On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:45:53 GMT, "BDS" wrote:

But it did absorb the so-called "fat" ultralights - they can now be
certified as LSA which only require a sport pilot license to fly...

Yes, and not necessarily a bad thing... but now they're finding just
how much money and hassle that is going to involve (compared to the
relative freedom of Part 103). Also some owners are having a hell of
a time geting their grandfathered aircraft inspected before the
deadline, because there just aren't enough inspectors.

However, the industry (and media) focus is not on the absorbed
ultralights, but on the [expensive] LSA aircraft which have more in
common with the GA aircraft than ultralights.

...they were hoping that the SP/LSA initiative would include a
re-definition of what an ultralight was. But that was never promised. In
fact, I believe the FAA specifically said that that was not being
considered.

No, and that IS a good thing. Part 103 never would been created in
this day and age, and any attempt to rewrite 103 would doubtless
result in a LOT less freedom.

Ultralight pilots are "finding nothing good about SP/LSA" because they will
no longer be able to operate outside of the CFRs without being noticed. I'm
not so sure that this is a bad thing.

No, it's not bad... and actually may well lead to a revitalization of
"true" ultralights, for all the pilots who don't want to deal with the
hassles of registration, licensing, etc., for whatever reason.

I've had a PPL for 30 years... but at the moment I'm flying
ultralights because it's just so much simpler-- and not all that
different from buzzing around the local area in the T-Craft I used to
own.

-Dana


--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beware of strange faces and dark dingy places,
Be careful while bending the law.....