Ultralight rotorcraft

I just learned about this littel ultralight rotor
craft: http://www.airscooter.com/

My question ia about the rules of where you can fly
such a thing. On the radio program I was listening to
the inventer and host talked about flying it around
town. However, on their website where they quote the
FAR 103 rules,

"Sec. 103.15 Operations over congested areas.

No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over
any congested area of a city, town, or settlement,
or over any open air assembly of persons."

So am I right in that this precludes me flying one of
these things from my home driveway to my work parking
lot in the suburbs of LA where I live?

Yet in the program they kept talking about bypassing
all the traffic on the roads.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Home of the Seismic FAQ
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

I've seen ultralights operate out of SMO (Santa Monica), which is
surrounded by congestion. Specifically, I should say, I've seen ONE
ultralight there. He had a beacon, and Mode C I assume (LAX is right
next door), but I wasn't in the tower at the time, just the pilots
lounge. I think there's a procedure involved in getting to that level,
and but I don't know what it is. I read somewhere recently about a
group of ultralights that had received N-numbers and other whatnots to
allow them certain privileges, but I can't recall the text. Does
anyone else remember reading about this? It might involve having the
planes reclassified as experimental and then vetted by an A&P, but this
is all guesswork on my part.

Are the two related?

That Airscooter looks like a lot of fun, but it has no provisions to
land safely when the engine quits. That could hurt.

Bryan

No autorotation?

mike regish

"Flyingmonk" wrote in message
oups.com...
That Airscooter looks like a lot of fun, but it has no provisions to
land safely when the engine quits. That could hurt.

Bryan

No collective, it uses throttle instead. Engine dies, you die. Cyclic
shifts weight of pilot forward and aft I believe.

That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. FAA should ban the thing
immediatly. It's not a question of if people are going to die its a question
of how many. My bet is the ratio of aircrafts sold to deaths will be
something approaching 1:1.


"Flyingmonk" wrote in message
oups.com...
No collective, it uses throttle instead. Engine dies, you die. Cyclic
shifts weight of pilot forward and aft I believe.

Respectfully, I'd rather the government not capriciously ban everything
that's considered 'dangerous'. Like seat belt and helmet laws, let
natural selection take place. If people want to buy a vehicle with as
poor a failure mode as this, then let them make that decision. The
ultralight provision goes far enough to create a legal safety barrier
to protect the fine folks of downtown New York (congestion) from
falling air scooters.

My only capitulation to the regs here would be to make sure the company
informs purchasers as to the risk so they can make an informed
decision. Other then that... the FAA has enough fingers in the pie
already, don't let them walk off with the whole dish.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote in message
news:3RTue.33374$DC2.17350@okepread01...
No collective, it uses throttle instead. Engine dies, you die. Cyclic
shifts weight of pilot forward and aft I believe.

That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. FAA should ban the thing
immediatly.

According to the manufacturer, the aircraft is intended to be flown at
altitudes at which auto-rotation would be impractical. I don't know enough
about rotorcraft to be able to evaluate that statement, but I do understand
that low altitude and low rotor inertia are both things that will prevent a
successful autorotation.

Unsurprisingly, they indicate that they are developing a design for use of a
ballistic parachute. How this will work for a rotorcraft is unclear, but
ballistic parachutes are used successfully in other situations in which an
aircraft can have common failures that result in no gliding performance.

Are you saying that we should ban any aircraft that has a common failure
that results in no gliding performance?

Pete

Gig 601XL Builder opined

That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. FAA should ban the thing
immediatly. It's not a question of if people are going to die its a question
of how many. My bet is the ratio of aircrafts sold to deaths will be
something approaching 1:1.

Think of it as evolution in action.

"Flyingmonk" wrote in message
roups.com...
No collective, it uses throttle instead. Engine dies, you die. Cyclic
shifts weight of pilot forward and aft I believe.





-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 at 20:58:21 in message
.com, Flyingmonk
wrote:
No collective, it uses throttle instead. Engine dies, you die. Cyclic
shifts weight of pilot forward and aft I believe.

As far as I am aware there have been a number of lightweight autogyros
built. They may be dangerous but I not do believe that they cannot be
flown without an engine running. True they have no cyclic or collective
pitch - they manage without. The rotor plane can usually be tipped for
and aft and side to side, although I guess weight shifting can be used
as well.

A real one was flown and demonstrated in one of the James Bond films
(Little Nellie). The essential point is that the rotor is un-powered.

Try http://www.jefflewis.net/autogyros.html

for descriptions and more links and also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogyro

for details of problems and dispelling the myth that they fall out of
the sky if the engine stops
--
David CL Francis