Part 103.

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
I see several airports around here that have signs saying no ultra lights..

I wondered why. and the only reason I can think of, is the operators need no instruction how to be pilots, such as traffic patterns, radio usage, that sort of stuff.. Am I close?
 
That has been a problem, especially in the past. Most ultralight pilots are more responsible now, but some airport managers just remember the "bad old days".
 
A good friend flies a LS trike, is a registered, N numbered aircraft... and been told he can not use some airports as they do not allow Ultralights... so yes there are some places that are not up to speed as the what and LSA is or an Ultralight. We can all just get along... I had an UL back in the 1980's... it was really fun to fly.. had floats, off the river... was really fun... so why not keep up the use where it fits into other use of aircraft.
 
Actually, I think NO UL is actually illegal if the airport ever had an FAA grant.
 
flyingron said:
Actually, I think NO UL is actually illegal if the airport ever had an FAA grant.
Click to expand...

Was just about to say that.

Think a few airports who tired to ban drop zones have been lit up in the past too.

Something about not being allowed to block any official aviation activity of you take tax payer dollars or some such, which makes sense, it's the people's money, it's the people airport, not your club house.
 
§103.17 Operations in certain airspace.
No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace.
 
MauleSkinner said:
§103.17 Operations in certain airspace.
No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace.
Click to expand...

Oh no! Someone read the regs!!! This is POA. We do not do that!! I demand you be banned!!!

:D
 
MauleSkinner said:
§103.17 Operations in certain airspace.
No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace.
Click to expand...

And these airports have surface areas (or higher class airspace)? Besides, this isn't an ultralight prohibition, just says you need ATC approval.

Here's an example. S50 Auburn (Washington State). The remarks in the chart supplement say NO ULTRALIGHTS. The state airport guide also has the remark saying "Ultralights and hot-air ballons prohibited."
 
Last edited:
I would say that most of the Class E or higher surface areas have the FAA grants that you mentioned.
 
Tom-D said:
I see several airports around here that have signs saying no ultra lights..

I wondered why. and the only reason I can think of, is the operators need no instruction how to be pilots, such as traffic patterns, radio usage, that sort of stuff.. Am I close?
Click to expand...

A true single seat ultralight requires no license to fly (assuming it meets the requirements of Part 103 for an ultralight aircraft). Any two seat "ultralight" or Light Sport type aircraft requires a Sport Pilot Certificate or higher to fly.

Sailplanes and ultralights have the right of way in the air over all other aircraft except lighter-than-aircraft: blimps and balloons.

The two seat "ultralight" LSA can also be equipped with a radio and Mode C transponder and can fly into Class C & D airspace without an issue. A weight-shift kite is an example.

Here is a popular weight-shift kite: http://evolutiontrikes.com/
 
Last edited:
THERE are no legal "two seat ultralights." If they were not converted to LSAs back when that window was open, they are ILLEGAL for anybody to fly. If they were converted to LSAs, they are LSAs and the LSA/Sport Pilot rules apply.

Your characterization of the right of way rules is way wrong as well. First off, there's NO preference for ultralights. Ultralights must yield to all aircraft. Only unpowered ultralights (such as hang gliders) have a preference and even then only over powered ultralights.

By the way, the class preference (gliders, lighter-than-air) only applies in the case of aircraft converging (other than head on or nearly so.
If you're converging head on, no matter what the relative classes are, both are expected to go to the right. If one is overtaking the other, then the overtaking aircraft must yield. Landing and distress have their own preferences.
 
citizen5000 said:
A true single seat ultralight requires no license to fly (assuming it meets the requirements of Part 103 for an ultralight aircraft). Any two seat "ultralight" or Light Sport type aircraft requires a Sport Pilot Certificate or higher to fly.

Sailplanes and ultralights have the right of way in the air over all other aircraft except lighter-than-aircraft: blimps and balloons.

The two seat "ultralight" LSA can also be equipped with a radio and Mode C transponder and can fly into Class C & D airspace without an issue.

Here is a popular weight-shift kite: http://evolutiontrikes.com/
Click to expand...

Again, read the regs.

103.13 Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.
(a) Each person operating an ultralight vehicle shall maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid aircraft and shall yield the right-of-way to all aircraft.

(b) No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a collision hazard with respect to any aircraft.

(c) Powered ultralights shall yield the right-of-way to unpowered ultralights.
 
OK so I'm learning, that IF I build a Phantom II looking aircraft that is too heavy to be a Part 103 ultralight. it will be at Least a E/LSA or a E/AB.
FAR 21.190 seems a lot f paper work.
Far 21.191 requires a kit. and it would not be a kit built - So that's out too.
So If I do anything along these lines it will be a amateur home built one off design.
 
I don't know what you mean by PhantomII looking, but you can't fly a Phatom II as an E-LSA. Before Jan 2008 you could have converted a Phantom II to E-LSA, but now that ship has passed. Since Phantom doesn't sell a LSA kit, you can't register it E-LSA. You also can't build something from scratch that looks like a Phantom II and register it as E-LSA. You can build it as E-AB and if it meets the LSA/Sport Pilot rules, fly it as a sport pilot.
 
An airport that has received FAA grants (which is pretty much every public owned and operated airport) in the last 20 years cannot restrict ultra-light or any other aviation related activity from the airport unless necessary for the safe operation of the airport, AND IS APPROVED BY THE FAA. The FAA gets the final say before any restriction can be put in place. If you find an airport that has accepted FAA grants in the last 20 years restricting operations, it may worth a call to the FAA.
 
flyingron said:
I don't know what you mean by PhantomII looking, but you can't fly a Phatom II as an E-LSA. Before Jan 2008 you could have converted a Phantom II to E-LSA, but now that ship has passed. Since Phantom doesn't sell a LSA kit, you can't register it E-LSA. You also can't build something from scratch that looks like a Phantom II and register it as E-LSA. You can build it as E-AB and if it meets the LSA/Sport Pilot rules, fly it as a sport pilot.
Click to expand...
That is not how I read the FAR 21.190.

http://www.phantomaero.com

see my post about the phantom II above.
 
flyingron said:
Here's an example. S50 Auburn (Washington State). The remarks in the chart supplement say NO ULTRALIGHTS. The state airport guide also has the remark saying "Ultralights and hot-air balloons prohibited."
Click to expand...
I've been based out of there for ~30 years. Not sure of the heritage of the rules, but in the '80s the airport manager was a bit of a hard case. Could see him banning ultralights. Experimental Aircraft are banned, too....at least those still within their test period.

As far as the FAA grant money is concerned, I've always thought Part 103 machines weren't a factor because the FAA doesn't seem to define them as "Aircraft." Part 103 never uses the term (except to refer to other sections of the regs), using "Ultralight Vehicle" exclusively. In fact, 103.13 requires them to avoid AIRCRAFT, not "Other Aircraft." Depends on how the grant money restrictions are worded, I suppose.

Wouldn't imply in the case of N-numbered balloons, of course. Auburn is located well under the Sea-Tac Class B veil, just 7-8 miles from the airport and less than three miles from the nearest "wing" of the Class B going to the surface. Tight corner to be operating a balloon, but, really, that shouldn't be the airport's call.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
flyingron said:
I don't know what you mean by PhantomII looking, but you can't fly a Phatom II as an E-LSA. Before Jan 2008 you could have converted a Phantom II to E-LSA, but now that ship has passed. Since Phantom doesn't sell a LSA kit, you can't register it E-LSA. You also can't build something from scratch that looks like a Phantom II and register it as E-LSA. You can build it as E-AB and if it meets the LSA/Sport Pilot rules, fly it as a sport pilot.
Click to expand...
That is not how I read the FAR 21.190.
Click to expand...
How does your interpretation differ, Tom?

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I've been based out of there for ~30 years. Not sure of the heritage of the rules, but in the '80s the airport manager was a bit of a hard case. Could see him banning ultralights. Experimental Aircraft are banned, too....at least those still within their test period.

As far as the FAA grant money is concerned, I've always thought Part 103 machines weren't a factor because the FAA doesn't seem to define them as "Aircraft." Part 103 never uses the term (except to refer to other sections of the regs), using "Ultralight Vehicle" exclusively. In fact, 103.13 requires them to avoid AIRCRAFT, not "Other Aircraft." Depends on how the grant money restrictions are worded, I suppose.

Wouldn't imply in the case of N-numbered balloons, of course. Auburn is located well under the Sea-Tac Class B veil, just 7-8 miles from the airport and less than three miles from the nearest "wing" of the Class B going to the surface. Tight corner to be operating a balloon, but, really, that shouldn't be the airport's call.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Ultralights aren't aircraft (and thus don't need to be registered nor do their pilots need to be certificated--a strange anomaly that's never been tested in court but thankfully no one has sued the FAA over them) but through FAA policy are considered legitimate aeronautical activities that cannot be unjustly discriminated against.
 
wanttaja said:
How does your interpretation differ, Tom?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

21.190 does not prohibit building a E/LSA, it only tells us what must be done to qualify for the
§21.190 Issue of a special airworthiness certificate for a light-sport category aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
21.190 does not prohibit building a E/LSA, it only tells us what must be done to qualify for the
§21.190 Issue of a special airworthiness certificate for a light-sport category aircraft.
Click to expand...
Yep. But what 21.190 does, when combined with ASTM Standards such as FF2245, F2279 and others, is to make it non-cost effective to build one-off ELSA aircraft. You can certainly perform the appropriate design analyses, write the maintenance, inspection, and flight training manuals, set up the Quality Assurance and Operational Safety Monitoring program, and trust you'll pass an FAA audit if one is demanded.

It's just that building the same exact damn airplane as Experimental Amateur-Built avoids all that, and gives the builder basically the same benefits.

Ron Wanttaja

(note...basing the above process on an older copy of the ASTM standards. Probably has changed, to some extent.)
 
wanttaja said:
Yep. But what 21.190 does, when combined with ASTM Standards such as FF2245, F2279 and others, is to make it non-cost effective to build one-off ELSA aircraft. You can certainly perform the appropriate design analyses, write the maintenance, inspection, and flight training manuals, set up the Quality Assurance and Operational Safety Monitoring program, and trust you'll pass an FAA audit if one is demanded.

It's just that building the same exact damn airplane as Experimental Amateur-Built avoids all that, and gives the builder basically the same benefits.

Ron Wanttaja

(note...basing the above process on an older copy of the ASTM standards. Probably has changed, to some extent.)
Click to expand...
That's why I said the 190 route is a lot of paper work.
I get your point, that you can build it as a E/AB then fly it as a LSA. but they are very restrictive regulations.
 
Brad Z said:
Ultralights aren't aircraft (and thus don't need to be registered nor do their pilots need to be certificated--a strange anomaly that's never been tested in court but thankfully no one has sued the FAA over them) but through FAA policy are considered legitimate aeronautical activities that cannot be unjustly discriminated against.
Click to expand...

So you have a vehicle that flies in the air and carries people but isn't an aircraft yet drones/UAS which carry no people are considered aircraft and must be registered. Makes perfect sense to me!
 
Brad Z said:
Ultralights aren't aircraft (and thus don't need to be registered nor do their pilots need to be certificated--a strange anomaly that's never been tested in court but thankfully no one has sued the FAA over them) but through FAA policy are considered legitimate aeronautical activities that cannot be unjustly discriminated against.
Click to expand...

Here is the N registration for a "powered parachute" ultralight: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=3602V

Here is a popular brand of ultralight trikes showing N numbers on their products (see gallery): http://evolutiontrikes.com/
 
SkyDog58 said:
So you have a vehicle that flies in the air and carries people but isn't an aircraft yet drones/UAS which carry no people are considered aircraft and must be registered. Makes perfect sense to me!
Click to expand...
It all depends on who the lobbyists are and what they want. The ultralight industry benefited from not being considered aircraft, and fought to keep it that way. On the other hand, he commercial unmanned aircraft industry sought to get access to the airspace system, and being callled an aircraft was just the ticket to do that.
 
103.1 Applicability.
This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that:
(c) Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate;
 
Brad Z said:
It all depends on who the lobbyists are and what they want. The ultralight industry benefited from not being considered aircraft, and fought to keep it that way. On the other hand, he commercial unmanned aircraft industry sought to get access to the airspace system, and being callled an aircraft was just the ticket to do that.
Click to expand...

Oh, there are reasons it is the way it is but you have to admit that is does defy logic a bit.
 
The Part 103 reg has been clarified by the FAA in a pair of Advisory Circulars.

AC 103-7 - The Ultralight Vehicle
Provides guidance to the operators of ultralights, definition of ultralight vehicles and discusses when an ultralight must be operated as an aircraft under the regulations applicable to certificated aircraft. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol....cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22640

AC 103-6 - Ultralight Vehicle Operations-Airports, ATC, and Weather
Provides guidance for the operation of ultralight in regard to airports and flight park operations, how to work with ATC, and the availability of weather services.

The FAA says, "there are approximately 16,000 public use and private airports...The vast majority of these facilities may be suitable and compatible for safe ultralight operations."

"Use of these airports [controlled] requires prior permission of airport management and the local air traffic control authority (see FAR Part 103.17)"

"uncontrolled airports...Use of these airports by ultralight vehicles may require prior permission of the airport operator."
 
Last edited:
The AC says that, but the reg it references doesn't say anything of the sort. It says that you need prior authorization from the ATC having jurisdiction. There's no rule requiring airport management permission. The subsequent "may require" argument is also weak. There's nothing in the regulations that supports that either. Ultralights are no more disadvantaged than anything else as far as the regs are concerned.
 
Tom-D said:
21.190 does not prohibit building a E/LSA, it only tells us what must be done to qualify for the
§21.190 Issue of a special airworthiness certificate for a light-sport category aircraft.
Click to expand...

21.190(c)(1), (2), (3) and (7) are a *****. It ain't the same as throwing together a homebuilt. The other parts of paragraph (c) are not exactly something most experimental builders are going to put up with either.
 
flyingron said:
21.190(c)(1), (2), (3) and (7) are a *****. It ain't the same as throwing together a homebuilt. The other parts of paragraph (c) are not exactly something most experimental builders are going to put up with either.
Click to expand...
My FSDO connection says that 21.190 is directed toward companies who wish to build LSA aircraft for sale. But that was a MIDO area, and not his area of expertise.

that was my interpretation of the 30 minute conversation.
 
Tom-D said:
My FSDO connection says that 21.190 is directed toward companies who wish to build LSA aircraft for sale. But that was a MIDO area, and not his area of expertise.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. Special Light Sport was intended as a simplified method of getting production-type airplanes available at less cost, not as another route for one-of-a-kind aircraft. The "Experimental" portion of it was, in my opinion, partially due to the expected casualty rates among Light Sport companies. Because the STC/Form 337 process doesn't apply to SLSAs, the manufacturer is the only entity that can approve changes, repair methods, etc. So the rules were set up so that if a company tanks, the owner of an SLSA can convert it to an ELSA and is then free to maintain it similarly to other Experimental aircraft.

One point of interest is that no one...not an individual, not a company...can build a new Experimental Light Sport airplane from scratch. If a company develops a prototype, they must first get it approved as a Special Light Sport Aircraft. Once they get approval of the exemplar, they can sell ELSA kits for the aircraft (and relicense the exemplar, if they wish).

And as most folks are aware, those ELSA kits aren't restricted by the 51% rule. However, the builder must construct it to be an exact duplicate of the exemplar. If the kit maker used a Dynon panel, ELSA builders must use the same model of Dynon panel. If the exemplar used Aerothane paint, the ELSA builder must use the same brand (I'm presuming there's leeway for color).

Once the owner has his ELSA airworthiness certificate, he's free to make whatever changes he wishes.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Ron is saying exactly what I was. There was a tiny window of opportunity that slammed shut nine years ago to eLSA your kludged-up fat ultralight. That is gone. eLSA is for manurfaturer kit versions of approved LSAs. If you want to homebrew an LSA, ExAB is the only practical way.
 
wanttaja said:
And as most folks are aware, those ELSA kits aren't restricted by the 51% rule. However, the builder must construct it to be an exact duplicate of the exemplar. If the kit maker used a Dynon panel, ELSA builders must use the same model of Dynon panel. If the exemplar used Aerothane paint, the ELSA builder must use the same brand (I'm presuming there's leeway for color).
Click to expand...
The manufacturer specifies that the parameters are. There's no requirement that they be identical to something that has been built, just in conformance with the manufacturers design data, etc... The manufacturer could say you could use any spray enamel to finsih the plane if he wanted to (and could s support that conformance to the consensus standard).

But you are right, the eLSA builder must build it to the exact instructions the manufacturer provides for initial certification.
 
21.190 does leave the door open for any one to become the manufacturer of the LSA. Once the design is developed and certified, there is no requirement to sell any kits.

Thanks for the lesson. LSA really doesn't meet my needs, I am still a Private pilot with a third class medical and can still do the heavier E/AB
 
flyingron said:
Ron is saying exactly what I was. There was a tiny window of opportunity that slammed shut nine years ago to eLSA your kludged-up fat ultralight. That is gone. eLSA is for manurfaturer kit versions of approved LSAs. If you want to homebrew an LSA, ExAB is the only practical way.
Click to expand...
All right, that does it. You made me post this. :)
ls2.jpg


Ron Wanttaja
 
SkyDog58 said:
Oh, there are reasons it is the way it is but you have to admit that is does defy logic a bit.
Click to expand...
Of course. And if someone sued the FAA over ultralights not being considered aircraft, the FAA would most certainly loose. No one has, and the FAA isn't much concerned about part 103 ops to change anything...if it ain't broke don't fix it, and all.
 
Thanks RonW, great (and accurate) graphic (except for I think they extended the covert-by date until Jan 2008, but I could be wrong on that). Either way, that ship has sailed a long time ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top