Manned Multi-copter question

Discussion in 'Rules and Regulations / Flight Safety / Better Pil' started by bmcj, Nov 8, 2019.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Nov 8, 2019 #1

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    4,862
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Someone here, a licensed pilot, has a homebuilt manned multirotor craft that falls easily under Part 103 weight limits (it weighs 84 lbs). He has hovered it a few times, but someone must have reported him because he has received a letter from the FAA informing him of heavy fines, penalties and charges that he might face if he flies it unregistered.

    My question is, doesn’t this legally qualify as an ultralight that can be flown under the Part 103 rules without registration? Barring that, he could register it under experimental/exhibition or research, but is that any better?

    Aside from my question above, he also said that it can be flown remotely like a hobbyist drone... anyone care to weigh in on this aspect and the rules? Can it be operated as Part 103 and Part 107 (even though it exceeds typical Part 107 weights, I think)?
     
  2. Nov 8, 2019 #2

    Dana

    Dana

    Dana

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    8,625
    Likes Received:
    3,011
    Location:
    CT, USA
    Has he informed the FAA that it meets the ultralight requirements? Ultralight helicopters are allowed, a multicopter shouldn't be any different.
     
  3. Nov 8, 2019 #3

    Jay Kempf

    Jay Kempf

    Jay Kempf

    Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Messages:
    3,672
    Likes Received:
    937
    Location:
    Warren, VT USA
    The FAA is having a hard time with how the quad copter world is progressing. They can't assess stall speed, wing area, fuel max capacity, max speed, weight limits, etc... So they don't know what to do. So if they get tipped off of something they don't like and they think violates their interpretation of the rules then it's a problem for that person. That plus they are now a minimum registration of multi copters. So you're subjecting yourself to being told no if you tell them and your subject to getting them mad if you don't.

    What I find interesting is that people don't consider this and chronicle their entire life in social media and then their surprised when the FAA somehow started to watch.

    If you register a multi-copter with them and you happen to accidentally sit on it occasionally is that a violation? Depends on the definition is was registered under. Is it unmanned? if it does'n say unmanned on the registration then the first person that does it will get a hand slap and a nasty letter before the rule changes. Just like taxes.

    There are ways to certify everything. Questions is is it worth it to the person that wants to do that. A manned electric multicopter is going to have to clear some hurdles with the FAA. I know a company that is doing just that. Have done some work for them and they have a FAA approved test program underway. There are others. But I don't see someone home depot sourced back yard program surviving the cost of that process.
     
    bmcj likes this.
  4. Nov 8, 2019 #4

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,732
    Likes Received:
    5,411
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Sounds like he's falling in the uncomfortably hazy area between Part 103 and Part 107. It's too heavy for the usual definition of the latter, and would need to be registered anyway, which he hasn't done, it seems. The moment someone jumps in, it's Part 103... unless it's registered under Part 107 and therefore cannot carry a person.

    As Jay says, the FAA hasn't caught up to this newly developing overlap in the Part 103-Part 107 Venn DIagram.
     
    bmcj likes this.
  5. Nov 8, 2019 #5

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    2,347
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    It can't fly unpowered, so it doesn't meet the FAR 103 unpowered rule. (I don't need to argue this, none flew at Oshkosh, they do fly in other countries).
    If registered with an airworthiness certificate then the pilot needs a powered lift rating. (or some special permit)
     
  6. Nov 8, 2019 #6

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    4,862
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    BB, so what you’re saying is that it must have a glide capability to meet 103 requirements? Would a BRS suffice?
     
  7. Nov 8, 2019 #7

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    4,862
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    I prefer to ignore the unmanned capability at the moment so that we can focus on a clearer understanding on whether this can fit within Part 103, or whether it should go Experimental.

    I’m not even sure if he plans to get more than a few feet off the ground.

    If he wants to fly it unmanned, he should build a second one for that purpose so that he only has to run the Part 107 gauntlet for that one without the complication of calling it a dual purpose machine.
     
  8. Nov 8, 2019 #8

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    2,347
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    I don't know what would suffice (other than 110 sq. ft. of wing area).
    Can you post a copy of the FAA letter?
     
  9. Nov 9, 2019 #9

    Dana

    Dana

    Dana

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    8,625
    Likes Received:
    3,011
    Location:
    CT, USA
    Well, a helicopter can autorotate, unlike a multicopter, maybe that's the difference as the FAA sees it.
     
  10. Nov 9, 2019 #10

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    6,382
    Likes Received:
    2,306
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Drag a rope and call it a powered kite? :confused:

    This seems just like the debate over how the Blackfly could be called a legal part103.
     
  11. Nov 9, 2019 #11

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,639
    Likes Received:
    3,269
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    I would be classifying how it is controlled. If all he is doing is flying with a controller in his lap and could get out and then fly as a drone. It’s just a man carrying drone. If a person has to stay at the controls or it will crash, then it’s something different. Once it goes over 55 lbs in dronedom you are really out of classification and requires wavers.
     
  12. Nov 9, 2019 #12

    FritzW

    FritzW

    FritzW

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,653
    Likes Received:
    3,265
    Location:
    Las Cruces, NM
    It's been awhile since I read part 103 but I don't remember anything about a requirement to be able to glide.

    There is a part in the advisory circular that sounds like a powered ultralight needs "a means of horizontal propulsion" but in the same sentence it says helicopters are eligible.

    AC103clip.jpg
     
    Topaz likes this.
  13. Nov 9, 2019 #13

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    2,347
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    It's assumed these things could be classified as "powered lift" by the FAA".
    Powered lift is the most complex category, so the FAA is possibly reluctant to approve powered lift under FAR 103.
    They don't even allow helicopters under LSA.


    FAR 1.1
    "Powered-lift means a heavier-than-air aircraft capable of vertical takeoff, vertical landing, and low speed flight that depends principally on engine-driven lift devices or engine thrust for lift during these flight regimes and on nonrotating airfoil(s) for lift during horizontal flight"
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019
  14. Nov 9, 2019 #14

    FritzW

    FritzW

    FritzW

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,653
    Likes Received:
    3,265
    Location:
    Las Cruces, NM
    But this thing has rotating airfoils.
     
  15. Nov 9, 2019 #15

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    2,347
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    Yes, doesn't fit the powered lift definition exactly, but close. This is all new and was not anticipated by the FAA when the FAR's were created. EAA told me the FAA will only approve on a case by case basis until the new rules, regulations, advisory circulars etc. are created.
     
  16. Nov 9, 2019 #16

    FritzW

    FritzW

    FritzW

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,653
    Likes Received:
    3,265
    Location:
    Las Cruces, NM
    "Nulla poena sine lege" ...if it ain't illegal, it's legal
     
  17. Nov 9, 2019 #17

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    2,347
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    It's up to the operator to prove it meets all of FAR 103.1 when confronted by the FAA after a flight. (or face a fine)
     
  18. Nov 9, 2019 #18

    bmcj

    bmcj

    bmcj

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    4,862
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    Sorry, but I have not seen the letter myself.
     
  19. Nov 9, 2019 #19

    FritzW

    FritzW

    FritzW

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,653
    Likes Received:
    3,265
    Location:
    Las Cruces, NM
    § 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:
    (a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant; ...check
    (b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only; ...check
    (c) Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and ...check
    (d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or ...NA
    (e) If powered:
    (1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation; ...check
    (2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons; ...check
    (3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and ...check
    (4) Has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed. ...check


    It's all speculation without knowing what the letter said, but if the problem is that it's not registered there has to be a law/rule/regulation that would require it to be registered. It doesn't seem like it's a problem with complying with part 103.
     
  20. Nov 9, 2019 #20

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,041
    Likes Received:
    2,347
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    It can't comply with FAR 103.1 (e) (4) because it has no means of flight while unpowered or any means of achieving a calibrated stall speed that does not exceed 24 knots.
    So your next reply is it has no unpowered stall speed...

    It's an absurdity on par with a legal FAR 103 rocket ship.
    As I mentioned, I won't argue the matter. I have been to Air Venture twice (2018 and 2019) to see a manned evtol fly.
    It didn't happen either year. Why not?
    No one will answer.
     

Share This Page

arrow_white