Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - 103 & slightly overweight

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

103 & slightly overweight

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kolb-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

d-m-hague(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:18 pm Post subject: 103 & slightly overweight

As a new owner of a near-stock Ultrastar (which I haven't yet done a W&B 

on, so I don't know where it falls), I wonder:



We all know that many (if not most) otherwise supposedly 103 legal 

ultralights are a bit (or more than a bit) overweight.  The question is, 

has anybody ever been inspected and weighed by the FAA?  Obviously if you 

fly into an airshow and there's an inspector there, or the local FSDO is 

doing ramp checks, and you have a 2-seater or great big gas tanks or 

something else blatant, you're probably asking for trouble... but I wonder 

about the plane that's otherwise legal but has a few extra coats of paint, 

or wheel brakes, or instruments, or whatever, that push the weigh up to 255 

lbs or 260 or 270 or so... what is the real likelihood of trouble?  If you 

have an accident, of course, all bets are off, but even then are they 

likely to actually weigh it (or all the pieces)?



BTW, the rumor is (from a "usually reliable source") that starting in 

January, the feds will be doing widespread ramp checks at airports with 

significant ultralight activity.



				-Dana

--

--

"If yew ain't livin' on th' edge, yer takin' up too much room!"

jim

Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 107
Location: N. Idaho

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:50 pm Post subject: 103 & slightly overweight

I fly out of a private grass strip in N. Idaho.  Regarding a different

safety-related matter (not UL related), the Spokane FAA told us that they

would never come out [to a private strip] unless specifically invited.  I

can't imagine that would hold for a fatal accident, but probably would for

routine regulatory enforcement.



BTW, 254 pounds is overweight.  Regs say less than 254 pounds for an

Ultralight.



 	  Quote: 	
		   


	


 	  Quote: 	
		   We all know that many (if not most) otherwise supposedly 103 legal

 ultralights are a bit (or more than a bit) overweight.  The question is,

 has anybody ever been inspected and weighed by the FAA?  Obviously if you

 fly into an airshow and there's an inspector there, or the local FSDO is

 doing ramp checks, and you have a 2-seater or great big gas tanks or

 something else blatant, you're probably asking for trouble... but I wonder

 about the plane that's otherwise legal but has a few extra coats of paint,

 or wheel brakes, or instruments, or whatever, that push the weigh up to

 255

 lbs or 260 or 270 or so... what is the real likelihood of trouble?  If you

 have an accident, of course, all bets are off, but even then are they

 likely to actually weigh it (or all the pieces)?



 BTW, the rumor is (from a "usually reliable source") that starting in

 January, the feds will be doing widespread ramp checks at airports with

 significant ultralight activity.



 				-Dana

 --

_________________
Jim
N. Idaho

FLYMICHIGAN(at)comcast.ne
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:50 pm Post subject: 103 & slightly overweight

This subject continues to confuse me..... Everything I read says that fat ULs are going to be worthless if they are not transitioned into SP.  I see people selling them, and trying to find 103 compliant ships to replace them.  I have to say, I don't get it.  My single place firestar will be no more illeagal after Jan 31st than it is now.  The FAA has always turned a blind eye  to single place ULs that are over weight.  I have seen nothing from them that leads me to believe that this will change. The people who I have heard this from are people like Jim Stephenson at ASC  who stand to make financial gains from this whole SP thing.     



Don't get me wrong, for people who want to fly 2 place or faster planes, I think SP is great.  But my opinion is that single place ULs that look like an Ultralight (tube and fabric), carry 5 gals of gas, and seem to fit the "spirit" of part 103 will see very little enforcement. Just don't get caught doing something stupid, or make an emergency landing in the wrong place.  Then they probably will  make an example out of you.



In answer to your question, I have never been ramp checked, and never heard of any UL being weighed by the FAA unless it was involved in an accident.



End of Rant.

Bryan Dever

Do not archive

 	  Quote:

d-m-hague(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:47 pm Post subject: 103 & slightly overweight

At 05:50 PM 12/27/2006, FLYMICHIGAN(at)comcast.net wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  In answer to your question, I have never been ramp checked, and never 

heard of any UL being weighed by the FAA unless it was involved in an accident.


	


Hmmm, yes, I guess the question is has anybody ever heard of an UL being 

weighed by the FAA even *after* an accident?  Unless, of course, they had 

reason to believe the weight led to the accident.



Most of the UL accidents and incidents I've heard of, the FAA doesn't even 

investigate if the police report (if there is one) makes it look like a 

legal ultralight.



                                 -Dana

--

--

"Makers of oils will assure you their lubricants will last the life of the 

transmission. This may be true, but that life can be longer if you change 

the oil.

dhkey(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:53 pm Post subject: 103 & slightly overweight

It's more likely that the "usually reliable source" will become and 

unreliable source than there will be a increase in ramp checks.

 	  Quote: 	
		  From: Dana Hague <d-m-hague(at)comcast.net>

Reply-To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com

To: kolb-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: 103 & slightly overweight

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 17:16:38 -0500






As a new owner of a near-stock Ultrastar (which I haven't yet done a W&B 

on, so I don't know where it falls), I wonder:



We all know that many (if not most) otherwise supposedly 103 legal 

ultralights are a bit (or more than a bit) overweight.  The question is, 

has anybody ever been inspected and weighed by the FAA?  Obviously if you 

fly into an airshow and there's an inspector there, or the local FSDO is 

doing ramp checks, and you have a 2-seater or great big gas tanks or 

something else blatant, you're probably asking for trouble... but I wonder 

about the plane that's otherwise legal but has a few extra coats of paint, 

or wheel brakes, or instruments, or whatever, that push the weigh up to 255 

lbs or 260 or 270 or so... what is the real likelihood of trouble?  If you 

have an accident, of course, all bets are off, but even then are they 

likely to actually weigh it (or all the pieces)?



BTW, the rumor is (from a "usually reliable source") that starting in 

January, the feds will be doing widespread ramp checks at airports with 

significant ultralight activity.



				-Dana

--

--

"If yew ain't livin' on th' edge, yer takin' up too much room!"

rwehba(at)cebridge.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:18 pm Post subject: 103 & slightly overweight

if it looks legal ,, you probrobly won't ever get checked

---

John Hauck

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

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:30 pm Post subject: 103 & slightly overweight

| 

|

| if it looks legal ,, you probrobly won't ever get checked

Ron:



What does legal look like?



And, do you think is really that dumb, that they do not know what 

weighs less than 254 lbs?



I think everyone will probably agree, there are very, very few, if 

any, legal ULs out there flying.



I am speaking of airplanes, not trikes and powered parachutes.



john h

mkIII

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

lcottrell

Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 1494
Location: Jordan Valley, Or

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:46 pm Post subject: 103 & slightly overweight

I guess that I might as well chip in.



It is my thoughts that after Jan there will be an increase in attention paid 

to pilots as to their qualifications but the "UL's" have at least another 

year after that I believe before they have to make the transition. After the 

transition date then I do believe that they will begin an increase in 

checks, since there should be no confusion to what is 103 and what is not.



Of course most enforcement is geared to trouble areas. If there are areas of 

complaints, checks are always the next step. I do believe that the FAA is 

understaffed enough to not go out looking for area to write tickets or what 

ever it is that they write. I personally do not think that I will get my 

shorts in a tangle over it, but I do intend to be legal by the deadline, or 

I will stay out in my quiet little desert and keep a low profile.



Larry, Oregon

John Hauck

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

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject: 103 & slightly overweight

| And, do you think is really that dumb, that they do not know what

| weighs less than 254 lbs?

Hi Gang:



Should have read, "And..........do you think the FAA is really that 

dumb, that they do not know what weighs less than 254?"



Poor proof reading, no proof reading on my part.  ;-(



john h

mkIII

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

John Hauck

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

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 4:59 pm Post subject: 103 & slightly overweight

| I will stay out in my quiet little desert and keep a low profile.

|

| Larry, Oregon

Larry:



At your house, profile doesn't matter.  You could fly naked and no one 

but the coyotes, antelopes, dogs, birds, and Karen would know.



Larry has a great place to fly, and an airplane sure makes his travel 

around the desert much easier and faster.



john h

mkIII

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

rwehba(at)cebridge.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: 103 & slightly overweight

good question john,,,,,,,,,,been a long day

---

ul15rhb(at)juno.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:10 pm Post subject: 103 & slightly overweight

-- "ron wehba" <rwehba(at)cebridge.net> wrote:




if it looks legal ,, you probrobly won't ever get checked



Not true. The FAA isn't dumb. It isn't a 103 ultralight if it has 2 

seats, has a 503 or larger engine, or carries more than 5 gallons of 

fuel. The local police is already preparing for the crackdown here in 

Minnesota and are being trained on what to look for. You guys that 

think the FAA isn't going to do anything because they are 

understaffed, better think again. I suppose it's a lot like driving a 

little over the legal limit for alcohol. There are many that think 

they won't get caught.



I flew my Firestar 20 years without a license guys.



Ralph Burlingame

Original Firestar, 319 lbs

(a little over the legal limit)

Sport Pilot

N91493

________________________________________________________________________

FREE for 30 Days! - Holiday eCards from AmericanGreetings.com

http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=197335&u=http://www.americangreetings.com/index.pd?c=uol5637

d-m-hague(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject: 103 & slightly overweight

At 08:09 PM 12/27/2006, Ralph wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  

-- "ron wehba" <rwehba(at)cebridge.net> wrote:




if it looks legal ,, you probrobly won't ever get checked



Not true. The FAA isn't dumb. It isn't a 103 ultralight if it has 2

seats, has a 503 or larger engine, or carries more than 5 gallons of

fuel...


	


Right, all those things are obvious... but 10 or 20 (not 50 or 100) extra 

pounds are a lot less obvious (I hope) on a bird with one seat, a 5 gallon 

tank, and a Cuyuna...



                                 -Dana



--

--

A rolling stone .... kills worms

ulflyer(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 9:54 pm Post subject: 103 & slightly overweight

Let's think about this, how many fat ultralight type aircraft fly 

into Sun & Fun and Oshkosh each year.  They were limiting those 

flying in the ultralight area to 5 gallons of fuel, but that's all I 

have heard of.  If you screw up or do things you shouldn't they might 

look at you closer.  Look like an UL, act like a UL, sound like a UL, 

then you must be a UL.  Use a radio, sound like you know what your 

doing, be courteous to other aircraft, learn proper procedures for 

operating in a airport traffic pattern, you'll generally be just find.

jerb



At 04:16 PM 12/27/2006, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



As a new owner of a near-stock Ultrastar (which I haven't yet done a 

W&B on, so I don't know where it falls), I wonder:



We all know that many (if not most) otherwise supposedly 103 legal 

ultralights are a bit (or more than a bit) overweight.  The question 

is, has anybody ever been inspected and weighed by the 

FAA?  Obviously if you fly into an airshow and there's an inspector 

there, or the local FSDO is doing ramp checks, and you have a 

2-seater or great big gas tanks or something else blatant, you're 

probably asking for trouble... but I wonder about the plane that's 

otherwise legal but has a few extra coats of paint, or wheel brakes, 

or instruments, or whatever, that push the weigh up to 255 lbs or 

260 or 270 or so... what is the real likelihood of trouble?  If you 

have an accident, of course, all bets are off, but even then are 

they likely to actually weigh it (or all the pieces)?



BTW, the rumor is (from a "usually reliable source") that starting 

in January, the feds will be doing widespread ramp checks at 

airports with significant ultralight activity.



                                 -Dana

--

--

"If yew ain't livin' on th' edge, yer takin' up too much room!"

Steve Boetto

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 365

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 8:18 am Post subject: 103 & slightly overweight

Hi John, in my case, adding floats took a marginal 103 Firefly and moved it to Legal. I agree that it is tough to make a good flying UL and keep it under 254#.

    

   steve 

    

  

 --

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