Did the Sport Pilot rule forget its origins and true purpose in and for the ultralight community?

By ANN Correspondent John Ballantyne

A number of writers have recently approached an understated aspect of the Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft regulation -- the crack-down on thousands of pilots and their aircraft colloquially identified as "fat" ultralights. 

Who is this group of pilots and instructors and will they be helped or injured?

To properly answer these questions we must review the development of ultralight regulation (FAR Part 103). It was begun circa 1979 in an environment where hang gliders were increasingly being powered.  The ability to use modern materials such as aluminum tubing and polyester sail cloth -- often manufactured under the trade name "Dacron" -- was facilitating so-called "designers," often without formal aviation design backgrounds, to create simple, fun-to-fly aircraft of many shapes.  All the aircraft had one thing in common -- they were slow.  Those self-made designers are my heroes.

Soon, practical experience revealed that those who wanted to learn to fly these early ultralight vehicles could do so much more easily than on traditional aircraft such as the Cessna 152 or 172, whose cruise speeds exceeded 100 mph.  Ultralighters did not generally cross through weather fronts, did not fly at night nor into tower-controlled airport, and the pilots sought "Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited" (CAVU).  Honestly, ultralights sucked when used for utility transportation to a business meeting in Phoenix at 14:00 on Thursday. Forget it.

In 1981, the FAA was very interested and quite helpful to this emerging group.  Rather than treating them as outlaws who were breaking the rules, FAA personnel recognized they were experiencing how modern aviation pioneers were discovering a whole new use for aviation in the regular person's life -- to fly for fun.

FAA representatives made many friends in the ultralight community during that time.  Because the FAA recognized the recreational nature of these craft, they ultimately enacted an unprecedented two page rule whose content was simple: it prohibited ultralight "vehicles" from congested areas and night flight, and limited them to single seat operations. Within eight months of issuing the final ultralight rule, the FAA took the important step of issuing exemptions to allow use of two-seat "ultralights" for training purposes. That was 21 years ago, and two-seater ultralights exist today under the same exemptions, but have never been written into the ultralight regulation, FAR Part 103.

After Part 103 was published, those FAA personnel went on to other assignments.  The in-house attitude cooled and there became a great divide between FAA and the ultralight community.  Fortunately -- or unfortunately as it may turn out -- the ultralight community continued to develop the fun aircraft. Two-seaters were a natural; after all, how many motorcycles have only one seat?  This was not an issue when FAA first got involved, but weight-shift trikes and powered parachutes became an increasing part of the community.  The FAA was invisible, unresponsive.  What to do?

Ultralight groups began to petition FAA for modifications to ultralight rules to permit the continuation of this segment of aviation, but they refused to respond.  Decades went by.  Studies were made at great expense to the ultralight volunteer participants.  Then -- and only largely under pressure to answer the question of how to certificate pilots of trikes and powered parachutes -- the FAA finally began to develop what we now know as Sport Pilot.  Sport Pilot is not at all what the ultralight community originally proposed. Instead, it is aligned with traditional rules for personal transportation aircraft.

Not surprisingly, 18 years later, this FAA response may fall short of addressing the needs of the ultralight community.

Sport Pilot allows operation of 130+ mph aircraft over congested areas into downtown airports.  Who asked for that?  Not ultralight groups.  Under the new Sport Pilot, a Powered Parachute pilot, holding a private pilot certificate for powered parachutes may have 6, 8, 10 or more seats and operated from the local municipal airport.  This operation may not be excluded from public airports by federal anti-discrimination laws.  Who wanted that?  Not powered parachuters.

But what of ultralight "Pioneers?"  Suddenly they are outlaws all over again.  Despite the fact that they paved the way by demonstrating the ease of production of slow machines for aerial recreation, the conventional aircraft lobby is strong.  The new Sport Pilot rules are directly tied to traditional aviation rules; Part 61 and 91, and not Part 103.  The practical experiences of ultralight training programs and safety issues are overshadowed by almost a century of FAA historical data on airplane accidents. What traditional FAA pilot would support pilots flying a two-seater over downtown Anytown, USA at 130+ mph without an FAA medical?  The answer: only those pilots who can not obtain an FAA medical.  Why should training be significantly diminished for those who could not fly at night?  Answer: They won't be, except for night flying.

The Sport Pilot certificate will be more difficult to get than the popular press is promoting.  Why would someone who qualified to fly such aircraft not simply go ahead and get a Private Pilot certificate?  Answer: because they do not qualify for an FAA third class medical.  What message does that send to the American public and other pilots who have medical certificates?

The point is that many real-life lessons learned by aviation pioneers of ultralight aviation are being lost.  Where are the ultralight accidents really occurring?  Pioneers know from experience, but FAA has no clue because of confusion between what is, and what is not an ultralight.  What training syllabus is most applicable?  Pioneers know from experience, but FAA will lean toward Private Pilot-Airplane because they have never audited the training exemption groups for program content.  Has ultralight regulation Part 103 been wildly successful?  Yes, but then again mostly in the area of protecting the non-participating public from damage and injury. 

Let's step around to the other side for a moment.  Some of my friends in the ultralight community have taken too lightly the need for proper training and participation in the FAA-recognized training programs.  Because the FAA regulation allows -- and the planes are forgiving enough to tolerate -- pilot ignorance, many have simply ventured into the air at great personal risk.  That is inexcusable, period.  Many crashes and inappropriate encounters with traditional private pilots illustrate this fact. 

Public credibility with the ultralight community is below zero.  Organizational surveys show that less that 15 out of 100 ultralight pilots have actually completed the prescribed programs offered by at least four national associations.  As a leading proponent of "self-regulation" during those informative years of 1980-1982, I say this is a tragedy. 

Why have so many ultralight pilots ignored the need to be responsible to the public by passing written, oral and flight tests to prove their knowledge of basic flight dynamics, aviation laws, and even the specific laws for ultralights?  Today it seems stupid and self-serving.  Conversely, those few who have participated and become registered have my personal respect.  Thank you, and good work!

Meanwhile, the FAA has gone too far for ultralight aviation.  Nobody in ultralighting asked for 130 miles per hour over downtown areas into municipal airports.  Unfortunately, ultralighters have set themselves up as targets by generally refusing to comply with reasonable rules.  The FAA is also to blame for being out of touch with ultralighters and accepting a disproportionate influence by general aviation groups who changed the ultralight proposal into an escape for those pilots who may not be physically able to meet FAA requirements.

Sport Pilot is viewed by general aviation groups as a way around FAA airman physical requirements.  This seems a miniscule goal to this reporter who sees the continuation of recreational aviation for medically capable folks as an overpowering, unpreventable, unstoppable, and huge evolutionary step for all.

Will FAA have to try yet another regulatory chant to capture the essence of fun, recreational aviation?  Many say there is no chance of that.  Rule development is very expensive and generally aimed at higher-end aviation. But that is exactly what "they" said about the Recreation Pilot rule which, many years after its enactment, has less than 400 participants.  It was a huge failure, and Sport Pilot is expected to correct the regulatory inadequacy that has existed for decades.  Will it? 

This reporter is not yet convinced…

FMI http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/sportpilot/index.cfm