Ralph and Don wheel the Gyrobee out for an airshow performance at Mason Aviation Days. This was a full-fledged airshow, complete with FAA examiners to clear the pilots and aircraft that would be performing. This is just one example of the several times the Gyrobee has passed FAA scrutiny in the field. If you want to fly in a public setting like this, you had better be legal!
Those of you who know me or have followed this column know that I have a pretty no-nonsense attitude about what constitutes legal ultralights. An aircraft is either legal with respect to Part 103 or it isn't. The definition of legality is found right up front in Section 103.1 of the FAR's:
" Sec. 103.1 Applicability This part prescribes rules for 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;
(b) is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only;
(c) does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and
(d) if unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or
(e) if powered:
(1) weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation;
(2) has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 gallons;
(3) is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and
(4) has a power-off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed."
Unlike most government regulations, this is pretty straight text with no real room for "creative" interpretation. In fact, the only thing you can ignore is 103.1.e.4, since the FAA will agree that stall speed is irrelevant for a gyro. The reason for reproducing the text here is that everybody talks about Part 103 but I doubt that one person in ten has actually taken the trouble to read the regulations.
In the real world, you have two dimensions to the business of such regulations - the regulations themselves and how FAA inspectors have been directed to interpret them. With respect to the regulations themselves, they are not suggestions. The Congress has vested the FAA with the development and enforcement of air regulations in this country, so, for all intents and purposes, the FAR's are federal law! The FAA can and almost always does impose fines and other sanctions if you are found to have violated any provisions of the regulations, so it is a serious business.
Inspections (103.3)
One other point that is not obvious to most people is that 103.3 has very specific inspection requirements. Any FAA inspector can require that you submit your ultralight vehicle (note that they are not aircraft) for inspection. Failure to do so is a violation (103.3a). The FAA doesn't have to prove that the vehicle is illegal, you have to prove that it meets all requirements (103.3b). So let's look at the rules in the light of what is written down and how the rules are interpreted in the field.
Single Occupant
Most people, not having read the regulations, say that a legal ultralight must have a single seat. In truth, the vehicle must accommodate a single occupant! Two seats is obviously illegal but so is a wide bench-type seat that could hold two people, even if you are the only one who flies it! Recreational or Sport Use You can't use the vehicle for commercial purposes. Ultralight flight parks that rent ultralight vehicles are in violation! You could use it to win a prize in a contest (the "sport" provision,), but that's about it.
No Airworthiness Certificate
You buy a machine that has been registered in the Experimental category. Assuming it meets or can be made to meet the provisions of Part 103.1, could you fly it as an ultralight? The answer is NO, unless you undertake the proper paperwork to void the existing certificate and registration!
254 Pounds Empty Weight
This weight determination is less cargo, you, and any fluids such as gas, oil, or water. It is the most commonly violated provision. 103.1.d.1 recognizes two exceptions: floats and parachutes. There is no stock weight allowance for either one. If you have floats, the actual weight of the floats and their attachment hardware can be subtracted from the empty weight - no more and no less. Similarly, there is no fixed parachute allotment, as in years past, just the actual weight of the chute system and associated hardware. I have heard some folks rationalize that prerotators or items such as brakes are "safety items" covered by this exclusion. Sorry guys, but the language talks about safety devices that are not normally used, but are deployed in a potentially catastrophic situation. Parachutes meet this requirement - period!
5 Gallon Fuel Capacity
The regulations deal with capacity, not your load. A 9 gallon tank is in violation unless you "fix" it so that it cannot hold more than 5 gallons. Can you carry extra fuel with you? The answer is yes, as long as you cannot access that fuel in flight. If it can be accessed, it is considered useable capacity and you are in violation.
Speed
55 knots (63 statute miles/hour) is the ultralight speed limit, defined in terms of full-throttle capability in level flight! If the aircraft will do 75 mph in level flight, you are in violation, even if you never fly it that fast. Ken Brock's KB-2 for example, easily makes ultralight weight (about 240 pounds), but it can fly like a scalded cat! That's why he has N-numbers on his machine. If your machine would be capable of level-flight speeds in excess of 55 knots, you will have to slow it down (there are many ways to do so) to make it legal.
Waivers
In theory, you can get a waiver for any or all of these requirements, but that waiver has to be in written form from the FAA administrator (103.5). I have no doubt that a paralyzed pilot could probably get such a waiver for the additional hardware to eliminate foot-operated controls, for example, but, unless the circumstances are quite well-defined, you are unlikely to have much luck.
One area where waivers are a viable option involves the use of heavier, two-seat "ultralights" used for dual-instruction. So, can you fly such an aircraft if you give an occasional lesson? Unfortunately, the answer is no! The FAA has issued waivers to three organizations, the EAA, the USUA (United States Ultralight Association), and ASC (Areo Sports Connection) under the training exemption provision. To fly a "fat ultralight" for dual training, you have to satisfy two provisions:
(1) You must operate under a specific written exemption granted by one of the three organizations listed above, and
(2) You are actually covered only when the vehicle is actually being used for dual flight instruction. In most cases, you won't get the exemption unless you can demonstrate the capability to provide instruction and, if you do, you cannot fly the aircraft solo without being in violation! Could an organization like the PRA get a waiver for equipment such as prerotators on Part 103 gyroplanes? In theory, the answer is yes, but it would be a hard case to argue. The dual-instruction waiver is clearly in the public interest on the grounds of safety. In contrast, you can safely fly a gyro without a prerotator. It might be nice to have one, but the FAA is likely to decide that, if you want one, implement it within the existing rules!
Operational Limitations
So far I have been talking about airframe definitions. There are also a host of operational limitations if you are to fly legally under Part 103. I don't intent to go over them here, but you will find them under:
One of the biggest myths about ultralight aviation is that it is unregulated. I think you can tell by now that this is far from the case. If you are legal, you will be limited in what you can fly and where and when you can fly it.
I hear a lot of complaints that Part 103 is arbitrary and restrictive. Quite apart from the fact that all regulations are arbitrary and restrictive, the folks doing the complaining weren't flying in the days before Part 103! In those days, all ultralights had to weight 155 pounds or less and you had to demonstrate foot launches on demand!
Other countries recognize a microlight category, generally permitting more weight and often two seats. Before you get too carried away with admiration, you need to look at all the rest of the regulations in effect in such countries. In Great Britain, for example, the CAA (the U.K. equivalent of the FAA) must issue you a Permit to Fly for your particular aircraft. If yours is the first of its type to apply for such a permit, they will require that you submit to a lengthy flight test evaluation, requiring amassing a large amount of technical documentation, and the flying must be done by a professional test pilot - not you! In effect, the bill to "earn" your Permit to Fly can quickly escalate out of reach and there is no upper limit! Prior flight experience in other countries is no longer sufficient to assure issuance of the required permit - just ask all the U.K. Air Command owners what they had to do to get their machines back in the air after a grounding order several years ago! Like them or not, both our ultralight and Experimental Category regulations are, operationally, the most liberal regulations in the developed world.
It is also worth noting that the possibility exists for new regulations. In all probability, they will not involve liberalizing Part 103. Part 103 will be left as is, and a new aircraft category will be created. I will have more to say on this rule-making process in future columns. The bottom line is simple - Part 103 is very specific and likely to be with us for some time to come in essentially its present form. If you have a homebuilt gyro, you have only two legal options - Part 103 or the Experimental category. Contrary to folk lore, if you do run into an FAA inspector they will not turn a blind eye to a "fat" ultralight. Those guys to not walk around with big shiny badges and the one that nails your hide to the barn door will probably look just like the typical wannabe until he or she reached for the wallet with the infamous ID card! You can save all sorts of aggravation, not to mention a hefty fine, by simply being legal!
Ralph E. Taggart (
gyrobee@aol.com)