Home
FAR 103 gets into "vehicle" terms; and there seems to be some fuzzy non use of "aircraft" despite the generalized physics announcement that if something is a craft that moves in the air, then "aircraft" fits. But FARs mix the matters. It seems FAR 103 recreational foot launch unpowered single-person hang gliders within weight limits are "vehicles" that do not have guide over such as do "aircraft" as to no medicals, no registration, no certification, no required training, no required tests, but wing open to inspection by FAA if FAA wanted to inspect to see if wing fits the limits defined in FAR 103, not inspect pilot.
With that fuzzy realm, how do "aircraft" proximity guides work. If FAA wanted to press upon RHGs (recreational HGs that fit FAR 103) certain proximity guides, then what? What are the guides that could be pressed upon RHGs if push comes to shove? We may cite and quote FARs to get clear in discussion. And we may discuss what occurs and perhaps cases of incidents and enforcement.
A leader in SHGA said last week, paraphrased: "Someone could shut down SHGA LZ, if the 500 ft guide was pressed over the LZ, as flights come within 500 ft of people and houses and spectators." We might cite the 500 ft item before going much further here.
The Funston rules have a 25 ft. rule for proximity about something; spectators gather on a platform and RHGs whiz near the platform. Does a 500 ft proximity guide exist that could constrain Funston? Torrey? Other HG sites around the nation?
====================================
Proximity mentions in all FARs? Might be a preamble here: state all mentions. And then study. Then any court cases?
And the overlay of TFRs and NOTAMs play on "proximity" matters. Local emergency airspace use demands respect for proximity choices.
In HG it is generally shared: Operate so as not to hurt people and things; keep proper distance; recommend helmets for helpers, etc. Tie down that wing, for it might move too close to you! Etc.
Here is a start:
Sec. 91.141 — Flight restrictions in the proximity of the Presidential and other parties.
No person may operate an aircraft over or in the vicinity of any area to be visited or traveled by the President, the Vice President, or other public figures contrary to the restrictions established by the Administrator and published in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM).
Sec. 91.143 — Flight limitation in the proximity of space flight operations.
When a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) is issued in accordance with this section, no person may operate any aircraft of U.S. registry, or pilot any aircraft under the authority of an airman certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, within areas designated in a NOTAM for space flight operation except when authorized by ATC.
[Doc. No. FAA–2004–19246, 69 FR 59753, Oct. 5, 2004]
Should there be more applications for waivers? Sec. 91.905 — List of rules subject to waivers.
Dockweiler, e.g., LAX ATC allowed HG up to 60 ft above sea mean level, apparently; I have not seen waiver. Kiting rules would tease allowance to height of near Scattergood exhaust towers. But FAR of 5 mi proximity to airport would shut down Dockweiler without waiver or MOU. HG is a form of kite system.
I bring in an article by Recreational Aviation Foundation about overflights over NPS parks: HERE
And bring in Advisory Circular HERE published in 1984. AC 103-7 See attached PDF for the seed AC.
That AC seeded matters such FAA will depend on such as US Hawks Hang Gliding Association, local clubs, and even local groups, and especially the individual to self-regulate; if the individuals do not well self-regulate operations, then FAA one may have to step in more robustly. No association is to blast monopolistic regulations; indeed, the multiplicities from individuals on up provides a opportunities for well safely serving a spectrum of niche RHG with varied styles, intensities, reach, wing types, etc. Still, there are points where waivers are to be asked from FAA or local ATC on matters of proximity in space and time and place and density. If in doubt after getting well informed, apply for a waiver over some activity.
Excerpt
l/30/84 AC 103-7
e. You are Responsible for the Future Direction the Federal Government Takes
With Respect to Ultralight Vehicles. The actions of the ultralight community
will affect the direction Government takes in future regulations. The safety
record of ultralight vehicle.
Each RHG Pilot is part of the "ultralight community. The associating in US Hawks Hang Gliding Association forms part of the "ultralight community." FAA is watching the safety record of HG Pilots and HG Pilots grouping in various ways. The net impact of all incidents is probably in view of FAA.
It might be good to have overt view of the complete record of waivers extended by FAA regarding FAR 103 matters. Every waiver on record might be in one easy open place; maybe someone who works easily with FAA documents could find all such waivers granted, cancelled, renewed, active.
Unless a waiver has been obtained, a wing for tandem seems to be not-103, but in need of airworthiness certification; and then that particular wing may not be used for any 103 flying. Now, maybe all such has been waived; if so, can we get view of the changes? Airworthiness certificates knock the wing out of 103 as I read the AC 103-7; then proximity for certificated aircraft may be different. Does Torrey business have all of this sorted? Do their commercial tandem joy rides use a wing that has an airworthiness certificate? And if so, do those same wings ever get used for 103 operations?
NOTICE that two separate documents are attached: AC103-6 of 1983 and also AC103-7 of 1984.
