Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:35 am Post subject: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

Folks, I didn't write them, but like Joe Friday always said, "The facts, ma'am, just the facts."



 (a) Any person operating an ultralight vehicle under this part shall, upon request, allow the Administrator, or his designee, to inspect the vehicle to determine the applicability of this part.  

 (b) The pilot or operator of an ultralight vehicle must, upon request of the Administrator, furnish satisfactory evidence that the vehicle is subject only to the provisions of this part.Here's where you can find them:



http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=60fc6b3fd47a0364348d812a785969a7&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.16&idno=14

 

Rick

  [quote][b]

captainron1(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:10 am Post subject: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

Thanks for the quote.

Heck I don't remember seeing that before, Not surprising as I have yet to operate under FAR 103 however still even though its worded vaguely (shall, upon

Request, allow the Administrator, or his designee ) and of course on purpose that way.  None of us have given away any of out constitutional rights. I rather contest that later in court if they want to than to have them bust me right there and then on a real violation.

What happens if I deny their request, what can they do? Has anyone ever got busted?

It also does not give a time frame as to when one must comply with the request, what happens if I say "come back next week I don't have time for it right now" and then fly off? Where do I even have to tell them who I am or any other information? I agree its better to be within the rules than to have to put up with the Gestapo but we do have the choice of not having to. Remember its a rule not a Law!



Ron (Arizona)



============

---- Richard Girard <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> wrote: 



=============

Folks, I didn't write them, but like Joe Friday always said, "The facts,

ma'am, just the facts."



(a) Any person operating an ultralight vehicle under this part shall, upon

request, allow the Administrator, or his designee, to inspect the vehicle to

determine the applicability of this part.



(b) The pilot or operator of an ultralight vehicle must, upon request of the

Administrator, furnish satisfactory evidence that the vehicle is subject

only to the provisions of this part.

Here's where you can find them:



http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=60fc6b3fd47a0364348d812a785969a7&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.16&idno=14



Rick



--

kugelair.com

russ(at)rkiphoto.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:39 am Post subject: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

Ron

I appreciate your position. We live in the Land of the Free -- we're  

free to tangle with the Feds in  court, go up against their M OST  

talented lawyers, have them  jerk us around for several years until  

we've spent all our money and a whomping big bunch of time (during  

which we can't fly at all)  and then  lose the case. Count on it.

A disgusting situation  but there it is. In my very amateur opinion

On Jan 30, 2008, at 10:58 AM,Ron wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Thanks for the quote.

 Heck I don't remember seeing that before, Not surprising as I have  

 yet to operate under FAR 103 however still even though its worded  

 vaguely (shall, upon

 Request, allow the Administrator, or his designee ) and of course  

 on purpose that way.  None of us have given away any of out  

 constitutional rights. I rather contest that later in court if they  

 want to than to have them bust me right there and then on a real  

 violation.

 What happens if I deny their request, what can they do? Has anyone  

 ever got busted?

 It also does not give a time frame as to when one must comply with  

 the request, what happens if I say "come back next week I don't  

 have time for it right now" and then fly off? Where do I even have  

 to tell them who I am or any other information? I agree its better  

 to be within the rules than to have to put up with the Gestapo but  

 we do have the choice of not having to. Remember its a rule not a Law!



 Ron (Arizona)



 ============

 ---- Richard Girard <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> wrote:



 =============

 Folks, I didn't write them, but like Joe Friday always said, "The  

 facts,

 ma'am, just the facts."



 (a) Any person operating an ultralight vehicle under this part  

 shall, upon

 request, allow the Administrator, or his designee, to inspect the  

 vehicle to

 determine the applicability of this part.



 (b) The pilot or operator of an ultralight vehicle must, upon  

 request of the

 Administrator, furnish satisfactory evidence that the vehicle is  

 subject

 only to the provisions of this part.

 Here's where you can find them:



 http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx? 

 c=ecfr&sid=60fc6b3fd47a0364348d812a785969a7&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14 

 :2.0.1.3.16&idno=14



 Rick



 --

 kugelair.com

John Hauck

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:18 pm Post subject: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

> A disgusting situation  but there it is.

Russ K:



What is disgusting about breaking the law, trying to beat the rap, spending 

all your money doing it, and have the Feds eat you for lunch?



Seriously, if you break the law, Part 103, which in my opinion is spelled 

out so that even I can understand it, you gonna pay the consequences.  I 

don't see anything vague about the FAA asking to inspect my unregistered 

airplane and me complying.



I flew heavy ULs for a while, was not comfortable doing it, and experienced 

a great sense of relief when I started flying my experiemental homebuilt 

that was legal with inflight hull and liability insurance.  Previously, I 

was flying with no insurance because I was illegal and none was available 

for an unregistered airplane.



Cost much more to fly now, but probably a lot cheaper in the long run.



Take care,



john h

mkIII

_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama

Jim ODay

Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 61
Location: Fargo North Dakota

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:21 pm Post subject: Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

I agree with what John H said.  I flew my 300#+ fat Firestar in 2005 and was always worried about having a forced landing in a bean field and some good Samaritan calling 911 with sheriff showing up and the next call to the FAA.  



I know the rules, I would get penalized with a suspension and having to answer the violation question forever on insurance applications. 



I parked it till I was able to get legal and what a relief.  I fly now with the hope someone does call 911 if I have a forced landing.  They can help haul me or my plane out of the field, depending on what gets damaged. 



Fly safe.



Jim

_________________
Jim O'Day
Fargo, ND
Former Firestar II Builder/Pilot

indyaviator(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

Over the years, there have been a few incidents and accidents involving fat ultralights near my old field.  If the sheriff is called out, he always calls the faa.  He says it is their call whether it is an airplane or an UL. The FAA usually shows up and looks at the pile of tubes and fabric and says "ultralight, no investigation"  They never weigh them.  If it has one seat, 5 galon tank and looks like an ultralight...case closed.  They don't want to do the paperwork.

 

That said, if the plane crashed somewhere it shouldn't be, like downtown or a schoolyard, I am sure they would nail you to a cross.



If you crash an N numbered plane, isn't there always an investigation?

 

Bryan D



[quote]

I parked it till I was able to get legal and what a relief.  I fly now with the hope someone does call 911 if I have a forced landing.  They can help haul me or my plane out of the field, depending on what gets damaged.

 

Fly safe.



Jim



--------

Jim O'Day

Fargo, ND

Firestar II





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161425#161425

  [quote][b]

Steve Boetto

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 364

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

John,  Things have changed, First Flight now offers insurance for  ultralights for about $360

  a year. However I am sure that they still expect it to be a REAL  Ultralight.

  

 Steve

 do not archive

  In a message dated 1/30/2008 4:19:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  jhauck(at)elmore.rr.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Previously, I 

was flying with no insurance because I was illegal    and none was available 

for an unregistered airplane.



Cost much more    to fly now, but probably a lot cheaper in the long run.



Take    care,



john h

	




Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. 

  [quote][b]

John Hauck

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 4639
Location: Titus, Alabama (hauck's holler)

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

Nope!

  

 john h

 mk III

 [quote]    If you crash an N numbered plane, isn't    there always an investigation?



Bryan D

 

[b]

_________________
John Hauck
MKIII/912ULS
hauck's holler
Titus, Alabama

Possums

Joined: 03 Nov 2007
Posts: 247

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:25 pm Post subject: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

At 05:51 PM 1/30/2008, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Over the years, there have been a few incidents and accidents involving fat ultralights near my old field.  If the sheriff is called out, he always calls the faa.  He says it is their call whether it is an airplane or an UL. The FAA usually shows up and looks at the pile of tubes and fabric and says "ultralight, no investigation"  They never weigh them.  If it has one seat, 5 galon tank and looks like an ultralight...case closed.  They don't want to do the paperwork.



 That said, if the plane crashed somewhere it shouldn't be, like downtown or a schoolyard, I am sure they would nail you to a cross.

 	


 Here's my experience: 

 Have an incident where the sheriff is called out. He calls the FAA and tells them that the pilot says it is

 an ultralight. Look's like it's made of tubes & fabric. They tell the sheriff to tell the pilot that they "won't

 be coming out", no investigation. 



 However:

 The next day the FAA calls me and the conversation goes something like this:



 Mr. Sullivan, I am Mr. ___ with the FAA and am calling about your incident in the lake

 yesterday. 



 Yes Sir



 Mr. Sullivan, where is your plane right now?



 Sir, it's in my dad's barn in Powder Springs (about 20 west of Atlanta). Directions follow.



 Mr. Sullivan, where are you right now?



 About 15 miles north of there in Kennesaw.



 Mr. Sullivan I would like you to meet me there in 45 minutes.



 Yes Sir. 



 -----------------



 Since I've seen this all before, I managed to strip all the fabric off the entire plane "before he

 ever called". Also removed & moved the fuel tank/tanks. Removed and disassembled the engine, 

 chute, seat etc. The wings were twisted anyway, as was the cage. The engine (600 hrs) was full of

 water along with the bearings etc. So it wasn't that big a deal. 

 He came - he looked - he said "yeah, I guess it was an ultralight". Took some pictures and 

 went back to Atlanta. 

 No matter what they say - you crash it & they will come, at least here. I've seen this happen twice. 

 They are very professional though.

Submarine.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

67.22 KB

Viewed:

491 Time(s)

_________________
Possum

azfirestar

Joined: 08 Dec 2007
Posts: 25

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

Sorry to hear about the wetter than planned end to the flight, but I am assuming everyone was OK.  I found the post very interesting.  We've all heard stories about investigation/enforcement, but I have not heard many first hand accounts of how the process works.  

 

 This brings up a question that has been in my mind thru this and the previous (un-named here) thread - How many of us have seen "ramp checks" first hand?  Is this common in some parts of the country?  Do they ever weigh planes?  I'm not saying it is OK to break the rules if they are not enforced - I'm just curious about how the system works.

 

 Dan G.

 Tucson

 503 F2

 (yes, it is a legal ELSA as of September last year)

 

 possums wrote:

 [quote]Here's my experience: 

 Have an incident where the sheriff is called out. He calls the FAA and tells them that the pilot says it is

 an ultralight. Look's like it's made of tubes & fabric. They tell the sheriff to tell the pilot that they "won't

 be coming out", no investigation. 

   

 However:

 The next day the FAA calls me and the conversation goes something like this:

   

 Mr. Sullivan, I am Mr. ___ with the FAA and am calling about your incident in the lake

 yesterday. 

   

 Yes Sir

   

 Mr. Sullivan, where is your plane right now?

   

 Sir, it's in my dad's barn in Powder Springs (about 20 west of Atlanta). Directions follow.

   

 Mr. Sullivan, where are you right now?

   

 About 15 miles north of there in Kennesaw.

   

 Mr. Sullivan I would like you to meet me there in 45 minutes.

   

 Yes Sir. 

 [b]

_________________
Dan G.
503 Firestar II
Tucson AZ

JetPilot

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1246

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:50 am Post subject: Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

There is a big difference between being 300 Pounds + and trying to pass your plane off as an ultralight, and being only 15 pounds overweight...



I have never seen a ramp check, or known anyone that has had a ramp check.  I'm sure it happens, but how many get weighed in a standard run of the mill ramp check ( non event or air show related ).



Its all about good judgment, if you are  a bit overweight, don't fly your ultralight into an ultralight event where there is likely to be ramp checks, and likely to be weighed.   If you are so far overweight that it is obviously not plausible as an ultralight, get an N Number...



But 15 ( 6% )pounds overweight is a non issue in most cases.  Seems that there is a lack of common sense and good judgment by some on this list.



Mike

_________________
"NO FEAR" - If you have no fear you did not go as fast as you could have !!!

Kolb MK-III Xtra, 912-S

Ralph B

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 367
Location: Mound Minnesota

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:24 am Post subject: Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

 	  JetPilot wrote: 	
		  There is a big difference between being 300 Pounds + and trying to pass your plane off as an ultralight, and being only 15 pounds overweight...



I have never seen a ramp check, or known anyone that has had a ramp check.  I'm sure it happens, but how many get weighed in a standard run of the mill ramp check ( non event or air show related ).



Its all about good judgment, if you are  a bit overweight, don't fly your ultralight into an ultralight event where there is likely to be ramp checks, and likely to be weighed.   If you are so far overweight that it is obviously not plausible as an ultralight, get an N Number...



But 15 ( 6% )pounds overweight is a non issue in most cases.  Seems that there is a lack of common sense and good judgment by some on this list.



Mike 	




Mike,



You can't always tell if it's an ultralight or not. Does this look like an ultralight to you? How much do you think it weighs?



Ralph

at Lydia-.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

133.22 KB

Viewed:

504 Time(s)

_________________
Ralph B

Kolb Kolbra 912uls
N20386
550 hours

a58r(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:39 am Post subject: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

Our local PeaPatch airport, Winchester (VA) Regional is only some 50 easy road miles from Dulles and its nest of faaers, but I've never see/heard of anyone (UL or UL-looking) being ramp checked during EAA fly-ins, or any other times. They (faa) can and do visit, but usually on incident/accident cks on GA. 



 regards,

Bob N.    FireFly 070 Old Kolb

http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/ronoy/

do not archive....or is this still in effect?



 



 [quote][b]

Jim ODay

Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 61
Location: Fargo North Dakota

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:22 am Post subject: Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

Wow Ralph, that looks like a skinny FS! ...... I guess 254#  



My builders manual advised that my FS would not make the 103 weight unless built with a free air cooled Rotax motor, light fabric, minimal paint, no brakes, plastic wheels ......  bottom line it was not happening.



I don't know of any ramp checking going on at fly-ins, but I know the FAA investigates anytime a plane has a un-planned off the airport or bad airport landing.  If you have flying credentials (ie: Pilots license) be prepared to be grounded if you ruled to be in violation of the FAR's.  



By the way, I have been "ramp checked" twice.  They checked the AC documents and mine.  The 1st time was awful, the second was no problem with lessons learned from the first time.  Neither were done at my home field but when I was traveling.  (both were in factory made planes) If you want the details, send me a note.



Mike, I get your point that it is OK to be kinda fat as long as you carry the weight well.  If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck; it is a duck.  



I guess we have a different opinion here.  The reality is if my plane looks to fit the 103 rule, and I want it to "pass" as a UL,  I must be willing  to produce false documentation and tell lies.  I have an aversion to both.     



You can build a legal UL,  but a 255# airplane without a registration is called an unregistered A/C.   You can call it whatever you want, but it does not change anything.  Before the SP rules there was a general look the other way attitude by all concerned, I think that has changed.



I am glad I had the opportunity to get my fat little FS set up as an E-LSA.  It was not  UL 103 legal, never would be, and after the SP rules were a reality, there was no more gray area to hide in.



Fly safe,



Jim

Kolb 7.2007 (Medium).JPG

Description:

Here is a picture of my chubby FS. I guess it passes as a UL because that is what everyone calls it.

Filesize:

80.19 KB

Viewed:

457 Time(s)

_________________
Jim O'Day
Fargo, ND
Former Firestar II Builder/Pilot

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:35 am Post subject: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

Ralph, it depends on how technical you want to be and how much you know about that tank. If it holds more than 5 gallons, not much more, but more, is enough to kick on the "Not an Ultralight" Light. 

Per AC 103-7, 

19. Maximum Fuel Capacity of a Powered Ultralight Vehicle.  The maximum fuel capacity for a powered ultralight vehicle is 5 U.S. gallons. Any powered ultralight with fuel tank(s) exceeding this capacity is ineligible for operation as an ultralight vehicle.

    a. Determination of Fuel Capacity. The total volume, including all available space for usable and unusable fuel in the fuel tank is the total fuel capacity. The fuel in the lines, pump, strainer, and carburetor is not considered in a calculation of total volume.

    b. Use of an Artificial Means to Control Capacity.

        (1) Tanks which have a permanent standpipe or venting arrangement to control capacity are permitted, but may be subject to demonstration of the capacity if there is any reason to doubt that the arrangement is effective.

        (2) A temporary, detachable, or voluntarily- observed method for restricting fuel capacity, such as a "fill-to" line is not acceptable.

That tiny area above the 5 gallon line on the tank could be a tip off to a "by the book" inspector. He or she has only to look at the tank and ask you to demonstrate the capacity. I'm not an inspector, I have no vested interest in the ultralight argument. 

 At the "Air Festival" in Wellington, KS last September two "volunteers" from the Wichita FSDO showed up, in addition to the fellow who was assigned to the show (and really hacked off the guy who was assigned, I might add), and started ramp checking. The president of my EAA chapter was one of those given a "stern warning" by these two. His offense? The gas tanks on his RV-6 weren't properly labeled.

On Jan 31, 2008 12:24 PM, Ralph B <ul15rhb(at)juno.com (ul15rhb(at)juno.com)> wrote:

[quote] --> Kolb-List message posted by: "Ralph B" <ul15rhb(at)juno.com (ul15rhb(at)juno.com)>

JetPilot wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   There is a big difference between being 300 Pounds + and trying to pass your plane off as an ultralight, and being only 15 pounds overweight...

 >

 	  Quote: 	
		   I have never seen a ramp check, or known anyone that has had a ramp check.  I'm sure it happens, but how many get weighed in a standard run of the mill ramp check ( non event or air show related ).

 > Its all about good judgment, if you are  a bit overweight, don't fly your ultralight into an ultralight event where there is likely to be ramp checks, and likely to be weighed.   If you are so far overweight that it is obviously not plausible as an ultralight, get an N Number...

 >

 	  Quote: 	
		   But 15 ( 6% )pounds overweight is a non issue in most cases.  Seems that there is a lack of common sense and good judgment by some on this list.

 Mike

Mike,

You can't always tell if it's an ultralight or not. Does this look like an ultralight to you? How much do you think it weighs?

Ralph

--------

Ralph B

Original Firestar

N91493 E-AB

21 years flying it

Read this topic online here:

http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=161598#161598

  [quote][b]

knowvne(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:27 pm Post subject: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

HeyÂ  If Â they can make rules WE the people didnt vote for why can WE the people make them

  earn their Pay checks? ahahahaha

  

  Hmmm Now Â I wonder how many feet of Tubing i'll need to make 5 Gallons hahahahaha 

  

  Mark

  

  

 

 --

Ed in JXN

Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 122

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

Mike,



        Ramp checks are like car accidents: they happen when you least 

expect.



        I admire the restraint of 99% of the Kolb list.  Your pomposity in 

answering some of the recent posts is tiring at best.  Reminds me of what my 

Dad used to say, "An empty wagon makes the most noise".  Please quit the 

insults and the patronizing tone.  Your constant derision ("Seems that there 

is a lack of common sense and good judgment by some...") is insulting and 

immature.  Try and listen to some of the responses, and take them to heart. 

100 other pilots can't all be wrong....

        At any rate, I've had ramp checks at small, uncontrolled airfields 

as well as large airports, and know of other airman who have been imposed 

upon likewise. Have had the boys show up unannounced in a corporate flight 

department, and in a local small-town FBO. But then, that's been over the 

course of 30+ years of flying.  And the feds ARE concerned about W&B, as 

well as all other required aircraft documentation.  I even had one Fed ask 

to be taken up, until I asked how he'd be paying for the trip around the 

pattern.

        The big thing about being at proper weight is as much about 

insurance and liability as legality.  Try having even a tiny scrape with an 

aircraft, the insurer will try and prove you violated some reg, forget about 

the Feds.  Had a bird strike a couple years ago, the insuring agent asked 10 

times the questions as the FAA guys.



Ed in JXN

MkII/503

---

Ralph B

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 367
Location: Mound Minnesota

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:12 am Post subject: Re: FAR 103.3 Inspection requirements

 	  Ralph B wrote: 	
		   	  JetPilot wrote: 	
		  There is a big difference between being 300 Pounds + and trying to pass your plane off as an ultralight, and being only 15 pounds overweight...



I have never seen a ramp check, or known anyone that has had a ramp check.  I'm sure it happens, but how many get weighed in a standard run of the mill ramp check ( non event or air show related ).



Its all about good judgment, if you are  a bit overweight, don't fly your ultralight into an ultralight event where there is likely to be ramp checks, and likely to be weighed.   If you are so far overweight that it is obviously not plausible as an ultralight, get an N Number...



But 15 ( 6% )pounds overweight is a non issue in most cases.  Seems that there is a lack of common sense and good judgment by some on this list.



Mike 	




Mike



You can't always tell if it's an ultralight or not. Does this look like an ultralight to you? How much do you think it weighs?



Ralph 	




Well this is a fat ultralight that looks skinny because I left the covering off the rear part of the cage. This is one of the earliest Firestars (S/N #49), and was designed to be an ultralight. Even with a parachute that would give it another 24 lbs, it still would not have  made the 276 lb weight limit. I have since added a bigger engine (447), streamlined struts, bigger wheels, nice seat cushion, strobe lights, and still has the 5-gallon main tank. It doesn't have brakes and weighs in at 319 lbs. Looks can be deceiving. It's an aircraft with a tail number.

_________________
Ralph B

Kolb Kolbra 912uls
N20386
550 hours

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum