WWTBAM Bored

gsabc wrote:An ultralight plane crashed into a house not too far away a couple of weeks ago. Fairly minor damage to the house, somewhat more serious damage to the pilot, but not life-threatening. The pilot has been charged with reckless endangerment because she was unfamiliar with the plane and didn't follow normal guidelines for its operation. The odd thing is that the story in today's paper has a claim by the FAA spokeman that ultralights are not considered aircraft. Crashes are treated like motor vehicle accidents, and the FAA only provides technical advice to the local police.

Huh?? I thought the FAA had to rule on the airworthiness of ultralights before they were allowed to go up. Pilots don't need licenses, though; another "huh??" Let's see. It's a machine. It's operated by an occupant within the machine. It flies through the air. How is it NOT an aircraft and subject to FAA regulations?

103.7

(a) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of aircraft or their parts or equipment, ultralight vehicles and their component parts and equipment are not required to meet the airworthiness certification standards specified for aircraft or to have certificates of airworthiness.

(b) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to airman certification, operators of ultralight vehicles are not required to meet any aeronautical knowledge, age, or experience requirements to operate those vehicles or to have airman or medical certificates.

(c) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to registration and marking of aircraft, ultralight vehicles are not required to be registered or to bear markings of any type.

andrewjackson wrote:

gsabc wrote:An ultralight plane crashed into a house not too far away a couple of weeks ago. Fairly minor damage to the house, somewhat more serious damage to the pilot, but not life-threatening. The pilot has been charged with reckless endangerment because she was unfamiliar with the plane and didn't follow normal guidelines for its operation. The odd thing is that the story in today's paper has a claim by the FAA spokeman that ultralights are not considered aircraft. Crashes are treated like motor vehicle accidents, and the FAA only provides technical advice to the local police.

Huh?? I thought the FAA had to rule on the airworthiness of ultralights before they were allowed to go up. Pilots don't need licenses, though; another "huh??" Let's see. It's a machine. It's operated by an occupant within the machine. It flies through the air. How is it NOT an aircraft and subject to FAA regulations?

U.S. Code specifically carves out an exception for ultralight aircraft.

14 CFR 103 defines ultralight aircraft and says that they do not have to be certified by the FAA or require licensed pilots.

103.7

(a) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of aircraft or their parts or equipment, ultralight vehicles and their component parts and equipment are not required to meet the airworthiness certification standards specified for aircraft or to have certificates of airworthiness.

(b) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to airman certification, operators of ultralight vehicles are not required to meet any aeronautical knowledge, age, or experience requirements to operate those vehicles or to have airman or medical certificates.

(c) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to registration and marking of aircraft, ultralight vehicles are not required to be registered or to bear markings of any type.

Flybrick wrote:What AJ said.

peacock2121 wrote:

Flybrick wrote:What AJ said.

Made me laugh

Being a flybrick and all, I expected more.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:

Flybrick wrote:What AJ said.

Made me laugh

Being a flybrick and all, I expected more.

So did I. I figured he'd throw in at least one GOP talking point.

gsabc wrote:The odd thing is that the story in today's paper has a claim by the FAA spokeman that ultralights are not considered aircraft. ... How is it NOT an aircraft and subject to FAA regulations?

gsabc wrote:An ultralight plane crashed into a house not too far away a couple of weeks ago. Fairly minor damage to the house, somewhat more serious damage to the pilot, but not life-threatening.

peacock2121 wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

peacock2121 wrote: Made me laugh

Being a flybrick and all, I expected more.

So did I. I figured he'd throw in at least one GOP talking point.

You are just being a pointy stick carrying poophead.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:

Flybrick wrote:What AJ said.

Made me laugh

Being a flybrick and all, I expected more.

So did I. I figured he'd throw in at least one GOP talking point.

Bob78164 wrote:

andrewjackson wrote:

gsabc wrote:An ultralight plane crashed into a house not too far away a couple of weeks ago. Fairly minor damage to the house, somewhat more serious damage to the pilot, but not life-threatening. The pilot has been charged with reckless endangerment because she was unfamiliar with the plane and didn't follow normal guidelines for its operation. The odd thing is that the story in today's paper has a claim by the FAA spokeman that ultralights are not considered aircraft. Crashes are treated like motor vehicle accidents, and the FAA only provides technical advice to the local police.

Huh?? I thought the FAA had to rule on the airworthiness of ultralights before they were allowed to go up. Pilots don't need licenses, though; another "huh??" Let's see. It's a machine. It's operated by an occupant within the machine. It flies through the air. How is it NOT an aircraft and subject to FAA regulations?

U.S. Code specifically carves out an exception for ultralight aircraft.

14 CFR 103 defines ultralight aircraft and says that they do not have to be certified by the FAA or require licensed pilots.

103.7

(a) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of aircraft or their parts or equipment, ultralight vehicles and their component parts and equipment are not required to meet the airworthiness certification standards specified for aircraft or to have certificates of airworthiness.

(b) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to airman certification, operators of ultralight vehicles are not required to meet any aeronautical knowledge, age, or experience requirements to operate those vehicles or to have airman or medical certificates.

(c) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to registration and marking of aircraft, ultralight vehicles are not required to be registered or to bear markings of any type.

C.F.R. is the Code of Federal Regulations, not the U.S. Code. The difference is that this wasn't passed by Congress, but adopted as part of some regulatory process. What does the authorizing statute say? --Bob

Estonut wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

peacock2121 wrote: Made me laugh

Being a flybrick and all, I expected more.

So did I. I figured he'd throw in at least one GOP talking point.

He's clearly not the only one prone to bring politics into completely non-related threads.

andrewjackson wrote:

gsabc wrote:An ultralight plane crashed into a house not too far away a couple of weeks ago. Fairly minor damage to the house, somewhat more serious damage to the pilot, but not life-threatening. The pilot has been charged with reckless endangerment because she was unfamiliar with the plane and didn't follow normal guidelines for its operation. The odd thing is that the story in today's paper has a claim by the FAA spokesman that ultralights are not considered aircraft. Crashes are treated like motor vehicle accidents, and the FAA only provides technical advice to the local police.

Huh?? I thought the FAA had to rule on the airworthiness of ultralights before they were allowed to go up. Pilots don't need licenses, though; another "huh??" Let's see. It's a machine. It's operated by an occupant within the machine. It flies through the air. How is it NOT an aircraft and subject to FAA regulations?

U.S. Code specifically carves out an exception for ultralight aircraft.

14 CFR 103 defines ultralight aircraft and says that they do not have to be certified by the FAA or require licensed pilots.

103.7

(a) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of aircraft or their parts or equipment, ultralight vehicles and their component parts and equipment are not required to meet the airworthiness certification standards specified for aircraft or to have certificates of airworthiness.

(b) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to airman certification, operators of ultralight vehicles are not required to meet any aeronautical knowledge, age, or experience requirements to operate those vehicles or to have airman or medical certificates.

(c) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to registration and marking of aircraft, ultralight vehicles are not required to be registered or to bear markings of any type.