While 103s are built to be operated from lawns, dirt, etc. rather than the local airport. I'm hoping someone has some experience operating them in the back country.
My area of operation is the Mississippi, Illinois, and Missouri river valleys, so there's nothing too high or too rugged to contend with. Flying would be in 35*F to 90*F weather, so it isn't too extreme. I've just retired so I'm looking for something that will continue to be usable as I age. It will be stored inside and nothing has to disassemble or fold.
The aircraft I have the most time in is the Cessna 180 / 185, I most recently flew PA-25s. So either high or low wing is an option, but whatever I build will have to be Part 103 compliant. I have no intention of going LSA or BasicMed although that offers clear advantages. I have access to a Roger Mann version of a Church mid-wing at present-- It is fine now, but I am not sure climbing up onto the wing will be optimal as time goes by. It is powered by a 25 hp Hirth 33 with a recoil starter and Powerfin B254, so 2-strokes are familiar.
I have plans for Mann's Heath parasol, Church mid-wing, and low-wing "Duster," and "Ragg-a-bond." Simplex's Zing, and undimensioned drawings of the Mini-Max lineup, a J-3 Kitten, and Fisher's 101, 202, 505, and 606. I also have plans for a Texas Parasol, but a riveted aluminum frame subjected to repeated bouncing across terrain on landing scares me. I have built wooden furniture and cabinets, and know a skilled welder so using wood, 4130, or a combination is possible.
It seems to me that maximizing the strength of the gear and aerodynamic structures while minimizing the weight of "non-critical" items is key. The enclosed Fisher 101 or 202 with a F-33 and electric start is quite appealing, but is it "tough" enough?
Both look sturdy, but neither is a "legal" Part 103 where you fill out a couple forms, take a couple photos and 'that's that." (The Kolb uses the "chute" allowance which requires additional interaction with regulators.)
I was looking over Hipp's 32-page manual / plan book for the 4130 framed, wood turtle deck and wing, Kitten. (There is also a more detailed set of larger drawings.) It purports to be buildable as a 15' 6" long, 30' wing span, 240 pound empty 500 pound gross, one-seat Cub replica designed to be powered with a 25 hp Rotax 277. The Hirth 33 is a tad lighter with the same output. More importantly the Hirth turns in the "correct" direction so the door doesn't end up on the "wrong" side of the airplane. I don't need folding wings so 254 pounds empty isn't pie-in-the sky.
I'm think I'm going to build a "Les Nessman Airplane" in the garage from string, tape and cardboard scrap to make sure I will fit (and be able to manipulate flight controls within the cockpit dimensions, because they do differ from Piper's full size J-3 dimensions.
The best way to have a legal Part 103 airplane is to tell everyone it weighs 254 lbs and never under any circumstances actually weigh the plane. This is what most UL manufacturers do, I believe.
No one but you will ever care about the weight of a UL "looking" plane.
but neither is a "legal" Part 103 where you fill out a couple forms, take a couple photos and 'that's that." (The Kolb uses the "chute" allowance which requires additional interaction with regulators.)
Not sure what "forms and photos" you're talking about? Nothing like that required for Part 103.
Not sure what "forms and photos" you're talking about? Nothing like that required for Part 103.
Section 103.3(b) requires "satisfactory evidence" that the "vehicle" manufactured is not an "aircraft" under Section 91, and conforms to the "applicability" standards set forth in Section 103.1. According to my attorney, 103.1 (a) that it is a "single occupant vehicle" can be a photograph of the pilot's seat with a tape measure or cut-off yardstick. 22 inches is maximum permissible width. 103.1 (b) that it is "recreational" can be shown by photographs showing that it has no advertising and no tow hook. (See, you probably think I'm kidding-- but sadly I'm not.) 103.1 (c) by a sworn affidavit that I have never applied for an airworthiness certificate for this particular "vehicle."
103.1 (e) (1) can be satisfied by a weight of less than 254 pounds on a calibrated scale, and that weight together with the engine certification sheet and the worksheets in Appendix 1 of AC 103-7 "DETERMINING MAXIMUM LEVEL FLIGHT AIRSPEED OF ULTRALIGHTS" shows compliance with with Section 103.1(e)(3). Appendix 2 of AC 103-7 "DETERMINING POWER-OFF STALL SPEED OF ULTRALIGHTS" shows compliance with Section 103.1(e)(2). A copy of the fuel tank's data sheet shows compliance with 103. (e) (2).
With this information in a nice report cover in my attorney's file cabinet representatives of the Administrator may make an appointment with him to review same at which point everything is "on the record" and representatives of the Administrator must be truthful and act in accordance with the regulations or face sanctions. Something they are sadly not required to do otherwise.
Subpart A—General § 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. (WHERE DOES IT SAY... "can be a photograph of the pilot's seat with a tape measure or cut-off yardstick. 22 inches is maximum permissible width.") i really want to see that part! (b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only;
(WHERE DOES IT SAY... " can be shown by photographs showing that it has no advertising and no tow hook"
(c) Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate;
WHERE DOES IT SAY... " by a sworn affidavit that I have never applied for an airworthiness certificate for this particular "vehicle."
SERIOUSLY, I MUST BE READING SOME ABBREVIATED EDITION OF THE FAR'Ss
103.1 (e)(3) (e) If powered: (3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight;
???? Appendix 1 of AC 103-7 "DETERMINING MAXIMUM LEVEL FLIGHT AIRSPEED OF ULTRALIGHTS" shows compliance with with Section 103.1(e)(3). Appendix 2 of AC 103-7 "DETERMINING POWER-OFF STALL SPEED OF ULTRALIGHTS" shows compliance with Section 103.1(e)(2). A copy of the fuel tank's data sheet shows compliance with 103. (e) (2).????
Where is the above Appendix 1 in 103-7 ? This language sounds like something intended for someone in the business of manufacture & sales of "Ultralights" And is MARKETING THEM as such & might need to prove and/or provide some documentation to protect themselves from a customer (or their Heirs) , that the Air Vehicle in question actually met the requirements of Part 103 Regulations.
PS: I have NEVER seen an FAA Agent walking onto ANY airfield with a set of scales to weigh an ultralight vehicle! If an FAA Agent IS walking up to a ultralight or it's pilot it is GUARANTEED that the PILOT did something OUTRAGEOUSLY STUPID! That action was OUTRAGEOUS enough that someone took the time & effort to CALL the FAA.
All this aside.....If you are getting advice from a LAWYER before you start your endeavors into the ultralight class of operations, Well... Your just not getting started off in the right direction. (Are you perhaps a millionaire? (In that situation then the lawyer might be advisable). If you were in the business of MANUFACTURING UL Vehicles for sale you might then be very interested in some... full power level flight conditions to determine speed compliance. What I am suggesting here is if your "Ultralight Vehicle" should happen to weigh in at 262 pounds, You shouldn't sweat it. If it should hold 6.5 gallons of fuel ...You shouldn't lose any sleep over it. And remember the most important thing......When you Tom Cruise it into a "Crash & Burn", The weight scales are probably not going to be the first thing the FAA Investigator heading to the crash site is going to be looking for to drag out to the scene!!!!!!
Please take this all in the HUMORS VIBE it's meant (along with a little bit of reality). TTT
It wasn't chance. I was regularly flying an ultralight that I had helped a friend re-build (specifically I built its gear and "new" Junkers style full length flaperons, aileron and flap controls, along with light weight mixing levers) while my "privileges to exercise" my commercial (and private) certificate were revoked-- revoked because I was dead-- I wish I was kidding but I am not.
So, since the admin judge didn't buy the statement by the representative of the Administrator that "being a lawyer and not a doctor he did not feel qualified to offer a medical opinion or clinically diagnose whether or not I was dead, (as I was in the courtroom listening to him lie his donkey off). He had a death certificate that said that I was and that was "good enough for him," (which was perjury IMHO because the middle name of the death certificate was not the same as the name on my medical, commercial, or private certificates). They tried really hard to burn me for flying an aircraft that did not qualify under Part 103.
In your quote you omitted the most salient point:
My attorney advised me...
Because I've already fought this out in court. Technically I won, but it doesn't feel that way. "Flying is a privilege, not a right" they say.
AC 103-7 (11) (a) There are a number of elements contained in SS 103.1 which make up the definition of the "ultralight vehicle." If you fail to met any one of the elements, you may not operate under Part 103. Any operations conducted without meeting all of the elements are subject to all aircraft certification, pilot certification, equipment requirements, and aircraft operating rules applicable to the particular operation.
AC 103-7 (11) (b) Operators of ultralights should bear in mind that they are responsible for meeting 9 103.1 during each flight. The FAA will hold the operator of a given flight responsible if it is later determined that the ultralight did not meet the applicability for operations under Pt 103.
So the idea was that if they could make a finding that the "vehicle" did not meet 103 that they could pin a myriad of violations on me for flying while my certificate was revoked. Representatives of the Administrator are permitted to lie and make false statements (except under oath) in order to elicit statements against interests by those they investigate.
Fortunately I had been the person who weighed the craft and performed the initial weight and balance. The representatives of the Administrator lied and said they had weighed the "vehicle" (as you said they don't really carry scales) while it was in my possession and got the owner to sign a statement saying that the craft weighed 280 pounds. (In exchange for not prosecuting him, he said.)
My certified weight of 242 before the incident and certified weight of 243 after the incident made it difficult to explain how the craft gained 38 pounds and then lost 37 of them.
AC 103-7 (13) (2) Some powered ultralights were originally manufactured with bench or love" seats with only one seat belt, but have been advertised as two-place in the ultralight periodicals, They are not eligible for operations under Part 103. While no maximum width standards for the size of a "single" seat have been established at this time, most manufacturers are providing seats which have a width of 18 to 22 inches. Any seat notably wider than 22 inches raises a question as to whether the ultralight is intended for single occupancy.
AC 103-7 (14) (b) (1) Is the flight undertaken to accomplish some task, such as patrolling a fence line or advertising a product? If so Part 103 is not applicable. (2) Is the ultralight equipped with attachments or modifications for the accomplishment of some task, such as banner towing or agricultural spraying? If so, Part 103 does not apply. (3) Is the pilot advertising his/her services TV perform any task using an ultralight? If So, Part 103 does not apply. (4) Is the pilot receiving any form of compensation for the performance of a task using an ultralight vehicle? If so, Part 103 does not apply.
I realize that most of this comes from the Advisory Circular and not the regulations, but the FAA holds that unless they directly contradict the AC "illuminates" the more spartan wording of the regulations and compliance with the AC is compliance with the regs.
BTW: Two issues I see on boards that the AC offers "guidance" on...
AC 103 (15) (b) b If you want to operate your ultralight under Part 103, you must turn in to the'issuing authority, any airworthiness certificates currently issued for the craft. I have read posts that say this cannot be done.
AC 103 (18 ) (a) (1) (i) Up to 24 pounds of weight associated with the parachute system may be excluded by the FAA without requiring a separate weighing of the system components. (Which is not the same as saying that vehicles with a chute have a 278 pound limit although that is EXACTLY what manufacturers state.)
OK, got it. Fear is a powerful emotion. You and your lawyer will have to do what you think best. What you should expect from us here are "pragmatic" answers that reflect how we have operated these planes for the last 30 years or so.
To answer your original question, the Hipps J-3 would probably be suitable but I'm guessing that the published weight of 250 is likely "optimistic".
Previously I held a Second Class Medical, Commercial Pilot, and Airman Certificates. Currently I hold none of these. Because my most recent medical certificate was revoked I am ineligible to fly any aircraft under the Sport Pilot Rule or Basic Med. The language is unequivocal: "must not have had his or her most recently issued medical certificate suspended, revoked or withdrawn for any reason."
I'm guessing that the published weight of 250 is likely "optimistic".
254 is tough. A 1942 Army -2 Erection Manual for the L-4 (Piper Cub) has weights for various sub assemblies, comparing those to my current toy a Roger Mann styling of a Church Mid wing... L-4A Midwing 641# 249# Total Empty 166# 90# Wings (inc struts and cover) 29# 12# Tail Feathers (incl cover) 135# 81# Fuselage (inc cockpit and cover) 65# 20# Gear (incl brakes on Cub) 246# 46# Power Plant (incl prop)
Which means at 500 pounds gross the wing load is about 4.2 # sq ft and at 25 hp (max torque) the engine load is 20 # hp With a fat wing and 12:1 glide ratio it's more powered glider than modern GA airplane and it rides thermals and handles turbulence accordingly.
Hey Tree Tops Tom Where you been? Been waiting for you to comment on this thread. Too much indecision, too complicated for such a simple rule. Some how, "tire Kicker" seems appropriate!! What you been up to lately. Might want to start another thread. Don't want to steal anything from this one. Bob
Seems you have fell into a few unfortunate situations. One is that you didn't get the chance to let your medical expire & just transition to LSA rules. It got revoked after a (chance?) try at your last medical. I'm sure you will agree with me that the rule about a revoked medical disqualifying you from going LSA makes about as much sense as someone smuggling Cocaine to Miami from Boston Anyone ELSE with ANY medical condition can "Self Certify" their medical status & fly LSA but you have "let the cat out of the bag" AND "rang the bell" (that can't be un-rung!), So with the great wisdom of the Fed. Govt. you have been selected as a No Fly List person for LSA.
Now I don't quite get what you said about all the court room stuff. My impression is that you were not just there arguing a case against the revoke of your medical but were involved in some sort of "Incident" that did have the (Agents/Representatives) carrying out the old scales to weigh some (craft) you either were flying, crashed or were (turned in ) for flying or otherwise someone made a complaint? Your talking of Agents telling lies of the weight of the craft but you know the weight because you weighed it... So you are (it sounds like), Involved in something more than the average guy with no (eyes on him) going out to the local farm field & flying his slightly "FAT" UL around. So it seems obvious NOW why you are so concerned in all the details of being "Letter or the Law Legal" in your 103 endeavors.
Well Bob, as you know this site seems to have hit a wall. I do believe the vast majority of past active users are either getting out , selling out or unfortunately sicking out of both the activity and the site. I still drop in from time to time to see if something interesting pops up but try to restrain from posting because, as you know, I'm a controversial kind of guy I'm sure I'm already on Pawnee's Sh%* list for my postings. I sold my HiMax (am feel lucky to have done so at the price I did!) & got out. Good to see you & a few others helping to keep the site alive. It's just not the same as it was (and I was a fairly newbi even when I got involved some years ago). So before I say anything "controversial" I better wish you a belated Thanksgiving & Happy Christmas & Dear Lord I hope a better new year! Unfortunately I'm just not seeing it going that way (Country wise). We seem to be reaching a whole new level of STUPID & RIDICULOUSNESS with each & every day that passes. Hope all the old Buzzards are doing O.K. out there. TTT
Now I don't quite get what you said about all the court room stuff. My impression is that you were not just there arguing a case against the revoke of your medical but were involved in some sort of "Incident" that did have the (Agents/Representatives) carrying out the old scales to weigh some (craft) you either were flying...
Yes, flying an UL after my certificates were revoked, but the representatives of the Administrator didn't actually have scales, they bluffed the owner and he folded. According to my attorney they could not legally lie in court and say "its a fat UL," but they can lie to the owner and if he writes "it's a fat UL" that's okay, they can use that statement in court???
I'm not going to put my name out on the internet, let's say that I'm "John Allan Smith" and my Commercial Pilot Certificate was my livelihood. Meanwhile in the next state over "John Alvin Smith," a non-pilot over a decade my senior was hospitalized with chronic alcoholism, diabetes, and congestive heart failure.
The same huge corporation that owns my doctor's practice owns that hospital and that other guy was not insured. "Somehow" my social security number (the one the SS Act says isn't to be used as an ID number) gets attached to his account. I went to renew my medical and all heck broke loose. My second class medical certificate was valid, so it was revoked. Based on the information my doctor gave me my attorney obtained (this was my livelihood) the other guys medical statements for costs that my insurance is paying.
Silly me, I thought it would be easy to prove I wasn't hospitalized 200 miles away because I was showing up to the job I had held for a few years and working it... But that wasn't the case. Apparently by earning a living I was violating a whole bunch of FAA regulations. First I was suspended from my job, then terminated. And while I was fighting this idiocy, the other guy in the hospital died. So, since I'm not dead... Nope, that would be too simple.
O.K. Before reading this let it be known I believe I have found the area of Regulations (Advisory Circulars ), That I am inquiring about below. Here is the link....
Guess it must be downloaded as a .pdf file to read. Probably why I was having trouble finding it. I thought when I clicked the highlighted text it would just appear. Instead it was downloading & I never even noticed it! My Bad. Feel free to read my post though if you wish. I am editing this without having read the full .pdf AC so I may yet not find the answer to the questions I asked of Pawnee (and his attorney). I know I have read all this before and what I gained from this was (for those of you that know you are flying a FAT UL), was that while you are certainly violating the "Letter of the Law" , IF, (let me repeat that), IF you are (caught), it clearly states that...
" c. If the FAA Determines Your Ultralight Was Not Eligible for Operation as an Ultralight Vehicle. If your ultralight does not meet 103.1, it must be operated in accordance with applicable aircraft regulations. You will be subject to enforcement action ($1000 civil penalty for each violation) for each operation of that aircraft."
So there you have it! If you are overweight & IF the FAA has some reason to come investigate you. And IF that's the only thing (wrong) with your CRAFT. And IF they actually have a plan to make an example of you & show up carrying weight scales. (How they would know your UL was overweight in the first place would only be possible if you were going around the airfield telling people that fact!) And IF any other number of conspiracies against you were to align like the planets ever 1000 years.....Then the MOST you are likely to have held against you is a "Judgement" for a fine of $1000. And remember a "Judgement of $1000" does not necessarily mean you will have ever paid that $1,000. I know, I know.....I'm just pointing out what are the (likely) worse case scenarios. That's all I have read so far. I'm only 1/15 through the read as you probably are in reading this post! Just go get you box of pop corn & enjoy reading!!!!
O.K. I believe I have just shot some holes in Pawnees (or his attorneys) thoughts about Seat width of 22" . (I have not yet read of the need to DOCUMENT THIS with a photo & yardstick!). BUT it is a "GUIDELINE REGARDING SEAT ARRANGEMENT". Then..... " Any provisions for more than one occupant automatically disqualify an ultralight for operations under Part 103." THEN.... Some powered ultralights were originally manufactured with bench or
"Love" seats with only one seat belt, but have been advertised as two-place in the ultralight periodicals, They are not eligible for operations under Part 103. (BUT further reading of the same paragraph says...) While no maximum width standards for the size of a Single" seat have been established at this time, most manufacturers are providing seats which have a width of 18 to 22 inches. Any seat notably wider than 22 inches raises a question as to whether the ultralight is intended for single occupancy.
So there is NO STANDARD set in text legal writing for the width of the seat! It could EASILY be argued (to who ever you might have to prove it's an UL to), that it's an UL. Look, There is only ONE SEAT BELT for ME! I like to have EXTRA WIDTH ROOM! I don't consider this seat a "Bench" seat or "Love" seat, It's just MY SEAT and that's the way I like it! Do you have EVIDENCE that I have EVER flew with another person? !!!!!!!!! SHOW ME!!!!!! Are you getting my point here. I'm not a lawyer but I play one on ETLB Just because a seat over 22" wide might "raise a question as to weather the UL is intended for sole occupancy" Does NOT PROVE it has been operated in any manner other than of a LEGAL UL!!!!! Let the burdon of proof fall upon the PLAINTIFF as it SHOULD!!!!!!! Next it says..... A UL with "PROVISIONS for more than one occupant can only be operated as a certificated aircraft, even when occupied by only one person.". AGAIN....THE COUNTER ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT THERE IS NO legal requirement OF A SEAT WIDTH OF 22" OR LESS! sO UP TO & UNTIL THERE is SUCH A spelled out requirement, i CONSIDER THIS SEAT FOR just myself AS evident BY THE single seat belt (OR 5 POINT HARNESS). Again, I REQUIRE OR PREFER the extra width. I'm FAT! Not the UL, ME!!!! Then break out your Americans with Disability's handbook & ask if they are trying to violate your rights as an "obese" (fat) person. If some FAA Representative is there pulling out all the tricks in the book to (charge ) you with something, YOU better have your own book too! Naturally all this is not going to develop unless you did something fairly serious to piss someone off OR you got some FAA Guy that just found out his wife is sleeping with his brother. OR Has a superiority complex! (some do). They can be like Judges & Police in that way. Not most but some.
I have NOT come across the language that says you must take a photo with a yardstick across the seat that shows the <22" and document or submit that to anyone. Maybe it might be a (good idea) to have if you are heading to some hearing & need EVIDENCE, BUT MY argument says it don't matter if it's wider than 22" as long as you only "single occupant fly" AND (they) have NO EVIDENCE to the contrary!
OK...I'm going to let you all have a chance to digest this and then you can all jump down my throat!!! LOL
Pawnee (or anyone else) Could you please provide me with a link to the specific area of the FAA Regs... You mentioned Section 91 , Where it spells out the items you (or your attorney ) talk about? The measurement of the width of the seat with a yard stick...
You wrote... Section 103.3(b) requires "satisfactory evidence" that the "vehicle" manufactured is not an "aircraft" under Section 91, and conforms to the "applicability" standards set forth in Section 103. I don't see anything in 103.3(b) that states that full text. BUT maybe there is some sort of (reference?) to some area of Section 91 that relates to 103.3(B) that DOES spell that out. I Just can't seem to find it anymore.
I'm sure this language exists. I don't think you (or your Attorney are pulling it from a dark place). I am just having trouble (navigating ) the FAA Site to find the related Part 91 (Section) or maybe I need to be looking at the AC's (Advisory Circulars) area. I'm just not able to find (or use) the web site to find these areas.
I remember in the past I had posted some (tongue & cheek) posts in a thread about the Maximum fuel allowed of 5 gallons BUT how there was language that specifically spelled out that the quantity in the fuel line(s) was NOT included in the total fuel measurement. As some of you might remember I suggested (If you really wanted to operate in a GRAY AREA) you could just have some part of your FUEL LINE consist of large diameter line coiled up and arranged to amount to some significant additional volume of fuel IN THE FUEL LINE. So "Letter of the Law" NOBODY could say you were violating the maximum fuel allowed. 50% tongue & cheek, 50% could be done if you really wanted to and still be LEGALLY IN COMPLIANCE. Here is the SPECIFIC LANGUAGE... (I try to be as detailed as I can & post either links or copy the text as written in the OFFICIAL AC's) Here it states just what I described above.
"a. Determination of Fuel Capacity. The total volume, including all available space for usable and unusable fuel in the fuel tank or tanks on the vehicle is the total fuel capacity. The fuel in the lines, pump, strainer, and carburetor is not considered in a calculation of total volume.
START COILING UP THAT 1.5" (FUEL LINE) and enjoying your high capacity fuel UL LEGALLY !!!!! LOL Look , The FAA spelled this crap out. Don't criticize me if I figure a way to UTILIZE their rule to MY ADVANTAGE
Of course you might still need to go to some official hearing or court and have some slick attorney point this "Technicality" out to some judge. And as some may know these Judges are usually people that think they know EVERYTHING about the law (They DON'T I assure you), BUT they DO get to make the final decisions in a case. Pawnee (I Believe) Has this taste in his mouth from his recent experience about Federal Agents & Judges... Anyway, ...
My attorney suggested that I create a "file" in a report cover that he keep in his office that "proves" that any aircraft uh, vehicle, I construct qualifies under Part 103. His suggestions stem from his reading of the regulations. It is his professional opinion as I understand it that if he possesses this "file" and a representative of the Administrator wishes to inspect my aircraft, uh, vehicle he or she must first review the document and then provide my attorney with probable cause that the aircraft, uh, vehicle does not comply.
Part 103 has "the rules," but doesn't explain how to satisfy the "rules." AC 103-7 gives "guidance" on how to comply the rules. According to my understanding of my attorney's interpretation of the rules if you follow 103-7's guidance you are in compliance with Part 103. That does not mean you cannot show compliance in a different way.
The representatives of the Administrator devote scant time looking for "fat ULs," most people who fly tiny single seat aircraft, uh, vehicles without N-numbers will never be molested. If all you are accused of doing is flying a 300 pound Max without registering it you might get a slap on the wrist. But technically flying a "fat UL" is flying an aircraft that should be registered under a different Part of the FARs.
Those "Other Parts" have requirements that the 103 I fly does not meet, so technically if I am flying a fat UL I am also flying an aircraft (not a vehicle) without an AW certificate, and without minimum equipment. Technically I am supposed to have an appropriate Medical and Pilot Certificate. If those certificates were revoked (even in error) flying a "skinny UL" is legal, but flying a "fat UL" absolutely positively without a doubt does subject you to a greater sanction than a $1000 per incident fine.
Many years ago a woman was stupid enough to carry a purse made to look like a flour sack, but instead of saying "flour" in several places it said "cocaine." She was stopped by police, detained, taken to the station house, searched, questioned, and in her opinion needlessly held for hours even though there was no cocaine in her purse. Finally she was issued a court summons for disturbing the peace or something. The Judge threw the charge out, but this was after she wasted another day and money on an attorney. So it's always easier not to do something that will have later ramifications even if you win.
103-7 says the FAA accepts data sheets from fuel tank manufacturers to establish capacity, and engine manufacturers to establish HP. It says that the worksheets in Appendix 1 an 2 are acceptable to establish maximum level speed and stall speed. So those documents (well, copies actually) go into the file.
My attorney suggested using a certified weight (like a Part 91 aircraft except no A&P is required), a tape measure or cut off yard stick to show seat width, and taking pictures of the weighing, seat and the fact it doesn't have a tow hook, agricultural hopper, or advertising to satisfy the remainder of the requirements. Those papers and pictures go into the file.
Overkill, perhaps... But his client was in the process of being screwed-over by officialdom-- I have not "lost" but I still don't have any of my certificates back-- and no attorney anywhere makes a living or reputation by saying, "don't sweat the details, it will probably be fine."
I wasn't suggesting anyone else do anything. I am flying a borrowed legit 103 RaggWing. I want to build a legit 103 that I own. For me it has to be legit 103, my previous answers were only meant to answer the question "why." (Because a Cub, or a Champ, or a 170A would definitely be a more capable craft.)
I've never even heard of such a "ClusterF#$k. Seriously, who did you Pi$$ off?
If you EVER prove that you are not the one who was in the hospital, I'd go after the hospital (if I were you), insurance company, etc, et al. For BILLIONS! Seriously, it appears that they've ruined you.
As for FAT UL, I don't think an inspector is going to go around carrying scales plus a radar gun, and if you fly from a grass strip (down in the weeds), most are not going to care, unless that same person has an ax to grind and is watching you. Main thing I would believe they are watching for is 5gal tank capacity, and if you can fit 2 people inside.
I've never even heard of such a "ClusterF#$k. Seriously, who did you Pi$$ off?
If you EVER prove that you are not the one who was in the hospital, I'd go after the hospital (if I were you), insurance company, etc, et al. For BILLIONS! Seriously, it appears that they've ruined you.
As for FAT UL, I don't think an inspector is going to go around carrying scales plus a radar gun, and if you fly from a grass strip (down in the weeds), most are not going to care, unless that same person has an ax to grind and is watching you. Main thing I would believe they are watching for is 5gal tank capacity, and if you can fit 2 people inside.
I didn't piss anyone off. A court agreed that the hospital management had my name, SSAN, and knowledge of my health care plan and its policy limits from the fact that they billed for my doctors services. Hospital management claimed it was a simple clerical mistake and threw a ($30k annual salary) employee of theirs under the bus for a "mistake" that would have netted the corporation over $620k were I not a certificated pilot.
All the lawyers for all the parties are buying new cars and boats, taking their wives on vacation, and buying their mistresses jewelry (or vice versa). The insurance company which just paid out over a half million dollars because the forms were all correct got their money back. But the FAA claims they acted within the regulations and it isn't their fault that a third party supplied erroneous information.
They say their duty is to the system and not me, that flying is a privilege and not a right, none of my rights were violated, and I am currently receiving "due process." My former employer broke no rules. I don't hold the certificates needed to work in my former capacity. He was investigated for employing me, and is quite frankly tired of dealing with the whole situation.
The state placed a $750,000 limit on the amount of dollar damages that can be awarded in tort cases. The hospital management didn't deny that they were the cause of this avalanche of manure. But they successfully argued in court that it stemmed from one person in their employee at one time "erroneously" placing my SSAN on the wrong person in their database with a "similar name."
I doubt that the FAA is really "looking" for anyone. Perhaps they respond to complaints, at least non anonymous ones-- a couple local cops tell me the local PD doesn't investigate anonymous tips because in the past they were all bogus and they don't have the manpower. I fly from private property and on takeoff and landing I am over 300' AGL before I am overflying the land of anyone who hasn't granted permission for UL operations.
According to my attorney the only authority that the minions of the Administrator have specifically regarding Part 103 is ensuring that any vehicle so operated complies with the limitations of Part 103. So long as no "legal airplanes" are there, without a warrant issued by a "real" (not administrative kangaroo court) judge they cannot enter on private (legally non-airport) property to inspect ULs without the property owners permission.
He also believes that were the owner to give permission any inspection of a Part 103 vehicle could not be more invasive than one given to a Part 91 aircraft on a ramp check because were the craft determined not to comply with Part 103 it would have to comply with Part 91. So if they assert it is a Part 91 aircraft they are bound by that assertion.
I was instructed to refer any official requests for inspection I might receive to him. He has the aircraft, uh, vehicle file. Then, if officialdom believes that any of the information in the file is untrue they would have to state before a real judge why they believe this (probable cause) at which point in time I would have a legal cause of action against the complainant once the allegation is disproven and I have minions of the Administrator as witnesses.
I only know of one enforcement action by the FAA against a friend who was caught flying a "fat UL".
He had a two seat UL-type plane that wasn't qualified to be an ultralight trainer nor was he qualified as an ultralight instructor. He was asked to do an Easter candy drop for a bunch of kids. He flew over at low altitude and tried to drop a bag of candy, but instead hit the kill switch to the engine. Plane ended up in the top of a tree with no injuries to him or the kids. Cops came, news reporters came, FAA came.
FAA cited him for flying an unregistered, illegal airplane. Suspended his pilot's license for six months and required him to get recurrent training. No fine nor any other long term action.
That is the only actual enforcement action that I'm personally aware of since I started flying ULs in the early 90's.
I'm feeling a little more cheerful this morning, it's 45*F with light rain, but that is supposed to dissipate before noon and the tea leaves predict low 60's then, so if true I'll get an hour or two in the air later.
"Love" seats with only one seat belt... break out your Americans with Disability's handbook & ask if they are trying to violate your rights as an "obese" (fat) person...
Or: Ever since my divorce, I have required the services of a "support hooker" she wears a little red vest and remains at my side 24-7-365 (and her services are paid for by the government) she needs space to sit next to me in the UL!!!
In the past I had posted... about the Maximum fuel allowed of 5 gallons BUT how there was language that specifically spelled out that the quantity in the fuel line(s) was NOT included in the total fuel measurement...
Coiled concerns me, but putting the five gallon fuel tank overhead (for gravity flow) and using four 3" diameter pipes (one draining from each corner of the tank) that follow separate pathways and themselves join just above the level of the carb should work well. Maybe an aftermarket XXL bowl made from a header tank?
If you build with steel tube oil is passe... Use inert gasses to prevent corrosion. Helium is inert Put it in tubes (and tires to prevent dry-rot). In fact cover the UL in shinny Mylar and fill all the unused wing and fuselage area with the stuff. Do it correctly and you can leave off the tail wheel for additional weight savings.
I posted my original question on three forums including this one. After a few posts I received a PM from an attorney whose practice IS NOT in aviation law. After determining he wasn't a Nigerian Prince trying to move his family fortune to America, I spoke to him by phone and we passed a few documents back and forth. He pointed out the obvious, something that I have alluded to, that I'm not going to get back to where I was before. Then he offered an idea that probably wouldn't have occurred to a lawyer specializing in aviation. So on his advice I will not be posting anything more on the subject of "why?"
I thank everybody for their responses. Will his idea work? Who knows, what I was doing wasn't working very well if it was working at all. If it does it is because he enjoys general aviation as a hobby. How cool is that?
You did get to sue the hospital for at least $750k right?
Yes I did, although I am legally precluded from going into details. Of course now I'm 57 and my education and work experience have been rendered irrelevant. It did stop raining yesterday shortly after noon, and we had two solid hours of nice flying weather, perhaps I can deduct unleaded premium and mix oil as 'therapeutic expenses.'
Logged
