A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ultralight rotorcraft



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 20th 05, 10:29 PM
Skywise
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?
Ads
  #2  
Old May 20th 05, 11:34 PM
Ben Hallert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?

  #3  
Old May 21st 05, 12:17 PM
Flyingmonk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Bryan

  #4  
Old May 22nd 05, 03:20 AM
houstondan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(snips a lot)
Skywise wrote:

"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."

..com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?




y'know, i have not really heard or read any kind of usable guidlines of
what "congested" and "over" mean. people can tell you like, "not over a
stadium" or something; anecdotal kinda stuff but nothing very useful in
finding the limits and exceptions.

that citation does not seem to have the 500 and 1000ft limits in it so
i suppose you can fly the thing 100ft over the streets of new york all
you want as long as you're careful to observe pedestrian crossings and
not exceed the undefined "congestion-limit". i'm pretty sure that one
small person alone in times square would not be "congested" but where
do you do from there?

huh?


dan

  #5  
Old May 22nd 05, 05:07 AM
Jose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

y'know, i have not really heard or read any kind of usable guidlines of
what "congested" and "over" mean. people can tell you like, "not over a
stadium" or something; anecdotal kinda stuff but nothing very useful in
finding the limits and exceptions.

that citation does not seem to have the 500 and 1000ft limits in it so
i suppose you can fly the thing 100ft over the streets of new york all
you want as long as you're careful to observe pedestrian crossings and
not exceed the undefined "congestion-limit".


At a recent safety seminar, it was held that "congested" could easily be
construed to mean "over a freeway in the middle of nowhere", and it was
stated by the person doing the seminar that flying the Hudson Corridor
is technically illegal because you can't apply the "500 feet away" rule
since NY is congested (never mind that we're over the Hudson River,
which is a mile wide). He also stated that the FAA has a "look the
other way" policy on that particular corridor.

I don't buy this, but I'm just a private pilot and they are the FAA.

Jose
--
I used to make money in the stock market, now I make money in the basement.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
  #6  
Old May 22nd 05, 06:02 AM
Skywise
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jose wrote in news:gATje.3808$VS6.969
@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:

y'know, i have not really heard or read any kind of usable guidlines of
what "congested" and "over" mean. people can tell you like, "not over a
stadium" or something; anecdotal kinda stuff but nothing very useful in
finding the limits and exceptions.

that citation does not seem to have the 500 and 1000ft limits in it so
i suppose you can fly the thing 100ft over the streets of new york all
you want as long as you're careful to observe pedestrian crossings and
not exceed the undefined "congestion-limit".


At a recent safety seminar, it was held that "congested" could easily be
construed to mean "over a freeway in the middle of nowhere", and it was
stated by the person doing the seminar that flying the Hudson Corridor
is technically illegal because you can't apply the "500 feet away" rule
since NY is congested (never mind that we're over the Hudson River,
which is a mile wide). He also stated that the FAA has a "look the
other way" policy on that particular corridor.

I don't buy this, but I'm just a private pilot and they are the FAA.

Jose


Some very good points. Thanks.

From my point of view in the city, I don't see how flying one of
these things over the town would be any more or less a danger to
those below than any other aircraft. But I fully realize that the
rules don't always conform to logic and/or reason.

If I had the bucks, I'd snag one. But I'd hate to have to drive 50
miles out of town just to be allowed to fly it. I have a feeling
the definition of congested has a lot to do with citizen complaints.
If no one complains, it's ok. But somehow I don't think flying a
hundred feet over peoples houses in Anaheim in a dinky little
ultralight is going to go unnoticed and unaddressed for very long.
Hell, the media would probably twist it into a terrorist threat
for the evening news.

As an aside, I recall many years ago, way back in the 80's, that
the city of Long Beach CA tested the use of ultralights for
police work. If my memory hasn't gone wacky I recall a picture
of this in a National Geographic.

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?
  #7  
Old May 23rd 05, 11:05 PM
John Galban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Jose wrote:

At a recent safety seminar, it was held that "congested" could easily

be
construed to mean "over a freeway in the middle of nowhere", and it

was
stated by the person doing the seminar that flying the Hudson

Corridor
is technically illegal because you can't apply the "500 feet away"

rule
since NY is congested (never mind that we're over the Hudson River,
which is a mile wide). He also stated that the FAA has a "look the
other way" policy on that particular corridor.


This is an excellent example of why the FSDO system is broken. Every
inspector can have his own goofy interpretation of the regs and the FAA
will usually back them on it. Even if it's diametrically opposed to
some other FSDO inspector that has a different take on the regs (and is
also backed by the FAA).

Personally, I think the guy you're talking about above is full of
crap. Unfortunately, that doesn't make him less likely to try and tag
some pilot not flying within his personal interpretation of the regs.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

  #8  
Old June 19th 05, 08:20 PM
mike regish
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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



  #9  
Old June 24th 05, 04:58 AM
Flyingmonk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #10  
Old June 24th 05, 02:25 PM
Gig 601XL Builder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ultralight Club Bylaws - Warning Long Post MrHabilis Home Built 0 June 11th 04 05:07 PM
Sport Rotorcraft Fly-in Gyroplanes Rotorcraft 1 May 5th 04 04:43 PM
AL-12: New ultralight sailplane ISoar Soaring 4 March 24th 04 01:52 AM
rotorcraft chat group Stu Fields Rotorcraft 1 January 23rd 04 05:43 PM
Ultralight magazine August 1981 Gilan Home Built 0 July 20th 03 04:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.