSA and could be converted to an E-LSA.

No. That would only be possible if Aerolite had previously certificated that configuration as a S-LSA, which it hasn't.

[Geezer]

Thanks Dana. So as I expected, if any mods to the Aerolite 103 result in exceeding Part 103 limits, it is no longer an ultralight by the rules, would fit the LSA definition but according to the FAA, basically can’t be registered in any “useful” LSA category.

Leaves me with two alternatives, keep any mods to an existing ultralight within Part 103 rules or buy the kit with anything I want that exceeds the ultralight rules, build it and then register it as an E-AB.

[martymayes]

or buy the kit with anything I want that exceeds the ultralight rules, build it and then register it as an E-AB.

If you go that route you can operate the aircraft as an LSA.

[Dana]

Thanks Dana. So as I expected, if any mods to the Aerolite 103 result in exceeding Part 103 limits, it is no longer an ultralight by the rules, would fit the LSA definition but according to the FAA, basically can’t be registered in any “useful” LSA category.

Leaves me with two alternatives, keep any mods to an existing ultralight within Part 103 rules or buy the kit with anything I want that exceeds the ultralight rules, build it and then register it as an E-AB.


Correct... with the caveat that the kit must leave enough for you to do that it meets the so-called "51%" rule.