Weights and Measures

[Kaveman]

Here's the link to the source document, from a government website, the first Google result.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/c ... F/part-103

Pursuing this short document, you'll find:

Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation;

In AC 103-7 they further define weight exemptions. While my phone is unable to copy and paste from a PDF, I can say that between the lines it says if it's solidly affixed to the airframe, it must be weighed. But we've heard rumors about doors "not being required for flight" and therefore can be removed before weighing. Is the answer as simple as quick pins on the hinges? Seatbelts must be weighed, but we can take out our seat cushion. Following the above logic that makes sense. But the doors are iffy.

Obviously an EPIRB or PLD is a "safety device intended for deployment in a catastrophic situation", and so would a life vest or inflatable life raft. What about a radio? Obviously a handheld two-way is acceptable, but let's say money isn't an obstacle, and I put an ADSb system on my Ultralight? It's a safety device, required by most aircraft, and while it can certainly prevent a catastrophic event, it's always deployed. I hate to stir the pot and turn the beautiful two page document that is FAR part 103, into the 200 page monster that is inevitable should we seek part 103(Revised) but I think maybe it's time to have a discussion.

There's enough grey area in the document that they had to revise the two seat units out because people abused the wiggle room. If I have to go the Experimental route I'll be really disappointed, but I may well do it. Most of the attraction of an ultralight, for me, is the low cost of ownership over time. If I want to own a full size Kitfox, it would be all I have!

Also, we can't do anything to earn any money with our aircraft. That's an issue for me. Their rational makes sense for most of what they have listed (beware the deep depths of part 91), but not for everything. One example they give is patrolling fences. You're just flying, in straight lines, looking at the ground. Sounds like most general aviation to me . An example I'll give that's directly related to me: game spotting. It's perfectly legal here in AZ, and one of my part time seasonal jobs is as a elk hunting guide. We have no clients for the early hunts or I'd be scouting right now while the weather is changing. I can fly an ultralight to spot the critters for my self, then land and go hunt the more promising areas I found. But if my boss uses that information, the moment I get paid, that's an FAA violation.
Another example is my neighbor's horse, which constantly gets loose and plays hide and seek with the whole neighborhood for a week. I fly up, find ol' triscut and if he offers gas money I have to decline, because that's payment for aerial work. And so on.

If we don't stir the pot, we won't get what we want. I understand not bothering the regulation for fear it will bite back, but it's only a matter of time before it happens regardless of what we want. Maybe we should get out in front of it.

I tracked as much of the legalese as I could Todd, but there's not much in the way of answers, and I ended up with more silly questions!

[LA F2 Flyer]

Interesting in regards to using a UL for game spotting, etc. Does it really matter, at the end of the day? It sounds like a very gray area for sure. It would be one thing to carry a passenger or charge to transport goods via the UL. But the scenario in this case seems somehow different. Are you really earning money because of the aircraft? One could argue that you were planning to take the dirt bike or a side by side to scope the area, but opted for the UL instead. It sounds more like a choice in transportation for yourself to me.

Just playing devil's advocate here, of course.

[Kaveman]

If I want to be perfectly honest, there's basically nobody around to weigh my plane, and without a transponder, nobody would even know I'm in the air or where. There's nobody to bother, and nobody to bother me. That said, a complete lack of oversight is not carte blanche to do as I please. Shocking as it may sound, but I'd actually like to conform to the rules and regulations and play fair. However there's nothing wrong with alterations to the rules so long as everyone is on board.

Game spotting would be highly dependent on where the hunt area is. Our forests are heavily overgrown, so there's little chance of seeing them in the trees, you'd be looking at the edges of meadows and such. I can't say that it would actually help all that much at all, it was more an example of what I COULD do.
My argument is more about the fact that we cannot be paid to fly except as the prize of a competition. I'm not looking to haul a passenger, that's kind of against the spirit of part 103. I don't necessarily want to haul parcels or cargo, it's not like a F series has the gross weight for that to make sense. A multi rotor drone can do aerial photography far better, and far cheaper than a tiny Kitfox. I have no desire to advertise on or behind my plane. Spraying is another non starter, since I would have about the capacity of one of those hardware store hand pump sprayers.

Now for a real-er darker example. Every year, 3-6 people go missing in the White Mountain/Mogollon Rim area. Two years ago, a young man and his jeep disappeared, they still haven't even found the jeep. This year, two teenage boys have vanished in unrelated cases. One of the boys was a DPS officer's son. Search and rescue is expensive. To have an aircraft perform a search is an extremely expensive endeavor. Comparatively, an ultralight is not. If I volunteer myself and my UL to fly a search pattern, it all has to come out of my pocket, and there's other grey areas I'm sure exist and haven't even explored yet. To be clear, I'm not talking about emergency response so much as after the authorities have pulled their resources. Ever notice how the organizations that join in at that point never use aerial searches? Obviously they're cost prohibitive, again, I argue that an ultralight is not. I'm not saying it's the perfect tool, I'm saying it's one we are not allowed to use.
Dan Johnson was the first person I heard forward this point. In fact he specifically mentioned powered parachutes. It really got me thinking. That said, Ultralight Aircraft engines are notoriously unreliable, and I'd hate to need a rescue while performing a SAR mission. But I think that's a different conversation.

[Mountain Cat]

I understand exactly where you are coming from. A point you are missing is the FAA considers an ultralight as an "air vehicle" not an aircraft. So, you can rent an ultralight. A E/AB aircraft cannot be rented or compensated for flight, but an ultralight can be. A two stroke, properly maintained and operated is just as reliable as a four stroke. "two strokes don't fail, the are murdered by the owners". In the early years, this wasn't so true, information wasn't available like it is now on operating and maintaining a two stroke. With proper instruments, a two stroke will let you know what it's condition is. A 4 stroke TBO is approx 1500-2000 hrs. At approximately 50 or so hrs a year, that's a long long time. A two stroke is generally torn apart and inspected every 5 years or so. Which is more reliable, an engine that hasn't been torn down for 30+ years or one that is 5 years or so out of rebuild. And at a cost of $2000-3000. Compared to $20,000 for a four stroke. My theory is fly your two stroke to TBO, then just replace it with a new one. Can't do that with a four stroke due to cost so most keep on flying beyond TBO, increasing the risk of engine failure. Buy a good two stroke, spend the time to learn how to maintain it, and overhaul it, and you'll get years or reliable service out of it. No magic involved!

[Kaveman]

Mountain Cat, I think you and I are actually on the same page engine wise. I point out the "unreliability" of two-strokes to make the initiates aware, meanwhile I make my living from two smokes. And you're more than right on the cost of rebuild versus replacing too. I've been looking into a lot of engine options and I'll be posting a separate thread about my musings.

[Badland-F5 Pilot]

Here's the link to the source document, from a government website, the first Google result.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/c ... F/part-103

Pursuing this short document, you'll find:

Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation;

In AC 103-7 they further define weight exemptions. While my phone is unable to copy and paste from a PDF, I can say that between the lines it says if it's solidly affixed to the airframe, it must be weighed. But we've heard rumors about doors "not being required for flight" and therefore can be removed before weighing. Is the answer as simple as quick pins on the hinges? Seatbelts must be weighed, but we can take out our seat cushion. Following the above logic that makes sense. But the doors are iffy.

The doors as I know are not iffy as they are clearly not solidly mounted, much like a radio or any other gear that is cargo. However, as you and others have pointed out – the rules are themselves iffy (gray), so the FAA inspector may be a jerk about removable doors. Much of that though could be in how the UL pilot approaches the situation with an inspector. A jerk UL pilot will find himself in a lot worse situation than one who maintains their cool and works with instead of against the inspector.

Obviously an EPIRB or PLD is a "safety device intended for deployment in a catastrophic situation", and so would a life vest or inflatable life raft. What about a radio? Obviously a handheld two-way is acceptable, but let's say money isn't an obstacle, and I put an ADSb system on my Ultralight? It's a safety device, required by most aircraft, and while it can certainly prevent a catastrophic event, it's always deployed. I hate to stir the pot and turn the beautiful two-page document that is FAR part 103, into the 200 page monster that is inevitable should we seek part 103(Revised), but I think maybe it's time to have a discussion.

No worries as it's really the FAA that have turned the situation upside down with the vague regulations. I believe they do this on purpose. This allows them the freedom of coming down hard on UL pilots (if they so wish). This forces UL pilots to back away from the line, because we really have no way of finding out where they are going to draw it next. One day we may be clear of the violation line, and the next, we may be over that line. This I think is what Allen is getting at in his comments. Don't go in thinking a win against the FAA as that can be quickly turned into a loss. Meaning, don't act a fool or overly push the existing vague regulations, and in most cases they will leave us UL pilots alone.

There's enough grey area in the document that they had to revise the two seat units out because people abused the wiggle room. If I have to go the Experimental route I'll be really disappointed, but I may well do it. Most of the attraction of an ultralight, for me, is the low cost of ownership over time. If I want to own a full size Kitfox, it would be all I have!

From what I understand the two seat to one seat rule was created to prevent confusion between LSA and UL's. One of these issues addresses that a passenger (assumes) some government protection (using rules and regulations) concerning the passenger's safety. Since UL's have almost no rules, this is a false assumption. However, I believe that this is a choice that should be left to the passenger, not the FAA.

Also, we can't do anything to earn any money with our aircraft. That's an issue for me. Their rational makes sense for most of what they have listed (beware the deep depths of part 91), but not for everything. One example they give is patrolling fences. You're just flying, in straight lines, looking at the ground. Sounds like most general aviation to me . An example I'll give that's directly related to me: game spotting. It's perfectly legal here in AZ, and one of my part time seasonal jobs is as a elk hunting guide. We have no clients for the early hunts or I'd be scouting right now while the weather is changing. I can fly an ultralight to spot the critters for my self, then land and go hunt the more promising areas I found. But if my boss uses that information, the moment I get paid, that's an FAA violation.

Yes, very true. No income may be generated in any way by use of a UL, and it gets worse. I recall a conversation that I had with some other UL pilots about this. The question was, even though we would not be paid for search and rescue or transportation of vital health services items (think transplant, food, medication...whatever into very remote areas), that was all up for discussion of – can we do these things? The consensus was Nope! The UL aircraft was designed for hobby use only. No other use is authorized. That was the thinking at the time.

Another example is my neighbor's horse, which constantly gets loose and plays hide and seek with the whole neighborhood for a week. I fly up, find ol' triscut and if he offers gas money I have to decline, because that's payment for aerial work. And so on.

Correct, can't do it. My gripe is that I feel only a total jerk government official would tell me I can't go looking for some kid lost in the forest and coordinate with a ground search.

If we don't stir the pot, we won't get what we want. I understand not bothering the regulation for fear it will bite back, but it's only a matter of time before it happens regardless of what we want. Maybe we should get out in front of it.

Peer and I had a few conversations about this, having two or three classes for UL pilots. The first being what it is now, very basic and limited. The second and third would offer higher levels of UL pilot capability, while still leaving the “vehicle” requirement pretty much the same. Possibly allowing more fuel for UL pilots II/III, but not much more. This would keep the FAA's hands out of having to regulate the “vehicle”. We know the FAA really doesn't want to get into regulating UL's (and I don't want them there either), but this would allow the UL pilot to advance – possibly into LSA and beyond. Isn't that what the FAA is partly there for, to promote aviation? UL Pilot Level 1 – No training required (though I don't like this – those that do would kill the entire initiative if not left in place); UL Pilot Level 2 - Five or ten hours of training (includes basic ground school/weather...etc); UL Pilot Level 3 - same as 2, but additional fuel capacity and maybe increase in weight. This all would have to be worked out and are only ideas to bounce off the wall, but they would move the sport and aviation forward.

I tracked as much of the legalese as I could Todd, but there's not much in the way of answers, and I ended up with more silly questions!

The same here. This is sort of why I get a little upset with the EAA and certainly with AOPA. The EAA says the support UL's, but it's been pretty static for a very long time – where the growth? Let's not even go into APOA with talking about UL's. They keep telling me that UL's are vehicles and not aircraft. However, even that with the FAA get's confusing -

CFR 1.1 (http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.c ... tions.html)
Airplane means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.

Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

The following is even worse – it defines “small aircraft” yet UL is not mentioned but fits the definitions in many areas.
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/d ... planes/faq

There are many more examples like this. It's sort of crazy, but I live with the current Part 103 regulations. I would like to see some advancement from the FAA, or at least some discussion, but it's something they do not appear to be interested in. Then we have plenty of UL pilots that don't want to stir the pot. This leaves us pretty much stagnant. Which is ultimately where I believe that FAA wants us and them to be. They have enough to do, however I don't understand why the EAA does not work on our behalf much like the (AARL) American Radio Relay League does for us Amateur Radio Operators. The FCC controls most radio use in the US, and leaves the AARL to mostly be testing and license approvers and regulation creators (suggestions to the FCC) to them. Why can't the EAA do this for UL pilots? That keeps the FCC out of having to deal with this, and allows the EAA and UL pilots to self-regulate.

Sorry this is a little messy. I'm in the middle of getting ready to sell my house and move, so there's little time to review and correct what I've posted here.

Todd

[Mountain Cat]

Consider joining the United States Ultralight Assoc. (USUA.org). They can clear up a lot of confusion and misinformation that is out there. And no offense to anyone, but there is some confusion even here on this site. Some 3rd party info, some misunderstanding, and some from others out there that may or not be right.

[Kaveman]

Todd, you bloody rock! I'm going to muse over this a bit, and pursue your links.
Mountain Cat, please elaborate! I'm a felon, due to a moment of indiscretion, resulting in a major assault charge. I don't feel like getting caught out again! I've never had a problem with obeying rules as written, and I believe in the system's ability to adapt. Tell me where I'm wrong, please!

[Mountain Cat]

We have hashed this Pt 103 around till the sun went down and seems everyone has different opinions as to what one can or cannot do with a UL vehicle. As far as asking the FAA, that would be a moot point. Every district inspector has a different view on the subject. What an inspector in WVa says most likely will be 180 degrees from what one in Texas would say. One has to go by what their local inspector says because he is the one who will matter. We, here in WVa where I fly, are not really bothered by the FAA unless we do something really stupid. So, I can't or won't tell you that you are right or wrong with your way of thinking. That would have to come from your local FAA rep in whatever location you are at. A phone call or E-mail to him or her could clear up some things for you, not necessarily for everyone due to the previous reasons. But don't be shocked if they don't even know.

[Badland-F5 Pilot]

We have hashed this Pt 103 around till the sun went down and seems everyone has different opinions as to what one can or cannot do with a UL vehicle. As far as asking the FAA, that would be a moot point. Every district inspector has a different view on the subject. What an inspector in WVa says most likely will be 180 degrees from what one in Texas would say. One has to go by what their local inspector says because he is the one who will matter. We, here in WVa where I fly, are not really bothered by the FAA unless we do something really stupid. So, I can't or won't tell you that you are right or wrong with your way of thinking. That would have to come from your local FAA rep in whatever location you are at. A phone call or E-mail to him or her could clear up some things for you, not necessarily for everyone due to the previous reasons. But don't be shocked if they don't even know.

Totally agree – these discussions have been going on for a very long time, and as pointed out, different opinions are all over the place, including with the FAA. And spot on about the FAA. Their role in the entire Part 103 is to do as little as possible (that has good and bad to it). They leave us alone for the most part, and they are most likely not going to change anything except for the worse if we make much noise. This is also why my approach is to leave the plane alone (exception – add more fuel for those advanced UL pilots). If we can't change the plane, why can't we change the pilot portion? Then again, just as said, we are talking about the FAA who, if not for legal reasons I feel would ban UL's altogether. This is why the EAA/USUA need to step in. Leave the FAA out of it other than to look for a head nod of approval from them. However, with the old saying "you can't fight the wind", I've decided I can live with what we have and won't pursue my idea at this time. It simply is more effort than I wish to put into it. I'd rather just fly, and that's my current intent. A good point too about the local FAA guy not even being able to explain what Part 103 means, and most likely not even caring about returning a phone call, email, or postal response to any questions you may have. They have much more important things to work on. Just don't do anything stupid and they will in most cases leave you alone. Go enjoy flying without much in the way of restrictions.

As for continuing to have such discussions on occasion, I enjoy them. I hear ideas and opinions. Some of those ideas and opinions I like, others I do not. I've heard of people saying we should go to court and sue, yet those same people won't give a time. The FAA hasn't budged on any of the Part 103 rules, so the discussion if fun, but actually having any changes made, that's most likely not going to happen. Not to say don't give it a try if that's your calling. Who knows, miracles do happen

Todd

[LA F2 Flyer]

It seems that we all want to stay within the parameters of Part 103, and I would say we all have an understanding of what those parameters are. In cases where we don't fully understand, we all seem to prefer to err on the side of caution.

I don't view any of this as misinformation, but rather a healthy debate (or perhaps more of a musing) as to the laws related to Part 103 and their possible flexibility, not that I'd ever try to exercise that potential flexibility. Much like Kaveman, if I can't stay invisible in the eyes of the law, I intend to at least stay legal. None of my comments were intended as suggestions, but rather points of interest to spark some conversation.

As far as getting the FAA to budge on any of the rules, I lean toward the camp of "let sleeping dogs lie", lest we lose the privilege altogether. I can live comfortably within the parameters currently in place.

[Badland-F5 Pilot]

It seems that we all want to stay within the parameters of Part 103, and I would say we all have an understanding of what those parameters are. In cases where we don't fully understand, we all seem to prefer to err on the side of caution.

Very true, and spot on.

I don't view any of this as misinformation, but rather a healthy debate (or perhaps more of a musing) as to the laws related to Part 103 and their possible flexibility, not that I'd ever try to exercise that potential flexibility. Much like Kaveman, if I can't stay invisible in the eyes of the law, I intend to at least stay legal. None of my comments were intended as suggestions, but rather points of interest to spark some conversation.

And who can say dreaming of possible future freedoms is a bad thing?

As far as getting the FAA to budge on any of the rules, I lean toward the camp of "let sleeping dogs lie", lest we lose the privilege altogether. I can live comfortably within the parameters currently in place.

While I don't lean so much toward letting sleeping dogs lie, I am cautious about stirring the pot too much. I don't believe we'd ever see a loss of UL. I don't think the FAA would be that brazen about taking away the sport or even reducing our current privileges. The good is that the FAA doesn't appear to be interested in expanding our privileges and at the same time they don't appear to be interested in reducing them either. They seem to be most interested in just leaving us alone and them not having to do much at all with us. And, as you say I'm comfortable with the current regulations. Would I like to see more fuel allowed? Certainly I would. However, with the new four strokes on the market or near, extra flight time can be achieved without having to change the rules.

Todd

[Mountain Cat]

I am not saying anybody's opinions are incorrect or wrong in any way. Yes, I like discussing it on occasion, and I don't get bothered when I am wrong or someone tells me I am. It is a grey area, even to the FAA. I'll stay with my " its easier to get forgiveness, than it is to get permission" approach.