Odd FAA regulation

[gsabc]

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?

[andrewjackson]

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]

What AJ said.

[Bob78164]

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

[peacock2121]

What AJ said.

Made me laugh

Being a flybrick and all, I expected more.

[NellyLunatic1980]

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.

[peacock2121]

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.

You are just being a pointy stick carrying poophead.

[MarleysGh0st]

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?

It's similar to how a go cart is not regulated in the same manner as an automobile.

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.

And this is the reason for it. If you read the Federal Aviation Regulations, there is generally more leeway for individuals to take risks with their own lives and property than with the lives and property of passengers or those on the ground.

[NellyLunatic1980]

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.

Thank you.

[Flybrick]

What Marley said as well.

[Estonut]

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.

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

[andrewjackson]

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

Good point.
I'll have to check that later.

[BackInTex]

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.

"Ka-Pow!"

[Bob Juch]

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.

This is due to the lobbying efforts of the ultralight pilots. They don't want to have to comply with all of the regulation for the big boys. Seeing how there aren't a lot of problems with them, that will probably stay that way.