What's the legal definition of "hang glider"? YOU know what it means, and *I* know what it means, but that doesn't mean our definitions match. It's like "Assault Rifle"; a term that can mean different things to different people.Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood
You don't write regulations using ambiguous terms. If Part 103 said "hang glider," someone might claim the regulation didn't apply to a particular vehicle since it had a seat and the occupant didn't "hang" in it. You might recall this exact situation came up before the implementation of Part 103. The "ultralights" back then had to be "foot launchable" to qualify as "hang gliders."
So the Feds ignore descriptive terms such as "hang glider" and describe "ultralight vehicle" in simple terms that are easy to verify such as weight or number of occupants, and don't restrict the design. If you use the term "hang glider," you're actually limiting the types of air vehicles that might qualify under Part 103. The FAA was smart to avoid the term.
One thing to remember is that Part 103 describes the LOWEST POSSIBLE category of manned air vehicle. It doesn't matter if it's a hang glider, a "sit glider", a rogallo wing, or a fully cantilevered structure using carbon fiber and spider webs. If it doesn't have an engine, only carries one person, and weighs less than 155 pounds, Part 103 applies. Put an engine on it, obey the 255 pound limit, obey the fuel restriction, and you're still good. But if it violates any aspect of the Part 103 rules, then Parts 21/23/43/45/65/91 come into play and the owner's situation is far more complex.
Ron Wanttaja
Reply With Quote