Exemption 4274
NOTE from Robert Comperini:
This document was scanned from hardcopy. The document has not been thoroughly checked for
conversion errors.
This text is also been revised (exemption 4274E), with updated termination dates.
Exemption 4274 is the exemption granted to the United States Ultralight Association
(USUA). Current USUA instructors are also given permission to operate under this
exemption. The privileges of this exemption are extended to USUA instructors only by
written authorization of the USUA. Each USUA instructor has a personal copy of the
exemption, with a letter from the USUA granting this authorization. New students should
insist on seeing this document from their prospective instructors. USUA instructors are
proud of their accomplishments as instructors, and should be happy to show you these
documents.
Robert Comperini, USUA AFI #A16560
robertc@perim.com
Exemption No. 4274D
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20591
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In the matter of the petition of *
UNITED STATES ULTRALIGHT ASSOCIATION * Regulatory Docket No. 24427
*
for an exemption from 103.1(a) *
and (e)(l) through (e)(4) of the *
Federal Aviation Regulations *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
GRANT OF EXEMPTION
By letters dated May 21, June 21, and August 10, 1990, and March 7, 1991, Mr. John
Ballantyne, President, United States Ultralight Association, Inc. (USUA), P.O. Box 557,
Mount Airy, MD 21771, petitioned for an amendment to Exemption No. 4274, as amended. This
amendment, if granted, would allow members of the USUA to operate powered ultralight
vehicles at an empty weight of 496 pounds. USUA also requests that the maximum fuel
capacity be increased to 10 gallons, the maximum power off stall speed be increased to 35
knots, and the maximum air speed be increased to 75 knots.
Petitioner requires relief from the following sections of the Federal Aviation
Regulations, (FAR):
Section 103.1(a) and (e)(l) through (e)(4) define, in pertinent part, the term
"ultralight vehicle." For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a
vehicle that: "Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a
single occupant; . . . If powered, weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight; . . . has a
fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons; . . . is not capable of more than 55 knots
calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and . . . has a power-off stall speed
which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed."
The petitioner supports its request with the following information:
The petitioner states that its current exemption provides for the operation of a two-place
ultralight vehicle to be used for the purpose of flight instruction. For the past five
years, two-place vehicles have been operating under the terms of its exemption with
relatively high success. USUA states that it has issued 200 current two-place ultralight
training exemptions. However, USUA states that it has learned that these vehicles could be
made substantially more reliable and thereby provide greater public safety if the changes
it requests were made to the terms of the exemption.
USUA contends that the limitation of 350 pounds empty weight in its current exemption for
two-place ultralight vehicles has been the major deterrent in developing a more useful and
reliable vehicle. The petitioner states that the use of improved and proven aircraft
quality materials in the construction of the airframe and wing covering could enhance the
overall structure airworthiness if this weight limitation were raised. Additionally, the
use of spring type landing gears and brakes could be incorporated into the design thereby
reducing pilot fatigue, and the number of landing and taxiing incidents. Engines of
improved design incorporating such safety features as dual ignition, increased horsepower,
and improved engine/propeller combinations could be utilized, thereby improving the
operational characteristics of the vehicle. USUA states that rates of climb could be
improved and operation at reduced power and at reduced noise levels could be obtained. The
petitioner contends that this would greatly improve the safety reliability of the
powerplants and provide the vehicle with performance that equates to added safety both for
the occupants as well as those on the ground. USUA states that under the current
limitations there is a potential for engine failure due to the necessity of operating the
engines at maximum power for extended periods of time. The petitioner adds that engine
failure is one of the major enemies of all phases of aircraft operations.
The petitioner states that it seeks to bring about an improved training vehicle that will
enhance overall flight safety with resultant benefits to society in the prevention of
injury or death in the event of an accident. Therefore, USUA requests that the empty
weight limitation be raised from 350 pounds to 496 pounds. The petitioner states that with
this increase in weight comes a need for increased fuel capacity because higher horsepower
engines will consume more fuel. USUA states that it would be short sighted to neglect
increasing this fuel capacity. USUA recommends the maximum fuel to be ten gallons. The
petitioner states that this will prevent the imminent increase in forced landings due to
fuel exhaustion especially in adverse regimes of flight.
In its amended petition dated August 10, 1990, USUA states that two other increased
limitations are associated with the higher weight requested. They are an increase of
maximum power-off stall speed by eleven knots, from 24 to 35 knots, and an increase in the
maximum air speed at full power in level flight by 20 knots, raising it from 55 to 75
knots. USUA states that these are modest increases that are directly related to
weight/horsepower and will result in the vehicle performing more realistically in a
training environment.
In its supplemental petition, USUA states that over the past decade many two-place
ultralights have been prohibited from use in instruction because they have outgrown the
exemption requirements even though their operating characteristics have remained similar
to those of exempt ultralights. Ultralight trainers have gained weight as they have
improved over the years. The petitioner contends that stronger landing gear, more reliable
power plants, wheel brakes, and instruments have proven valuable in the training role.
USUA states that each item adds weight, however, and the cumulative effect has driven many
of them outside the parameters of the exemption.
The petitioner states that both registered ultralight instructors and FAA certificated
flight instructors (CFI) rarely confuse the "fat" ultralight trainers with
traditional light aircraft trainers like the Cessna 152 regulated by Part 91 of the FAR.
USUA adds that ultralight students expect to receive flight training in a two-place
trainer rather than a general aviation aircraft and CFIs largely agree. Therefore, USUA
requests that these ultralight craft be allowed to operate within the exemption as
ultralights of the same category rather than in Part 91 of the FAR where they are
otherwise required to operate.
USUA states that the use of two-place ultralights for training has increased in many parts
of the world, especially in France, West Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada. USUA
states that it has conferred with microlight aviation leaders, and it has found strong
similarities internationally in the identification of two-place craft which are being used
for sport and recreation and which require pilot skills similar to single place ultralight
vehicles.
With its letter dated March 7, 1991, the petitioner enclosed a USUA chart which lists the
definitions of ultralights around the world. USUA places emphasis on the number of
countries which allow two-place ultralights and what weights and speeds are permitted.
USUA contends that the indicated countries permit ultralight trainers that are a little
heavier and faster than allowed in the U.S. without needing the more complex restrictions
of traditional aircraft. The petitioner adds that this information implies to U.S.
citizens that the rules in Part 103 of the FAR are more appropriate for these craft than
is Part 91 of the FAR.
USUA recognizes that there is some point at which an aircraft's weight and speed (wing
loading) increase to the point of losing ultralight characteristics. But, USUA does not
believe that it has reached that limit in the United States. According to USUA, a survey
of the Ultraliqht Flying magazine Buyer's Guide for 1990 shows two-place ultralights
exhibiting average empty weight of 411 pounds. The petitioner states that almost all of
those ultralights are over the present maximum speeds as defined in its exemption. USUA
adds that the average two-place ultralight trainer of today has only 1/2 of the wing
loading of a Cessna 150, but that it often cannot meet the tight restrictions of USUA's
exemption and cannot, therefore, be used for flight instruction.
The petitioner states that based on its experience with the ultralight program, it
believes the quality of education for ultralight pilots, and thereby safety, is enhanced
by permitting in-flight instruction in two-place vehicles that operate similar to the one
place vehicles. USUA states that it has found wide agreement that the two-place ultralight
is the preferred trainer for students who are in training for single and two-place
ultralight flight.
However, USUA contends that the weight, speed, and fuel restrictions contained in the
exemption are prohibiting the use of these ultralights for training. The petitioner
asserts that this dilemma has developed over the years as a result of many incremental
improvements to the ultralights. USUA states that it has never before asked FAA for such
an increase to the exemption, but during the past years the ultralight community has
better defined ultralight trainers. USUA states that it feels confident that the proposed
increases serve to itemize those limits and that it means very much to those who fly
ultralights.
Finally, the petitioner states that as a non-safety issue, but one that is very important
to the economy of the U.S., these changes will make the resultant ultralight vehicle more
competitive in its international marketplace. USUA states that this will improve the
balance of payments and will make the U.S. manufacturing industry more viable.
A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Reqister on July 2, 1990, (55 FR
27325). A total of 22 comments were received. All comments were favorable.
The FAA's analysis/summary is as follows:
As stated in Exemption No. 4274, as amended, the FAA has not yet chosen to promulgate
regulations regarding pilot certification for powered ultralight vehicles. The intent was
to provide for safety with a minimum amount of regulation. The ultralight community was
expected to take positive action for developing and administering, under FAA guidelines, a
national pilot certification program.
The FAA has determined that the powered ultralight community in conjunction with
organizations such as the USUA has 6uccessfully developed and administered such a program.
This is specifically true with USUA's flight instruction program under the provisions of
Exemption No. 4274, as amended. The FAA recognizes that through these efforts, safety has
been enhanced in the powered ultralight industry. The FAA agrees that the amendments
requested by USUA will not adversely effect safety for the powered ultralight industry.
Finally, the FAA anticipates a rule project to amend Part 103 of the FAR. Therefore, this
exemption is further amended to gather data for the rule project.
In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public
interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 313(a) and 601(c) of
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, delegated to me by the Administrator (14 CFR 11.53),
Exemption No. 4274, as amended, is hereby further amended to permit individuals authorized
by the United States Ultralight Association to give instruction in powered ultralights
that have a maximum empty weight of not more than 496 pounds, have a maximum fuel capacity
of not more than 10 U.S. gallons, are not capable of more than 75 knots calibrated
airspeed at full power in level flight, and has a power-off stall speed which does not
exceed 35 knots calibrated airspeed. The exemption is subject to the following conditions
and limitations:
Unless sooner superseded or rescinded, this exemption terminates on July 31, 1993.
Thomas C. Accardi, Director, Flight Standards Service Issued in Washington, D. C., on July
26, 1991.