FAA Ultralight Project Overview

By Tom Gunnarson
Chairman
ARAC Part 103 Working Group

Frustration at the lack of faster results from the FAA ultralight rulemaking project and confusion generated by side events has taken its toll on the ultralight community. The request for relief from the regulatory burden placed on those who had evolved within Part 103 was submitted in 1988. Hope swelled in anticipation that FAA would understand the need and respond. Seven years of waiting for that response has driven many individuals away from aviation, underground or to take desperate measures.

Well meaning individuals have recently attempted to force the issue with separate proposals adding to the instability of an already difficult situation. Some individuals and groups even publicly question the sincerity of those involved in the current project and have misinformed the public of the action taken to date. The "rumor-mill" has created confusion to the point where a straight forward accounting of the project appears in order. I offer the following synopsis of the FAA ultralight rulemaking project to clarify the position of the working group, using some of the group's concept paper language, and to recognize the tremendous effort this group of representatives has provided on behalf of the ultralight community and the future of personal aviation in the United States.

On June 4, 1993 FAA Director of Flight Standards Service, Thomas C. Accardi requested that FAA assign the FAA Aviation Advisory Rulemaking Committee (ARAC) a new task to review FAR Part 103 and make recommendations to the FAA concerning whether new or revised standards are appropriate. In reviewing Part 103, the ARAC was asked to consider: 1) USUA's petition to amend Part 103 (Docket #25591) and 2) adding definitions and operating rules to apply to rotorcraft. The assignment was later expanded to include new or revised standards under other regulations which may be affected.

The ARAC accepted the task at its August 1993 meeting and formed a working group to be chaired by Tom Gunnarson of the United States Ultralight Association. Since that time representatives from all spectrums of ultralight aviation, several general aviation groups, Transport Canada, and FAA have been working toward a recommendation through meetings, telephone and fax communications. Many of the ultralight representatives have gone to great lengths to participate in this important process. The results to date are impressive considering the slow moving bureaucratic environment and the working group's learning process of ARAC.

Initially, the working group developed a recommendation on a conceptual level. The recommendation was that FAA consider airman certification programs to better accommodate aviation groups which extend beyond FAR Part 103 parallel in structure to the regulatory concepts and methods of Primary Category aircraft certification. Both the FAA Internal Team assigned to the Part 103 project and the ARAC unanimously agreed to proceed with the concept. Now, over two years after the working group first met, they prepare specific wording to turn the concept into a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM).

It is useful to place this Part 103 ARAC project in the appropriate historic context. In brief summary, FAR Part 103 was created in 1982 as a regulatory response to existing and rapidly growing powered hang glider activity. The basic performance needs of "low and slow" recreational flying, coupled with widely available modern materials, made possible the development of new and diverse craft.

Both individual citizens and business entrepreneurs utilized this developing community of sport aviators to create a wide variety of aircraft (Ultralight Vehicles) under Part 103. The recognition of the need for training brought FAA exemptions and the development of two-place ultralight training vehicles and flight instructors. In response to an enthusiastic and growing recreational flying community, the marketplace generated many very active ultralight vehicle manufacturing, sales, training and service enterprises.

After a huge amount of work over one year's time, the working group concluded that the problems are not within Part 103 but in the operations which have developed beyond Part 103 limitations. Current regulations are not adequate to facilitate proper development these operations. The working group determined that implementation of a mechanism which facilitates suitable pilot certification programs will be the best long-term solution for allowing the "ultralight" community to fully develop.

A three day conference hosted by USUA in Washington, DC in November 1994 resulted in unanimous working group consensus of a concept proposal to present to ARAC for approval. During the conference working group members considered what they knew from practical and administrative experience within their ultralight discipline and applied that to a series of statements that describe the situation as follows:

• It is acknowledged that there are no pilot certificate requirements under the present FARs that are correlated to meet the knowledge and skill requirements of an airman certificate to operate small, light weight, aircraft that have grown within present limitations and privileges of FAR Part 103.

• The slow, laborious process of regulatory change is expensive and burdensome to FAA and not responsive to this situation. Additionally, there are new classes of aircraft being developed such as "flying platforms." We can even anticipate classes of aircraft being developed that are unknown at this time. The Part 103 working group believes FAA must address this problem now. This proposal, creating an umbrella (or shell) for pilot certification, will solve the present as well as future pilot certification requirements.

• A parallel need exists to address flight instructor certification and pilot examiner programs consisting of individuals with expertise and experience in these diverse classes of aircraft. Clearly, what is needed, and what is recommended by this working group, is a new form of pilot and flight instructor certification with creation of a new method to more efficiently address the flight examination process.

• The last twenty years has seen the development of a diverse group of new classes of air vehicles and aircraft. All indications are that this trend will continue. Regulatory change is too slow, cumbersome, and costly a process to deal adequately with the issues raised by these developments. This proposal provides a flexible and cost effective administrative method for future solutions to issues raised which cannot be foreseen at this time.

• By creating class ratings for pilots more appropriate to the less complex nature of these new classes of aircraft, this proposal will significantly lower the economic threshold for entry into aviation. This provides a more accessible entry point than presently exists, and fills a present gap in the progression of a pilot into higher levels of participation. In turn, this dynamically promotes the growth of civil aviation.

• Develop airman certification programs to better accommodate aviation groups which extend beyond existing limits of FAR Part 103 parallel in structure to the regulatory concepts and methods of Primary Category aircraft certification.

• This would not change the existing definitions, privileges or limitations of FAR Part 103, but not prohibit expansion of Part 103.

• Harmonize with present, as well as future, international pilot certification standards.

• The working group makes no recommendation as to which section of the FARs these amendments are to be made, or even if a new part should be drawn. This is left to the FAA's determination for efficiency.

• This approach is reasonable because it mirrors in pilot certification a regulatory process already successfully used in aircraft airworthiness certification.

• This proposal is the most cost effective way to rapidly and completely integrate operators of these new diverse classes of small aircraft into the community of certificated airspace users.

With these statements the working group described the reasons why and the method by which FAA should establish a unique airmen certification system.

The FAA Part 103 Team agreed with the concept in a letter dated December 14, 1994. A concept briefing was given to ARAC in February 1995 with unanimous approval from ARAC to proceed toward drafting an NPRM.

The ARAC Part 103 Working Group reached a major milestone with ARAC and FAA consensus reached on a regulatory approach regarding operations which have grown out of present limitations and privileges of FAR Part 103. Working group members who took the time and expense to contribute to the concept paper deserve special praise for their original and creative ideas. The result has been a breakthrough in approach to serving the needs of pilots, FAA and public safety.

Since February, the working group expects FAA to recognize the value of an umbrella type airman certification program that allows swift and efficient administrative changes as new recreational aviation technologies and operations become established. Development continues on specific language for a curriculum and parameters that would define the category of airmen.

As chairman of the working group I see the strength of such a diverse group working together for a common goal. It is my hope that those who would be affected by the working group's proposed recommendation understand the issues and can stand behind this important drive forward in personal aviation in the United States.

Show your support of this initiative and share your comments, positive or negative, by contacting your organization's assigned representative. Following is a list of active participants on the working group.

TOM GUNNARSON, CHAIRMAN
FAA ARAC WORKING GROUP-ULTRALIGHT
PO BOX 667
FREDERICK MD 21705
Re: USUA Comment re ARAC

Dear Tom:

This responds to your request for The United States Ultralight Association (USUA) to comment on the FAA proposal to the Ultralight ARAC Working Group on April 24, 1996.

USUA has provided to Directors, Regional Representatives and Club Presidents a copy of the FAA proposal to the Ultralight ARAC Working Group. There has been much discussion by many individual members. Their guidance to USUA is consistent and, almost without exception, they have recommended the same basic assertion which USUA now provides in this comment to FAA and the other ARAC groups.

First, USUA commends FAA for being responsive to the concept of an "Umbrella" of standards under which pilot certification programs may be created and modified by administrative action. USUA recommends that ARAC and FAA progress toward the establishment of the "Umbrella" in law so that individual pilot programs may be activated as soon as possible.

Throughout the entire process, USUA and the Ultralight Working Group has reported to FAA need for "discovery of a regulatory mechanism that reflects the operating needs of pilots and instructors who have pioneered the instructional and developmental paths that have evolved from Part 103". Also recommended is pilot/instructor training to be conducted by instructors certified under the same type of administrative "shell" as airmen with the appropriate levels of knowledge, experience and skill for the aircraft for which they are rated. The aircraft to be used by these airmen are defined to be precisely those now in use as ultralight trainers and identical to those defined by the International Microlight Commission.

However, FAA has responded with a very different vision in a rough outline containing few specifics. FAA proposes operation of fast, capable little aircraft operated from airports in the center of cities. Operation of fast, sophisticated aircraft over congested areas that are highly-visible and in close proximity to the public is much more that requested by USUA. It seems inevitable that such dramatic increases in pilot privileges will surely result in dramatic increases to pilot training program requirement-precisely what USUA continually reports is avoidable by utilizing the world-accepted definition for ultralights/microlight pilot authority.

The Ultralight ARAC Working Group submitted to FAA a document stating that the hang gliding, powered parachute and powered fixed-wing ultralight communities have engaged in pilot training programs which have outstanding safety results. FAA does require periodic reporting of safety and exposure data regarding all two-place powered vehicle training operations, and an examination of those reports confirms the outstanding safety record of current two-place training programs. Yet FAA is making statements which are discouraging qualified individuals from becoming/remaining ultralight flight instructors. Further, FAA's proposal for greatly expanded operations would require substantial increase in pilot/instructor training curriculum. This brings the suspicion of a hidden goal to channel ultralighters to existing FAA Certificated Flight Instructors rather than acknowledging and embracing the existing group of experienced ultralight instructors.

Most of all is the basic comment from the Ultralight ARAC Working Group that it recommends an avenue for the logical and orderly development of pilot certification programs for those operators who emerge from the existing limitations of Part 103. Yet FAA response is much more focused on revitalizing general aviation by assuming this area of air sports primarily to become "entry level" pilot training. The concept of repairing FAA's failed Recreational Pilot rule by eliminating privileges and limitations of the rule under which two-place ultralight operations are now taking place seems backward. Rather than ignoring the successful operations in the less-limited environment, why not try to expand the less complex environment simply by matching each new privilege with only the appropriate limitation?

USUA is researching the high number of additional limitations incurred by invoking FAR's Part 61 and 91 in the FAA proposal. Those two rules total 103,301 words which is a lot of law for a little aviation. USUA is attempting to determine any demonstrated need to additional limitations such as Emergency Locator Transmitters, minimum equipment requirements including maintenance and inspection, 90 day pilot/instructor reevaluations, prohibition to enter any class A, B, C of D airspace, increase to a minimum of 3-mile visibility in class G airspace, and other limitations proposed by FAA. Although FAA predicts change the following areas, the law presently includes additional requirements for at least a third-class medical certificate and limitation of 50 mile flights.

An area in which FAA brings additional doubt about their actual motives is in the selection of the term "lite" for the new pilot rule. FAA suggests that "lite" avoids confusion with existing international ultralight and microlight pilot certificates. The reverse is true. The ONLY terms used throughout the world are either ultraLIGHT and microLIGHT. FAA's "lite" seems more of an effort at a trademark than good grammar. USUA maintains that either ultralight or microlight are the only appropriate terms which should be considered as the show continuity and similarity internationally which is consistent with the original Working Group's recommendation.

Overall, USUA reports that the confidence level in FAA by members is very low. The motivation of FAA seems more focused on forcing "advanced ultralighters" into the weakening traditional aviation system than in assisting the development of aviation sports. Most are questioning if FAA is simply repackaging Recreational Pilot to revitalize "entry-level" general aviation rather than recognizing and working with the sporting nature of ultralight and microlight flying.

USUA would be interested in considering another path-one which was not directly connected to Recreational Pilot. It is a poorly constructed rule with virtually no acceptance by the aviation community, but which establishes precedence to which all new rules must be judged. Recreational Pilot privileges and limitations are not appropriate for those operations which have modestly exceeded the limitations of FAR Part 103 as described by the working group recommendation. To be distanced (in a regulatory sense) from Recreational Pilot might be wise.

USUA sees little choice provided by the FAA presentation. If USUA refused to agree, FAA has indicated that it will move ahead in its own direction anyway. If USUA agrees, it would be agreeing to a proposal which bears little resemblance to the original recommendation. Reluctantly, therefore, USUA would not object to proceeding with FAA to establish the "Umbrella" for pilot certification. However, vast experience in ultralight and microlight aviation brings a warning to FAA that a singular focus on new training programs for pilots of fast, capable aircraft to be flown over our cities and towns will ultimately bring us around to the exact problem of today-excessive requirements for those who wish to fly for fun single and two-place microlights.

Best regards,