21–30 of 248 posts
Pretty insane you can fly these with no license or certificates when basically all drones require having your TRUST certificate or full on drone license to fly.
Thus it had to be regulated to stop the nonsense.
This page is SEO-ey, with the "how to" question titles and padding and such. I would have instinctively skipped it coming from Google. ...Which is really sad, because it actually reads like a earnest author just trying to make their informative page visible.
Pretty insane you can fly these with no license or certificates when basically all drones require having your TRUST certificate or full on drone license to fly.
Pretty insane you can fly these with no license or certificates when basically all drones require having your TRUST certificate or full on drone license to fly.
If a drone crashes into my house the only harm to the pilot is financial.
That gives the ultralight pilots a much bigger incentive to not do stupid things with their aircraft.
2. Ultralights have to stay out of cities and towns and can't fly over large groups of people.
That puts some more on how much damage they can do to other people and other people's properties than drones have.
Setting the legalities aside, flying any of these without the training behind a pilot's license sounds like a great way to have some fun, right up until you have a really bad day. Maybe you can skip the license---I haven't looked at those regs myself---but you can't skip the skills. (I'd also want to take a hard look at the design, parts, and maintenance before I flew something like this---but I don't really have the…
Part 103 compliant aircraft are meant to have limits low enough to be LESS immediately lethal, but they are still dangerous. Maintenance is absolutely a possible issue, and due to their restrictions the engines are generally MORE needy than normal GA aircraft.
Interesting! How so?
> Part 103 compliant aircraft are meant to have limits low enough to be LESS immediately lethal, but they are still dangerous.
What do you have in mind?
Quite a lot of what worries me when I fly involves misjudging the combination of weather with the aircraft's capabilities & my capabilities. Time under the care of a good instructor helps a whole lot with that judgement: you get to see a whole bunch of conditions that are beyond your capabilities & struggle with them, without endangering yourself or the aircraft. And (e.g.) winds variable 13-23, 3G12 on runway 09 is not so trivial, even if your aircraft has a 15kt crosswind limitation.
Or---I fly gliders, and I've had it drummed into my head that you never ever fly between trees when you're landing in some random field, because there may be a power line and power lines are a great way to kill yourself.
There are a thousand things like this, that are more about environment & pilot than aircraft.
(FWIW I've flown power in the past, but mostly fly gliders now; still newish. Maybe that skews my perceptions a bit; glider pilots are pretty willing to fly in windy or gusty conditions, in search of ridge or wave lift, so it's not so uncommon that I'm standing there asking myself "sure, the much more experienced pilots are fine to fly in this, but am I fine?" This is really hard! I'm really grateful to my instructors for giving me knowledge & experience with which to make that decision, and for giving me good training to fall back on if I misjudge!)
The Mirocopter SCH-2A meets the FAA requirements so it doesn't require a pilots license. You can buy it for $35k on Ebay [0]. It's cheaper than most cars and gas wise (5 gallons for 50min for flight time) would make it about the same cost as commuting to work in a car. 0. https://www.ebay.com/itm/354879150317
The article doesn't really cover it but being able to fly without a license probably isn't the same as flying near a controlled (ie. towered) airport. If want to commute and aren't in the middle of nowhere you might find that flying in your local airspace does require a radio license in practice at least. Source: I am a licensed pilot but not familiar with flying in the US.
That covers what you can fly. There are also restrictions on when and where you can fly. These are daytime VFR [1] conditions only, only in uncontrolled airspace, cannot fly over cites or towns or large groups of people, cannot create hazards to other people or property, must yield right of way to other aircraft, and must comply with all FAA NOTAMs [2]. [1] Visual Flight Rules. VFR conditions are conditions where you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are correct. Knowing the airspace is required under Part 103, and operating an aircraft under those rules puts you under the legal requirements of Part 103. If you want to know more the entire document is only a couple pages: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...
I was wondering how access to class D airspace would work for an unlicensed ultralight pilot. Can they get a radio? Would they need a [radio] license both for themselves and for the aircraft? Is that practical to acquire without a PPL? Or, without a radio, would ATC approval for a flight be available over the phone before departure instead or would that be out of the question? For a regular pilot this is all just aut…
No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace.
What does that mean in practice? I suspect my local airport (a moderately busy class D field) would not authorize a NORDO (no radio) ultralight. There is no longer a requirement for an FCC license for an aviation band radio. (That was previously required and possible to get as an individual without a PPL.) I suspect most class D fields would authorize the transition of a radio-equipped ultralight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part 103 compliant aircraft are meant to have limits low enough to be LESS immediately lethal, but they are still dangerous. Maintenance is absolutely a possible issue, and due to their restrictions the engines are generally MORE needy than normal GA aircraft.
> Maintenance is absolutely a possible issue, and due to their restrictions the engines are generally MORE needy than normal GA aircraft. Interesting! How so? > Part 103 compliant aircraft are meant to have limits low enough to be LESS immediately lethal, but they are still dangerous. What do you have in mind? Quite a lot of what worries me when I fly involves misjudging the combination of weather with the aircraft's…
As for them being less lethal, that comes down to the listed operating areas and the limits imposed by the construction of them. In reality they are just less lethal to non-involved bystanders; they will still kill their pilots quite easily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part 103 compliant aircraft are meant to have limits low enough to be LESS immediately lethal, but they are still dangerous. Maintenance is absolutely a possible issue, and due to their restrictions the engines are generally MORE needy than normal GA aircraft.
> Maintenance is absolutely a possible issue, and due to their restrictions the engines are generally MORE needy than normal GA aircraft. Interesting! How so? > Part 103 compliant aircraft are meant to have limits low enough to be LESS immediately lethal, but they are still dangerous. What do you have in mind? Quite a lot of what worries me when I fly involves misjudging the combination of weather with the aircraft's…
Aircraft are certified with a demonstrated crosswind component, which is not a limitation.