login join help ad

October 20, 2013

flying: Visiting Mr. X

In the middle of Arizona desert, there lived a man, Mr.X. Not a unabomber or a pedophile, just a regular kind of working man. Mr.X had an illegal airplane, a very small one, which he bought for $6,000. He wasn't a drug traffiker. But the U.S. Government decreed that his airplane should not exist. Not for any reason related to public well-being, but simply because it could.

American airplane pilots and owners reading this have probably already guessed what was up. Mr.X did not register the little tube-and fabric airplane by the 2010 deadline, when it became impossible. Well, okay, you can still register it in the "Experimental Exhibition" category, I think, maybe. Then, all you need to visit a Casa Grande fly-in is a fax from your local Flight Standards District Office. It's a category in which people flying jet fighters register. Still... Isn't it kind of... excessive? Maybe something they do in a police state where citizens must register motorized bicycles.

P.S. I probably should mention that I did not buy Mr.X's little airplane. The truck, from the cab of which the picture was taken, is carrying a different, fully legal airplane that was based on the same airfield.

Personally, I do not see anything wrong with an illegal airplane, as long as it's not used to commit crimes against persons or property. But I do not live in the middle of Arizona where I could get away with it.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at 06:38 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

1 When did the FAA become a branch of the BATFE?

Posted by: Frank Ch. Eigler at October 21, 2013 08:06 AM (r3xW2)

2 I think it happened back in the 80-s, when Congress removed the "propotion of aviation" duty from FAA charter. Since then it was just a logical progression, and busting of the ultralights in 2006 was but a step in it.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at October 21, 2013 09:17 AM (RqRa5)

3 Sorry, I meant "promotion of aviation".

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at October 21, 2013 09:20 AM (RqRa5)

4 I should note that as far as fascist regulations go, this one was reasonably benevolent. They opened a window in which to grandfather old ultralights, and Mr.X is in the wrong by not filing the necessary paperwork in time. Such courtesy is not extended to importers of gray-market Land Rovers: Feds just come in the night, bust your garage and tow the jeep away to get it crushed. So yeah, it could be worse. But I think it's not ideal all the same.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at October 21, 2013 09:23 AM (RqRa5)

5 Are ultra lights illegal?

Posted by: topmaker at November 01, 2013 04:20 PM (2yZsg)

6 The Code of Federal Regulations 14 Part 103 defines a legal ultralight. An aircraft that complies with the 103 is the contemporary legal ultralight. Among other things, its fuel tank must be no larger than 5 gallons, and it must have 1 seat. This definition now excludes all formerly excepted 2-seat ultralights, so, most importantly, instruction is impossible.

Since ultralights have very different characteristics than conventional airplanes, flying them without instruction is extremely dangerous, even for pilots experienced in wide variable of aircraft. And they can kill you just as well as a fall from a 10 story building. So, the cut-off of instruction pretty much made the ultralight industry to collapse. Companies that sold 200 ultralights a year in 1980s now sell less than 10.

Again, from the point of view of FAA, nothing too wrong is happening. An individual who wants to provide instruction only needs to apply for so-called "Letter of Deviation", obtain the 2nd Class medical certificate, and pass a Certified Flight Instructor checkride. Piece of cake. It's not like they made it impossible.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at November 01, 2013 08:12 PM (RqRa5)

7 Is this a case of the Government regulating something out of existence?
Do you think it was intentional or simply "looking out" for everyone?

Posted by: topmaker at November 02, 2013 12:03 PM (2yZsg)

8 They wanted to clamp down on the instructional exception and they did. Never cared for the consequences for the citizens.

Posted by: Pete Zaitcev at November 02, 2013 02:37 PM (RqRa5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
10kb generated in CPU 0.014, elapsed 0.0446 seconds.
25 queries taking 0.0346 seconds, 36 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.