The future of Part 103

Discussion in 'The light stuff area' started by FritzW, Sep 24, 2018.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Sep 25, 2018 #41

    Victor Bravo

    Victor Bravo

    Victor Bravo

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,394
    Likes Received:
    5,180
    Location:
    KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
    What about this... bring back the previous exemption and specifically allow experimental "fat ultralights" or previously "illegal" two seat ultralights to be used for flight instruction WITHIN LIMITS, including the limits that govern Part 103 ultralights such as not over populated areas, day VFR only, and limited to basic flight instruction to be used ONLY for that pilot to operate a Part 103 UL. Meaning that an experimental cannot be used to train for Sport Pilot or Private Pilot licensure. Do not allow these exempted UL trainers to compete with LSA or PPL operators, and make an enforceable policy that this is simply a basic instructional tool to make "operators" of Part 103 ultralights able to safely fly. If they want to progress on to a Sport Pilot or PPL, they have to go through the entire process for that separately.
     
  2. Sep 25, 2018 #42

    blane.c

    blane.c

    blane.c

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2015
    Messages:
    3,325
    Likes Received:
    585
    Location:
    capital district NY
    So part 104? Because I don't want part 103 messed with. If it has two seats no matter it's purpose or intended purpose it isn't 103. Make a new part, 104 or whatever, to govern two seat aircraft used as ultralight trainers and the instructor pilots.
     
    addicted2climbing likes this.
  3. Sep 25, 2018 #43

    blane.c

    blane.c

    blane.c

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2015
    Messages:
    3,325
    Likes Received:
    585
    Location:
    capital district NY
    If you make a new part and it fails it doesn't necessarily take 103 with it.
     
  4. Sep 25, 2018 #44

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,963
    Likes Received:
    5,575
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    How does that solve the problem of me taking my buddy up and claiming we're doing it "for flight instruction" under the exemption? That's basically what sunk the 2-place exemption in the first place. A very small fraction of the two-seat flights were legitimate "instruction", and the rest were people taking passengers up for recreational flights and lying their posterior off about it. Pretty much all the illegal ops were over "uncongested" areas, day VFR, etc. The FAA never wanted to have to "police" Part 103 ops, and expected the UL community to police itself regarding keeping within the rule. The community was absolutely miserable at that. If anyone ever turned in someone else to USUA or even the FAA over abusing the 2-seat training exemption, I never heard of it. "Pilots don't rat out other pilots," "Let the FAA catch 'em, it's not my job," etc.

    So how do you keep people honest this time, without requiring the FAA to become involved in oversight for which they created Part 103 to avoid?
     
  5. Sep 25, 2018 #45

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    2,445
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    That doesn't worry me..... too much. I suspect that they will be allowed in part 103 WITH a strict enforcement of the 'unpopulated' reg for a short time. Once they get to be common the FAA will do the same thing they did with fat ULs and give the existing multi rotor part 103s a set time to transition to a new class with it's own set of FAA regulations and ASTM standards. Those will be eventually allowed over populated areas.

    I think the FAA can be trusted to understand the difference between the two.

    But then I've been accused of being a glass half full kind of guy.
     
  6. Sep 25, 2018 #46

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,450
    Likes Received:
    2,511
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    There never was many one seat ultralights after the two seat exemption boom. The typical student took an intro-lesson/ride and then eventually came for more lessons and either bought the used trainer or bought some other two-seater to fly solo with extra performance. I guess they could fly solo forever. Some got the BFR and gave rides to friends. I didn't really see a problem at my airport once the ultralights were moved to the taxiway away from the main runway. The Ultralight operator was a volunteer FAA Safety Counselor.
    Without rides the operator had nothing to do all weekend.
     
  7. Sep 25, 2018 #47

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Hot Wings

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    6,526
    Likes Received:
    2,445
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Require UL "N" numbers and register the 2 place vehicles. Numbered UL can only be flown by an organization certified UL instructor or a student with XX numbers in their log book. Then let the local authorities do the enforcement because the can now identify the vehicle intruding into populated airspace? No UL or N number and 2 people on board - you get fined and the plane confiscated when they find you. The locals would like the extra income. :gig:
     
  8. Sep 25, 2018 #48

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Topaz

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    13,963
    Likes Received:
    5,575
    Location:
    Orange County, California
    Well, that's better than what we had, but we really don't want local authorities getting involved in regulation of flying ops. Really.

    What's a shame is that the USUA and others didn't really "step-up" and take on the oversight roles they promised when 103 replaced the "foot launch" rule. We wouldn't have been in this situation.
     
  9. Sep 25, 2018 #49

    Dana

    Dana

    Dana

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    8,766
    Likes Received:
    3,124
    Location:
    CT, USA
    In theory, one can get a LODA (Letter of Deviation Authority) to give paid instruction in an experimental. But the FAA is very reluctant to issue LODAs if a non experimental aircraft is available. In practice, LODAs are issued for specific transition training in unusual aircraft types (like warbirds registered experimental-exhibition), and they're difficult to get... you have to provide comprehensive lesson plans, etc.

    The old BFI (Basic Flight Instructor) program was widely abused. BFI's routinely "trained" their friends and family forever, advertised "ultralight airplane rides", etc. in unregistered ultralights. And the organizations (USUA, ASC, etc.) gave out BFI's to just about anybody with no oversight.

    USUA and ASC (and yes, even EAA) really missed the boat... almost their entire revenue stream disappeared when they couldn't sell BFI certification any more. If they offered Sport Pilot CFIs a prepackaged lesson plan and assistance to get a LODA for instruction in an "ultralight like" ELSA similar to the old BFI program, they'd still be in business... and people could still get ultralight instruction.
     
    Topaz likes this.
  10. Sep 25, 2018 #50

    TFF

    TFF

    TFF

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,903
    Likes Received:
    3,402
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    There needs to be an economic reason for the FAA to police. They are not interested in Good Samaritan inspecting. Ever notice that airplanes that don't have functioning companies rarely have ADs written to them unless it is really a wing falling off. No engineering department and no pockets to backup lawsuits. They don't have enough inspectors now and their offices keep getting squeezed for cuts. They don't have to profit, but they do have to justify their existence. Toy airplanes is not what they want to mess with. They would rather cut them out. One less head ache.
     
    Twodeaddogs likes this.
  11. Sep 25, 2018 #51

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,450
    Likes Received:
    2,511
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    The FAA did take control with the Light Sport rule. All the rules for Light Sport pilots and instructors are in place. It just isn't working as was promised for the light training aircraft. So fix Light Sport and don't change FAR103.
    There needs to be a one or two seat, 496 pound, 87kt Light Sport trainer or sport category with limited rules. Same as the exemption was, with no aircraft standards.

    The Light Sport Instructor certificate is easy to get. No instrument rating required.
     
    Twodeaddogs likes this.
  12. Sep 25, 2018 #52

    Victor Bravo

    Victor Bravo

    Victor Bravo

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,394
    Likes Received:
    5,180
    Location:
    KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
    Just how easy is it to get BB? Do you have that LSI certificate?

    Is it something that your average airport bum with time in old light airplanes and gliders (like me, ahem) can get without a huge hassle? Is a guy like me what they are looking for or are they looking for old graybeard UL pilots who started with chainsaw powered hang gliders?

    I find myself in need of a revenue stream right now, but I have no idea if this is a good choice for my skill set and my personality. I also have no idea if it's profitable, insurable, etc. I never considered myself "flight instructor material" because I've never done the instrument/commercial/airline/military stuff. But this may be different and I believe I might be able to teach basic stick and rudder airmanship.
     
    jedi likes this.
  13. Sep 25, 2018 #53

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,450
    Likes Received:
    2,511
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    Don't need a commercial or instrument rating like for a Cessna 150 instructor. If you have a Private and 150 hours then you are all set.
    The problem is finding a suitable LSA airplane.
    Could be a J-3, T-Craft, Chief, Ercoupe,etc. Or a new SLSA Msquared for around $50k.
    Start reading at FAR 61.401.

    An old guy gave a talk at Oshkosh about his new life as a Sport Pilot Instructor. Not much money, but he likes it.
    I don't have a Sport Pilot Instructor certificate. I thought about it, but not enough population here. No one here within 100 miles does Sport instruction, as far as I know. It is virtually ignored by FBO's.
     
    jedi likes this.
  14. Sep 25, 2018 #54

    BBerson

    BBerson

    BBerson

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    12,450
    Likes Received:
    2,511
    Location:
    Port Townsend WA
    There is some C-162 for sale in Trade-A-Plane around $50k now.
    The tricycle is cheaper for insurance.
     
    jedi likes this.
  15. Sep 25, 2018 #55

    addicted2climbing

    addicted2climbing

    addicted2climbing

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2012
    Messages:
    984
    Likes Received:
    285
    Location:
    Glendale, CA
    Wow this is news to me.. I would like to be a CFI one day but unsure if I would ever get the Instrument rating. Now it looks like I can be a CFIS with what I have now as long as a take a few tests and courses. Something definitely to think about for the future.
     
  16. Sep 25, 2018 #56

    Victor Bravo

    Victor Bravo

    Victor Bravo

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,394
    Likes Received:
    5,180
    Location:
    KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
    Yeah, I'm not really a fan of Ercoupes. Tri-Champs are just barely over the LSA weight unfortunately. The taildraggers will be expensive to insure.

    The life hack move would be to get a field approval or STC to take an LSA tailwheel Champ and put the Tri-Champ landing geear on it, but leaving the gross weight under LSA limits :)
     
  17. Sep 25, 2018 #57

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    pictsidhe

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2014
    Messages:
    7,183
    Likes Received:
    2,044
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Because it isn't a 103. It's an experimental. Which is already legal and normal to give tour buddy a ride in. What VB and I are both thinking about is a tweajk to experimental to allow them to be used for UL training. Instructors are going to need a PPL to fly them anyway. And no doubt some instructor training too.

    To keep people honest,pulling the PPL of anyone giving paid joyrides pretending to be lessons would be a big stick. Add fines too, if you like.
    It was the guys giving joyrides from beaches etc that killed the UL training.
     
  18. Sep 25, 2018 #58

    Victor Bravo

    Victor Bravo

    Victor Bravo

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,394
    Likes Received:
    5,180
    Location:
    KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
    Well this thread has me thinking (anybody smell smoke?)

    For traditional Ultralight style training, the winner seems to be the M-Squared Breese series of aircraft. Conventional UL (Quicksilver derivative) style and performance, but built to what appears to be heavier duty structural parameters. Very very impressive useful load.

    They make an S-LSA aircraft (FAA approved for commercial ops/training) that sure seems very affordable compared to the European LSA stuff. It would allow a CFI-Sport instructor to provide "real ultralight" training that is directly relevant to pilots who will eventually buy used or new Part 103 aircraft and fly "without a license".... as well as other students who wish to pursue the Sport Pilot license.
     
  19. Sep 25, 2018 #59

    Tiger Tim

    Tiger Tim

    Tiger Tim

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    2,964
    Likes Received:
    1,662
    Location:
    Thunder Bay
    *cough*
    [​IMG]
     
  20. Sep 25, 2018 #60

    BJC

    BJC

    BJC

    Well-Known Member HBA Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    10,010
    Likes Received:
    6,759
    Location:
    97FL, Florida, USA
    Thanks, TT. Now I’ll probably have nightmares tonight.


    BJC
     

Share This Page



arrow_white