motorized paraglyders

[[email protected]]

Is it FAR 103 that regulates motorized paraglyders and such? I'm
wondering what altitude restrictions they have over congested areas and
people.

[Larry Dighera]

On 19 Dec 2004 09:18:16 -0800, wrote in
om>::

>Is it FAR 103 that regulates motorized paraglyders and such?

That's a good question; it might be Part 105.

Part 105 is here:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=90be268eeb08460ee92a6cd43a171ffa&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr105_main_02.tpl

Part 103 is here:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=90be268eeb08460ee92a6cd43a171ffa&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr103_main_02.tpl

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2004 09:18:16 -0800, wrote in
> om>::
>
> >Is it FAR 103 that regulates motorized paraglyders and such?
>
> That's a good question; it might be Part 105.
>
> Part 105 is here:
>
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=90be268eeb08460ee92a6cd43a171ffa&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr105_main_02.tpl
>
> Part 103 is here:
>
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=90be268eeb08460ee92a6cd43a171ffa&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr103_main_02.tpl

Thanks. I'm thinking Part 105 refers to non-powered chutes, but maybe I
missed something there. 103 may apply, or maybe they aren't regulated
at all, but that's hard to believe because I've seen them as high as
3000' agl, where they can mix with airplanes.

[mike regish]

A lot of the have ceilings as high as 16,500' (some maybe even higher) and
as long as they carry the required oxygen, there's nothing that says they
can't go there.

mike regish

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On 19 Dec 2004 09:18:16 -0800, wrote in
>> om>::
>>
>> >Is it FAR 103 that regulates motorized paraglyders and such?
>>
>> That's a good question; it might be Part 105.
>>
>> Part 105 is here:
>>
> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=90be268eeb08460ee92a6cd43a171ffa&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr105_main_02.tpl
>>
>> Part 103 is here:
>>
> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=90be268eeb08460ee92a6cd43a171ffa&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr103_main_02.tpl
>
> Thanks. I'm thinking Part 105 refers to non-powered chutes, but maybe I
> missed something there. 103 may apply, or maybe they aren't regulated
> at all, but that's hard to believe because I've seen them as high as
> 3000' agl, where they can mix with airplanes.
>

[[email protected]]

mike regish wrote:
> A lot of the have ceilings as high as 16,500' (some maybe even
higher) and
> as long as they carry the required oxygen, there's nothing that says
they
> can't go there.
>

OK, I'm more interested in how >low< they can fly over congested areas
and people and whether they are regulated by Part 103 or some other.

[mike regish]

§ 103.15 Operations over congested areas.
top
No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a
city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons.

mike regish

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> OK, I'm more interested in how >low< they can fly over congested areas
> and people and whether they are regulated by Part 103 or some other.
>

[Larry Dighera]

On 19 Dec 2004 13:07:07 -0800, wrote in
. com>::

>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On 19 Dec 2004 09:18:16 -0800, wrote in
>> om>::
>>
>> >Is it FAR 103 that regulates motorized paraglyders and such?
>>
>> That's a good question; it might be Part 105.
>>
>> Part 105 is here:
>>
>http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=90be268eeb08460ee92a6cd43a171ffa&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr105_main_02.tpl
>>
>> Part 103 is here:
>>
>http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=90be268eeb08460ee92a6cd43a171ffa&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr103_main_02.tpl
>
>Thanks. I'm thinking Part 105 refers to non-powered chutes, but maybe I
>missed something there. 103 may apply, or maybe they aren't regulated
>at all, but that's hard to believe because I've seen them as high as
>3000' agl, where they can mix with airplanes.

I've added the rec.aviation.ultralight newsgroup to this followup.
Hopefully those folks will have the information you seek.

Check out:
North American Powered Parachute Federation
http://www.nappf.com/

[Morgans]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:edoxd.289082$R05.200217@attbi_s53...
>
> § 103.15 Operations over congested areas.
> top
> No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a
> city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons.
>
> mike regish
Add that this quote is ignored, as long as you leave yourself a landing
spot incase/when your engine quits.
--
Jim in NC

[PJ Hunt]

Jim,

I don't fly Ultralights or motorized paragliders, but I can read and I see
no where under §103.15 where it says,

QUOTE
> Add that this quote is ignored, as long as you leave yourself a landing
> spot incase/when your engine quits.
END QUOTE

Where are you getting this?

PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> news:edoxd.289082$R05.200217@attbi_s53...
> >
> > § 103.15 Operations over congested areas.
> > top
> > No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a
> > city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons.
> >
> > mike regish

> Add that this quote is ignored, as long as you leave yourself a landing
> spot incase/when your engine quits.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

[Morgans]

"PJ Hunt" > wrote in message
...
> Jim,
>
> I don't fly Ultralights or motorized paragliders, but I can read and I see
> no where under §103.15 where it says,
>
> QUOTE
> > Add that this quote is ignored, as long as you leave yourself a landing
> > spot incase/when your engine quits.
> END QUOTE
>
> Where are you getting this?
>
> PJ

Uh, watching them fly over my house, which is in city limits, for one.
--
Jim in NC

[G.R. Patterson III]

Morgans wrote:
>
> Uh, watching them fly over my house, which is in city limits, for one.

Is it in a "congested area" of the city?

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[Morgans]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote

> Is it in a "congested area" of the city?
>
> George Patterson
> The desire for safety stands against every great and noble
enterprise.

Define congested. Therein is the rub.

Regulations for homebuilts, at one time, did not allow flight over congested
areas. After a period of time, no one cared when they flew anywhere they
wanted. The regs were changed, as I recall, with a ruling, rather than a
re-write.

Seems to me the same condition exists with ultralights. Stay above 500 ft,
or high enough to stretch a glide to an area where an emergency landing is
possible and safe, and nothing will be said.

Can anyone cite examples of people being told not to fly somewhere? (other
than controlled airspace)
--
Jim in NC

[PJ Hunt]

Ok, sorry for the confusion. When you responded to a quoted reg, it appeared
that you were implying there was more to the reg than the rest of us were
seeing. Now I understand you were simply stating what you had been
observing, although as I'm sure you know, seeing someone do something by no
means implies it's right or even legal under the regs.

You're absolutely correct about the congested area issue. This ambiguity is
the exact problem I have with many of the regs. There's too much room for
personal interpretation and depending on who you talk to or who you ****
off, you'll get a different interpretation on any given day.

I would take a guess though that if it's in the city limits as you stated,
that would probably be interpreted by the FAA as a congested area, but of
course dealing with the FAA, I would NOT be willing to bet any money on it.

And then of course even if you don't violate any regs at all, and something
still goes wrong, you may well be facing the good ole catch all "91.13:
Careless and Reckless". It's kind of like the FAA's trump card. Their Ace
in the Hole.

You also made a question in your post to GR Patterson;

>Can anyone cite examples of people being told not to fly somewhere? (other
>than controlled airspace)

I'm not sure I understand your question, but 91.119 applies to all aircraft
in all airspace, including uncontrolled.

Another example is the "REQUEST" that pilots remain above 2000 feet (1000 in
some cases) in many areas such as National Parks, Wildlife Reserves, Bird
Areas, Wilderness Areas etc etc. This is noted by the dashed blue line on
sectional charts. Many if not most of these areas or only Class G. Many
any people think this is a Reg, but it is only a request and not regulated.

In Denali National Park where I have flown for many years, there has been
talk between the NPS and FAA for the last few years to close certain areas
of the park to aircraft. Denali is all Class G (uncontrolled) below class
E.

I'm sure if I gave it enough thought I could probably come up with a few
more examples, as well as other people here also. Then again maybe I just
completely misunderstood your question and I"m going off in the wrong
direction.

PJ

============================================
Here's to the duck who swam a lake and never lost a feather,
May sometime another year, we all be back together.
JJW
============================================

----- Original Message -----
From: "Morgans" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 2:57 AM
Subject: Re: motorized paraglyders


>
> "PJ Hunt" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jim,
> >
> > I don't fly Ultralights or motorized paragliders, but I can read and I
see
> > no where under §103.15 where it says,
> >
> > QUOTE
> > > Add that this quote is ignored, as long as you leave yourself a
landing
> > > spot incase/when your engine quits.
> > END QUOTE
> >
> > Where are you getting this?
> >
> > PJ
>
> Uh, watching them fly over my house, which is in city limits, for one.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

[Dana M. Hague]

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 01:24:38 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On 19 Dec 2004 13:07:07 -0800, wrote in
. com>::
>
>>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On 19 Dec 2004 09:18:16 -0800, wrote in
>>> om>::
>>>
>>> >Is it FAR 103 that regulates motorized paraglyders and such?
>>>
>>> That's a good question; it might be Part 105.
>>>
>>> Part 105 is here:
>>>
>>http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=90be268eeb08460ee92a6cd43a171ffa&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr105_main_02.tpl
>>>
>>> Part 103 is here:
>>>
>>http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=90be268eeb08460ee92a6cd43a171ffa&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr103_main_02.tpl
>>
>>Thanks. I'm thinking Part 105 refers to non-powered chutes, but maybe I
>>missed something there. 103 may apply, or maybe they aren't regulated
>>at all, but that's hard to believe because I've seen them as high as
>>3000' agl, where they can mix with airplanes.

Paragliders and hang gliders, powered or not, fall under Part 103.

-Dana
--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Politicians are those who deal with the problems which would not exist if they didn't exist.