Is there a chance this limit could be raised?
Printable View
Is there a chance this limit could be raised?
About the same chance as a packed sphere of frozen H2O in a legendary very hot place...
As much as I'd like to see a weight limit increase, you don't want the FAA to open 103 up for revision! Who knows what they'd screw with...
What does it really matter. They killed Par103 when they did away with training. Because of what happened to training for Par 103, I myself believe this should be re opened. What is wrong with allowing a little more weight and training. If they do nothing it will die it's slow death. Kinda like recreational pilot. Its on the books but who uses it. This is the direction of Par103.
If the FAA wants to screw with Pt 103, they could do that anytime. Petitioning for vehicle max wt increase would only address that topic. Need a good argument, can't just say because I want an increase.
And that would solve the FAA's problems that led to the creation of Part 103: Being responsible for regulating that which is, at best, a PITA to regulate, or, at worst, that which is incapable of being effectively regulated.
I would love to see the empty weight of unregulated airplanes set at 600 pounds, but I do not expect to see that untill after the next round of state secessions from the USA.
BJC
Safety could be the reason for the weight increase. To say this would not help in safety would just be wrong. One could use a little better engine then the two stroke. That alone is a safety issue's. Only then could one address the issue of training.
Safety the reason for a weight increase? Good point. Example. The Icon A5 LSA with a 1510lb MGW. LSA? HAHAHAHAHAHA!
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.
Tony, you'll have to come up with a more persuasive argument than just telling people they are wrong because they don't share your point of view.
For sure, if everyone sits in their LazyBoy recliner thinking nothing will ever change, that's exactly what will happen.
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: Attachment 5172
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........
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
That's a good point
The OP has another thread "Ultralight engine" where he, like many before him, is trying to make weight for part 103 compliance. This is a connecting thread without explanation but many knowing of the struggle are aware - note sarcasm .
Buzz, the weight limit of UL in the US is Under 254 pounds. This is a hard number to attain and in part the reason for light sport.
It would allow more choices for engines.
increased weight allowance would allow for brales (or better brakes)
I agree. But isn't a readily available solution already here? One can use the "operating amateur built aircraft" regs, no?
At any rate, I would support raising the Part 103 max weight. It is somewhat of a arbitrary number. I'd like to see someone write a petition (that is allowed simply by following he rules under Part 11) and make a logical argument for a modest weight increase. Of course, the process (if not immediately denied) could take several yrs but one thing is for sure, the FAA isn't going to do it on their own.
Petitions for Rulemaking and for Exemption
§11.61 May I ask FAA to adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation, or grant relief from the requirements of a current regulation?
(a) Using a petition for rulemaking, you may ask FAA to add a new regulation to title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) or ask FAA to amend or repeal a current regulation in 14 CFR.
Yes, there are a few of the open air flying coleman tent type airplanes that probably would make part 103 with twin cylinder engine. I fly in northern Minnesota so I need an enclosed plane like the single seat challenger.
I'm about to find out if I can receive a variance for weight on my Quicksilver in the state of North Dakota, being I have to register in this state which seems that should put it under the states jurisdiction. I,m going for the safety plea,with the ballistic chute, I automatically am allowed, what 23# or close, but it seems for safeties sake It should have a flashing beacon light, brakes, a decent harness, and a steerable nosewheel. That's about all I think could maybe be gotten out of them. What's the thoughts on the legality of the state authorizing this? I'll find out this week maybe if they are'nt all out for the holidays.